Why Didn't Jesus Write?

[Tonus]

According to John 8 Jesus wrote enough in the sand to shut the pharisees up.

The story doesn't say that he wrote anything to shut them up. It was when he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" that they gave up, after which he returned to writing on the ground with his finger. I've heard some people's ideas about what he was writing (an amusing one being that he was scribbling the specific sins of the Pharisees who were accusing the woman) but all that John 8 says is that he was writing, not what he wrote.

As for the rest, if Jesus was indeed God then nothing would have stopped him from writing notes or a journal or a whole book. He winked an entire universe into existence, why would he have to make time in his busy schedule to write one by hand? Or worry about gathering the necessary materials? Or about having the necessary authority to be taken seriously? Imagine that he hands his disciples a book that cannot be burned or torn or otherwise damaged and which miraculously reproduces itself whenever needed? That isn't beyond the capability of the being who formed a woman out of a man's rib, or fed a large gathering with a handful of food items and recovered much more than he'd started with, is it?

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles, then the lack of time and materials and authority would be understandable and make sense.

[Minimalist]

According to John 8 Jesus wrote enough in the sand to shut the pharisees up.

That one has already been debunked as just another made up story.... like Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac.

[Faith No More]

Then with what writting stock, and on who's authority?

I don't know...maybe God's? He can create the universe, but he can't conjure up some paper and ensure a text is preserved?

Jesus Christ, God incarnate and savior of the world, foiled by bureaucracy!

[Minimalist]

Dripshit is the master of the ad hoc complication.

---

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles

Except that is not what dripshit's precious gospels say.  In fact, Pilate's reaction seems best described by the phrase "who is this fucking guy?"

[emjay]

LOL, he's sure cute, but about as sharp as liver!

I'd love to see him twist and squirm on these gems:

*on the 3rd day, who went to the tomb? Mary Magdalene by her lonesome, or her with a group of women ?

*did they see one man in the tomb ? two men ? or 2 angels ?

*was the Field of Blood so named because it was bought with blood money, or because Judas exploded on it and made a bloody mess?

*was Jesus crucified at 9 in the morning, or after noon ?

*did Judas return the 30 pieces of silver as Matthew reports, or not as reported in Acts ?

*John says Jesus carried his cross all the way, Mark says Simon of Cyrene carried it partway

*did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died as Luke reports or after He died as Mark reports


As we all know, God is one touchy son of a biscuit, it is VITALLY important any candidate for Salvation© get squared away on the exactly correct version of Jesus BEFORE they die. or they are going to burn burn burn in the lake of fire, the lake of fire !

Haven't you heard? It's all those lovely contradictions that makes the story more believable in some Christian's eyes... if they all told a consistent story then that would be really suspicious Drives me nuts

[Tonus]

On the other hand, if he was just another rabble-rouser who pissed off a local Roman prefect and was executed for his troubles

Except that is not what dripshit's precious gospels say.  In fact, Pilate's reaction seems best described by the phrase "who is this fucking guy?"

I think I mentioned it before, but you get the impression that the gospel writers were keen on making nice with the Roman authorities. As unimpressed as Pilate is, he nonetheless stresses that he can't find anything that Jesus has done wrong, forcing the Jewish leaders to practically beg that the blame for his death fall on them. He washes his hands --literally!-- of the whole affair and the crowd eagerly accepts this. When Jesus dies it is the Roman soldiers who recognize that "he was the son of God." One of Peter's keys to the kingdom of heaven is used to convert Cornelius, a Roman centurion whose prayer was answered directly by an angel of God. You wonder if there wasn't at least some hope that their new religion would be more palatable to Rome, especially if they were written during (or just after) a time of Jewish revolt.

[Minimalist]

Absolutely.  From the earliest gospel to the latest they become increasingly strident in having the jews in the crowd shrieking for the godboy to be crucified while the Romans are all making excuses.  This is a main reason why I think the gospels are mid-second century concoctions.  By 140 AD there had been 3 jewish revolts, they had been evicted from Judaea and scattered about the empire.  They were decidedly persona non grata with the Romans.  C 180 the Greco-Roman writer, Celsus, wrote disparagingly of them:

"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put our faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

[Cecelia]

Actually, it does.  The fact that the passage in question does not appear in either the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus is definitive evidence that "john" was amended to include that particular bullshit story sometime after 350.  We do not usually get such precise dating for bible bullshit stories which makes the Pericope Adulterae Exhibit "A" for later xtian tampering with their so-called holy horseshit.

---

As opposed to the rest of the bullshit stories included in the originals?

[Minimalist]

It is easier to date. 

The Codex Vaticanus has been dated through paleography to the 4th century.  It does not contain the pericope adulterae.

But St Augustine writing in the early 5th century noted the story which gives us about a 60-70 year window for its invention and inclusion.  It really doesn't get too much better than that in terms of dating bullshit.

[Drich]