Why Didn't Jesus Write?

[vorlon13]

[vorlon13]

[vorlon13]

and Joseph Smith for the win !!!

[robvalue]

We're through the looking glass people.

[vorlon13]

[downbeatplumb]

I don't understand why Jesus didn't just write the information himself.

He was a carpenter who gave up carpentry.
From this we can assume that he was not a good carpenter.
Would chipendale have moved on to be a car salesman I think not.
Carpenters use tools such as hammers that can damage delicate fingers.
So, from this the missing writings of jesus are likely down to him damaging his fingers in work related accidents over a number of years, rendering him unable to hold quill or whatever they used back in the day.

[Cecelia]

Maybe he did write things, but it was rubbish so they had to make up other stuff.

Maybe SHE wrote things, and they didn't like it.  So they tossed it out and came up with their own crap. Like turning her into a him.

This is why prayers aren't answered anymore.  Tiffany Christ is upset at all the screwing around people did, so she just gave up and hoped people would eventually get it right on their own. (Also she's still probably pissed about being hung on a cross. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned)

Actually this explains a lot. Tiffany Christ didn't 'die for our sins' she was executed for being a woman that claimed to be god. But people were scared that she was telling the truth so they wrote stories about her, but changed her to a man because they couldn't handle the idea of a woman being god. She facepalms every time people pray to Jesus.

[Little lunch]

Because he was a lazy deadbeat.

[ignoramus]

~ rendering him unable to hold quill or whatever they used back in the day.

It's called a biro. (It's an ancient Greek term to describe a hollow vessel filled with squid ink dispensed via a little ball bearing)

(Or maybe I saw it on the Flintstones? Whatever ...)

[Godscreated]

3rd time i asked you provide an alternative explanation the allows for the elements in the story to be used.

The story says that after he spoke to them and returned to writing on the ground, they began to leave.  It offers no timetable other than that, so why would we assume that they waited long?  And why would that be the criteria by which we interpret the story?  They heard what Jesus said.  The story gives no indication as to what he was writing, but it tells us what he said.  There is no good reason to interpret it any other way.

So, again-- why would you choose the least likely explanation when the more likely one is also the more sensible one?lock

Since the OP is about Jesus writing and all the atheist here turning it into Jesus not being able to write and you tell Drich that the story is best understood that the people left because of what Jesus said. Why then doesn't the literal interpretation of Jesus writing mean He is writing. something intelligent on the ground. I'm not trying to defend either view between you and Drich, all I'm saying if you want to be so literal about Jesus's words causing the men to leave then why not accept that literally Jesus was writing intelligently on the ground. The scripture does say writing and not scribbling.

GC