i find it ironic that Jesus never wrote anything down and more and more i find myself asking, "why not?" apart from anything else, Jesus was a great & wise teacher. therefore, in not writing his core teaching & theology down, either himself or via scribe - as Paul did at times - he must have been confident that the most vital elements of His teaching would resound unadulterated through the centuries. the emergent conversation has tremendous value in my mind and i’m not discounting such efforts to break through to a more realistic view of Jesus and answer to the question: "who was Jesus?" however, it begs the further question: if such a question is so fundamentally important, why did He leave himself so open to misinterpretation? Surely He must have realised the effect of NOT committing teachings to writing at the time - or very soon after - would have and the amount of uncertaintly, debate & division it would potentially cause within future generations of His people. if Judas was treasurer for example, why not delegate a scribe, ensure the production of multiple copies and in so doing, avoid the situation today where we’re still asking: who was Jesus really and what did he teach?
Latest comments
- shiert on Re-enchanting Christianity - Dave Tomlinson (a review)
- shiert on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- richard on The emergent church may only exist because we get sick of dealing with people
- richard on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- joeAnne on NT Wright is seriously wrong, part 2: does all history depend on interpretation?
- joeAnne on The Rainbow Community and the Emerging Church
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- shiert on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
Other recent posts
- adhunt: Get Rid of the Meta-Narrative!....and pick up ours instead? : One critique to emerge from the voice of "Post-modernity" is the destruction of the meta-narrative. I like the ecclesiology, the
- rogermugs: The emergent church may only exist because we get sick of dealing with people (1): Back when I was in High School someone hung a sign up in a classroom which stated, "Mean people suck." Later the word 'mean' was
- jack.kooyman: Jack Kooyman : user's biography
- Jacob: Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency (9): The debate surrounding global warming is primarily a struggle over competing visions of human agency. Are humans
- bibledude.net: Dan King : user's biography
- shirley smothers: Christ Love : Heart beats young heart beats old, with a love of Christ Your heart beats bold. Be ye rich, be ye poor with a love of
andrewperriman.com
User login
Creative commons
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
Notes
It’s a great question, and I’m not really comfortable with the answer I’m about to propose, but I’m going to throw it out anyway.
It appears to me that Jesus believed that the Spirit would guide his believers into all truth. That we were to be lead by the heart, not by a code.
The reason I don’t like this answer is because it is so “subjective.” On the other hand, it is brilliant. It REQUIRES us to form our theology in community, to continue to question it and re-form it, to put priority on unity within the body. It requires us to become worshipers more than scholars.
In this vein, I will throw out a hot potato and see how everyone responds. Was the canonization of NT scriptures against what Jesus had hoped and planned for His church? Was it the response of men (and women, but probably mostly men) who were more comfortable living under rules and codes than under the requirements of love? Is the New Testament a result of our inherent tendency toward legalism?
I, for one, don’t agree with the above statement. It seems to me that Jesus left the apostles in charge, and the NT is (loosely speaking) a record of the teachings and instruction of those apostles, so preserving them as wisdom for the entire Church seems legitimate. Still, I think we discount the role that the Spirit is to play in the contemporary church in the determination of theological issues.
In any case, I too am stunned that Jesus left so much work to his apostles rather than doing it himself. It actually restores my faith in humanity a little bit — or at least in God’s ability to do good things through humanity!
when Elvis leaves the building...
Erlen, i relate to your post even though like yourself, i’m not comfortable with the answer u proposed on one level - and yet on another, i am.
i’m not sure how many other people here have read the Gospel of Thomas but something about it has the ring of authenticity to me. i can see why a number of the "gnostic" gospels weren’t included in the canon but when it comes to Thomas, i can’t see why not. okay so it’s quite oblique and cryptic but then, wasn’t Jesus?
when the teacher came to Jesus and asked him in Luke 10:25-28 how he might gain eternal life, Jesus didn’t tell him to accept Him as the messiah but pointed to LOVE. at other times, he told people to follow Him - thus setting up another paradox. it is precisely His message of loving G-d and one’s neighbour that i find both extremely challenging and liberating in it’s simplicity.
Quantum physics says: E=mc2
Christianity says: God = Love
Could we not thru this one spiritual equation unlock much of G-d’s creation, motivation & heart that so often eludes us? Are not the two great commandments enough? Part of me says yes they are and yet, I am coming back to an embracing of the message of Jesus that says he died for our sins and that this demands an ongoing lifestyle response from me. I don’t know.
maybe it’s easier to try framing and limiting G-d and/or Jesus to a finite canon of scripture & teaching than to accept that these merely point the way. after all, the word "canon" refers to a building tool used to ensure walls were straight, rather a means of defining the overall design of the building itself.
it’s easy to concentrate so much on construction & form that we don’t notice that Elvis has left the building.
Minor correction
E=mc^2 is not quantum physics. It’s relativity. :)
Re: Why didn't anyone take notes?
We don’t know what Jesus really preached, so much of the time. The writings are by the early Church. So much has to be filtered and constructed back as there are no primary documents on Jesus. So it can be said that Jesus did not write anything because he was an end-time preacher, teacher and healer, the Kingdom of God bringing in a new reality that would replace the one they had. Paul believed the same which was why he didn’t propose marriage unless they had to, and why people asked him why people were still dying when the kingdom was coming (sin being the cause of death, they believed - why we get this stuff written about Jesus being sinless and therefore did not have to die). But Paul did write - to churches, and he probably modified his expectation with disappointment.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Re: Why didn't anyone take notes?
we can say that we don’t know everything Christ preached - the gospel writers confirm this. the proposed existence of the "Q" document calls into question your closed statement that there are "no primary documents on Jesus". as a christian i believe that the Kindom of God WAS ushered in, but as with the majority of Jews at the time of Christ, the event didn’t conform to what many - yourself included - expected. speaking for myself, i experience the Kingdom in a very tangible way although not in it’s entirety - merely a foretaste - as do many many fellow believers. we now see as through a glass darkly. there are too many other assumptions made in the above paragraph, which if one were to follow through to their conclusion, reduce christianity to an empty husk. given that you don’t believe Yahweh exists, the rest of what you say follows naturally, with the bible being reduced to mere fabrication or at best, a set of wise fables, like those of Aesop, Gilgamesh etc.
outwards, upwards and inwards to perfection, for what G-d has started G-d will finish. Go well all.
Re: Why didn't anyone take notes?
Vicki50
The easy answer is that Jesus didn’t know how to read or write, and probably none of his followers did, either. Historians estimate that only 5-10% of the population at that time was literate.
Secondly, as already pointed out, Jesus was an apocalyptist. He believed the end of time was at hand. So even if he could have had his teachings written down, why bother? The world as it existed was soon going to end. All would be together in the Kingdom. He could just tell you himself there. This is also probably why none of his followers started putting his teachings to paper until some 20 years after his death. They thought he would return at any moment.
Lastly, I don’t think Jesus saw himself as starting a new religion. He was Jewish, and saw his message as correcting what he viewed as faults in the Judaism of that day.
Re: Why didn't anyone take notes?
The topic of why Jesus never wrote anything down is certainly an interesting discussion for Christians to consider. I think for a majority of Christians just accept what the Bible has to say and do not consider such a question. I think the issue of why Jesus did not write any of his teachings down can be added with the common question of why did God chose the way he has for revealing himself. I say this in that to an extent it seems very unlikely that we shall ever really understand why Jesus didn’t write anything down or why God has chosen the method he has. Christians should however consider the question.
I agree with the earlier writers who said that there were uncomfortable with the answer that is given for why Jesus did not write anything. But I think it is important to address the culture of his day. It was mentioned that Jesus should have written his theology down in order to prevent misinterpretations and uncertainty. I would certainly concur that such an approach would make it much easier for Christians today. However when looking at the culture of Jesus’ day it is evident that written word did not have the same significance as it does today. The reason being that it was the teachers and well educated that were able to read. The common people went to synagogues and listened to the word instead of reading it for themselves. Jesus therefore chose the method of parables and public preaching instead of writing because it was more effective. The epistles were written to address Christian doctrine and other matters of the Church. These letters seem to have been read to the congregation of local churches. The fact that the written word was not effective way to reach common people could be a reason to why Jesus did not write anything down. I suppose however that if this is the case the question arises then why did the apostles write it down. I think it can be answered by John’s closing remarks in his Gospel which stated that the words and actions of Jesus were recorded so that we may know what Jesus did.
I suppose there can be many different reasons and theories of why Jesus did not record his teachings. I think however the only answer that seems to not be an answer at all is that it is simply how he chose a different means by which to proclaim his message. I think that has oblique as that answer may seem it is the answer that we must find contentment in.