How come Jesus never wrote anything down?

[Ken-1122]

I believe it was Mark Twain who said: A foolish mans account of a wise mans words are never accurate; because he must translate what he hears into something that he can actually understand.
In other words; the source, is better than second hand information. So for the 30 odd years Jesus was on Earth, why didn’t he write something down? He never even instructed his followers to write down anything specific! Why?

The only thing we know about Jesus is what other men wrote about him, and of course there is much contradiction and inconsistencies of what these men wrote; example: If you believe the books that men wrote that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to these men, Jesus claimed he was the son of God. But if you believe some of the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels or even the Holy Koran, according to these books Jesus never even made such claims!
It seems to me whatever you believe about Jesus is determined by which flawed and imperfect authors you choose to believe; am I wrong?

According to my understanding, this is how the Bible was written:
Jesus Taught and Preached on Earth, during which time he never wrote anything down. Then approx 50 yrs after he died, various men began to write about him, then many years later, the Catholic church (cannon) voted on which books were inspired by God and which ones were not. (I am sure there was an agenda involved with the choices they made)The inspired books became the Bible, the others discarded.

Had Jesus written the bible, his thoughts and wishes would have been for all to see and the Catholic church and it’s agenda wouldn’t have dared to declare any of them uninspired, and you wouldn’t have the inconsistencies you have with so many different people writing about him each with their own agenda; don’t cha think?

Also, how was some of this information gathered? Example: who witnessed what happened when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? All his disciples were asleep! Jesus never wrote anything down so how did St Mark (who wrote about it) get this information? What about the man who came to Jesus in the middle of the night? Who witnessed this event to be later written about?

Your thoughts???

Ken

 

[GakuseiDon]

Ken, I guess that your comments here aren't physically written down anywhere. You are using the medium best suited to your needs: electronic distribution via the Internet.

Similarly, Jesus would have been using the medium best suited to his needs. If the Bible is any guide, Jesus and the apostles spread their messages by traveling and giving speeches. In a time where literary was not high, that was probably the best form of communicating their message to their audience: the poor and the ordinary man.

It was only as the movement grew that the written Gospels became an effective tool.

Also, how was some of this information gathered? Example: who witnessed what happened when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Jesus.

All his disciples were asleep! Jesus never wrote anything down so how did St Mark (who wrote about it) get this information?

Jesus' disciples, via Jesus.

What about the man who came to Jesus in the middle of the night? Who witnessed this event to be later written about?

Jesus, who told the disciples, who told the Gospel writers.

 

[Ken-1122]

GakusiDon (quote)” Ken, I guess that your comments here aren't physically written down anywhere. You are using the medium best suited to your needs: electronic distribution via the Internet.

(reply) I agree!

(quote)” Similarly, Jesus would have been using the medium best suited to his needs. If the Bible is any guide, Jesus and the apostles spread their messages by traveling and giving speeches. In a time where literary was not high, that was probably the best form of communicating their message to their audience: the poor and the ordinary man.
It was only as the movement grew that the written Gospels became an effective tool.”

(reply) why not do both? Why not travel and spread the message AND write the message down? That way everyone will be sure to get it right?

Ken

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I have no idea why Jesus didn't write anything down, maybe He couldn't write. I don't know (though, arguably He could read).

Though I think, perhaps, we would ask this question with a modern bias in favor of literary forms of communication, which are a luxury not a particularly normative.

That's really the best answer I can offer. We aren't particularly sure if any of the Twelve wrote down anything. While Tradition attaches Matthew and John to two of the four Gospels, chances are more likely they didn't write them; and there's some contention over the authorship of the Petrine and Johanine epistles. Really, the only thing we are pretty sure of is Paul's authorship of his epistles, and even with his more lofty social upbringing and education relied upon scribes to do the actual quill to papyrus writing.

Why didn't Philip or Thomas or Matthias write anything? Maybe they did, but it wasn't preserved.

On the other hand, there's the letter from Jesus to Abgarus, though as far as I know nobody takes it seriously as an authentic epistle from Jesus Himself.

So the effective answer is who knows? And also, does it really matter that much anyway?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

Cryptoluthern (quote)” I have no idea why Jesus didn't write anything down, maybe He couldn't write. I don't know (though, arguably He could read)……… So the effective answer is who knows? And also, does it really matter that much anyway?”

(Reply) I would say it matters because as I mentioned in the original post; the accounts of Jesus contradict each other. Had Jesus written the bible, the claims of him in the Koran or the other gospels would mirror what the bible says about him don’t cha think?

K

 

[GakuseiDon]

why not do both? Why not travel and spread the message AND write the message down? That way everyone will be sure to get it right?

I don't know why he didn't. What's the most likely answer, in your own opinion?

 

[drich0150]

I believe it was Mark Twain who said: A foolish mans account of a wise mans words are never accurate; because he must translate what he hears into something that he can actually understand.
In other words; the source, is better than second hand information. So for the 30 odd years Jesus was on Earth, why didn’t he write something down? He never even instructed his followers to write down anything specific! Why?

Drich0150 said: A foolish man's folly is the judgment of one who does not take into account the differences between his own culture, and of one that took place over 2000 years ago.
Because in that culture little was written down outside of a certified or authorized documentation. Remember paper/papyrus or parchment was an extremely expensive commodity, so what was written down had to be of the most extreme importance. This did not qualify in the case for Christ till after His resurrection. The paper thing is also why that these people established such a trust worthy oral tradition. For them the words of a trusted priest carried the same weight as the most important pedigrees documents we can produce now.

To full grasp the answer to this question you must look past your culture and up bringing, and be willing to accept the culture and traditions in which you are asking about.

The only thing we know about Jesus is what other men wrote about him, and of course there is much contradiction and inconsistencies of what these men wrote; example: If you believe the books that men wrote that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to these men, Jesus claimed he was the son of God. But if you believe some of the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels or even the Holy Koran, according to these books Jesus never even made such claims!

Then it would stand to reason that "those books" are not the same, as the ones that claim He did say He was the son of God. Not to mention the time that had elapsed between the time the original Gospels were written and when the anti-son of God books were written.

It seems to me whatever you believe about Jesus is determined by which flawed and imperfect authors you choose to believe; am I wrong?

Yes you are. Primarily because you believe that the Lynch pin of belief is the historical accuracy of the bible. the bible is not the catalyst that inspires belief, it is simply Fuel for the believer.

According to my understanding, this is how the Bible was written:
Jesus Taught and Preached on Earth, during which time he never wrote anything down. Then approx 50 yrs after he died, various men

(Disciples and Apostles)

began to write about him, then many years later, the Catholic church (cannon) voted on which books were inspired by God and which ones were not. (I am sure there was an agenda involved with the choices they made)

They checked things like age of manuscript, the oral tradition of said manuscript, What it said in comparison with the others, and viability of said manuscript. (how many copies said the same thing)

The inspired books became the Bible, the others discarded.

They were not discarded they were cataloged and studied. they have simply been found not to be essential to one's personal faith in God.

Had Jesus written the bible, his thoughts and wishes would have been for all to see and the Catholic church and it’s agenda wouldn’t have dared to declare any of them uninspired, and you wouldn’t have the inconsistencies you have with so many different people writing about him each with their own agenda; don’t cha think?

Had Jesus written the bible in the three years of His ministry then one the bible would be incomplete, because He would have spent all of His time writing and not Doing the Will of the Father.

Also, how was some of this information gathered? Example: who witnessed what happened when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? All his disciples were asleep! Jesus never wrote anything down so how did St Mark (who wrote about it) get this information?

32 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”

35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba,[f] Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

I do not understand what you are asking... No where here is it written that these 3 men fell asleep the instant the walked into the garden thereby making them completely oblivious to absolutely anything that happened in the Garden till Judas arrived with the temple soldiers. Christ simply says you could not stay awake for one hour... this means that sometime in an hour the disciples fell a sleep. Even if the fell asleep after just 15 mins, they still heard 15 mins of Christ's personal laments to the Father. As there is not anything written or being represented here that takes more than 15 seconds to read or say, i would surmise that they could have been well awake long enough to hear what was recorded here.

What about the man who came to Jesus in the middle of the night?

Nicodemus? Do you not think Christ would not have shared this valuable lesson with his followers? what is written that makes you think this way?

Who witnessed this event to be later written about?

Outside of Christ and Nicodemus? The bible records no one, but you fail to see that there were indeed two people present who the bible does not record as swearing an oath to never speak of the events of that night either.

 

[AlexBP]

Expecting people to write down their own sayings is a modern phenomenon. When we ask why Jesus didn't do so, we're projecting the standards of our time onto the ancients. In the ancient world, it was simply accepted that the words of a great teacher would be memorized by his disciples, and if they considered it important enough, eventually they would write it down. For example, everything that we know about Socrates was actually written long after his death by Plato. Likewise for other Rabbis who lived in Palestine at the same time as Jesus, we only have later writings about them.

 

[MattRose]

Expecting people to write down their own sayings is a modern phenomenon. When we ask why Jesus didn't do so, we're projecting the standards of our time onto the ancients. In the ancient world, it was simply accepted that the words of a great teacher would be memorized by his disciples, and if they considered it important enough, eventually they would write it down. For example, everything that we know about Socrates was actually written long after his death by Plato. Likewise for other Rabbis who lived in Palestine at the same time as Jesus, we only have later writings about them.

Good choice using Socrates and Plato as examples. Wikipedia's entry for Socrates' teachings has some interesting parallels to Jesus'.

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy. At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. Parsing which Socrates—the "real" one, or Plato's own mouthpiece—Plato is using at any given point is a matter of much debate.
It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, however, that Socrates was not simply a character, or an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.

 

[drich0150]

Good choice using Socrates and Plato as examples. Wikipedia's entry for Socrates' teachings has some interesting parallels to Jesus'.

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy. At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. Parsing which Socrates—the "real" one, or Plato's own mouthpiece—Plato is using at any given point is a matter of much debate.
It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, however, that Socrates was not simply a character, or an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.

Outside of the conjecture and speculation of "Many scholars" and your personal understanding of wikipedias' article on the subject, what real evidence is there to be had to support this line of thought? It all funnels back to one mans work does it not? Now how can this be compared to 4 separate gospel accounts of a Man who's works were not complied till hundreds of Years after His death?

Isn't it the fact that because there are slight variations in the Story of Christ the reason for so much doubt in the academic community? Now you are saying that all 4 accounts are closely collaborated accounts that make up a myth of Christ? Why the sudden paradigm shift? are you all giving up on it's too different in favor for "it's too much the same?"

 

[solarwave]

The Bible was written by fallible humans so it isn't supprising there are errors. Many books have errors but it doesn't mean the larger overall points arn't correct where they do agree.

I don't know why Jesus didn't write anything down. Maybe He didn't know how, maybe oral tradition was still the main form of communication back then.

Also I could see how Jesus writing anything down could have been very dangerous. If someone understood Him wrong or twisted the meaning it would have alot more power than if it happened to the apostles. With the Apostles people can see that they could have been fallible in their writing or at least that they were bound by their culture, but with Jesus being the Son of God it would be harder explain away anything which could be dangerous. I say this thinking that Jesus the man wasn't omniscient.

 

[Ken-1122]

GakusiDon (quote)” I don't know why he didn't. What's the most likely answer, in your own opinion?”

(reply) Actually I was sorta looking for a Christian perspective; I’m not a Christian. But thanks for your honesty.

Drich0150 (quote)“Because in that culture little was written down outside of a certified or authorized documentation. Remember paper/papyrus or parchment was an extremely expensive commodity, so what was written down had to be of the most extreme importance.”

(reply)The words and wishes of God aren’t important? 50 years after he died people wrote about him; they thought it was important enough to write down!

(quote)” Yes you are. Primarily because you believe that the Lynch pin of belief is the historical accuracy of the bible.”

(reply) I realize you may not, but a lot of people believe in the 100% accuracy of the bible

(quote)” Had Jesus written the bible in the three years of His ministry then one the bible would be incomplete, because He would have spent all of His time writing and not Doing the Will of the Father.”

(reply) Well it’s not like he had to wait till he was 30 yrs old before writing it; didn’t he at age 12 proclaim it to be the time to start doing the will of his father? He could have started then! Maybe writing the bible could be the will of the father

AlexBP (quote)” Expecting people to write down their own sayings is a modern phenomenon. When we ask why Jesus didn't do so, we're projecting the standards of our time onto the ancients. In the ancient world, it was simply accepted that the words of a great teacher would be memorized by his disciples”

(reply) Remember the “telephone Game” when you were a kid? After the story is repeated a dozen or so times the story is totally different? Those type of mistakes are a part of being human! Why would an omniscience God rely on such a flawed system for something as important as his words?

(quote)” For example, everything that we know about Socrates was actually written long after his death by Plato. Likewise for other Rabbis who lived in Palestine at the same time as Jesus, we only have later writings about them."

(reply) Well we could probably spend all day discussing the flaws and inaccuracies of Socrates, Plato, and the other Rabbis, but that is another forum, right now we are discussing Jesus.

Solorwave (quote)” Also I could see how Jesus writing anything down could have been very dangerous. If someone understood Him wrong or twisted the meaning it would have alot more power than if it happened to the apostles. With the Apostles people can see that they could have been fallible in their writing or at least that they were bound by their culture, but with Jesus being the Son of God it would be harder explain away anything which could be dangerous[”

(reply) So as it stands right now, is it your opinion that the bible lacks credibility because it was written by flawed and imperfect men?

Ken

 

[drich0150]

(reply)The words and wishes of God aren’t important? 50 years after he died people wrote about him; they thought it was important enough to write down!

Evidently the actions of God by God, were far more important than actual written word of God. We have a tendency to worship any and every object we have of Christ. Could you imagine how corrupt Christianity would become if we had the actual written word of Christ? Look at the stone tablets and the perversity that came out of worshiping them. 90% of the interactions Christ had with the religious leaders of His day were cast in a negative light, because of how the religious leaders of His day chose to worship the actual words of God. Why would Christ remove power from the corrupt, just to set in motion another system that lends it self to the corruption of the souls looking to worship God? As it is The bible is a tool. If Christ wrote the bible the bible itself would become it's own god.

(reply) I realize you may not, but a lot of people believe in the 100% accuracy of the bible

Could you imagine how bad it would be if they knew it all to be true? Look what could possibly happen when the main figure in a religion writes their holy book. Muslims look at a slight or attack on their book as a slight or attack on their prophet or their God. This is not the relationship "we" are to have with the bible, with God. God is not an idol or an object we can hold and worship. God is bigger than the items we may associate with Him. this principle would be next to impossible to separate if we were made to worship the written word of Christ.

(reply) Well it’s not like he had to wait till he was 30 yrs old before writing it; didn’t he at age 12 proclaim it to be the time to start doing the will of his father? He could have started then! Maybe writing the bible could be the will of the father

Again without all of these Actions, His words would be considered meaningless to all of those who live in that culture. It took all of the "miracles" of Christ and then his subsequent resurrection to establish the authenticity of His claims.

We have been given absolutely everything we need to find God through Christ and nothing more. It is perfect exactly the way it is.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Because oral tradition was waaaaaaaay more serious than writing stuff down back then.

 

[Sketcher]

So for the 30 odd years Jesus was on Earth, why didn’t he write something down? He never even instructed his followers to write down anything specific! Why?

If I were speaking to and healing thousands of people from day to day, I imagine I would be too busy to keep a journal.

The only thing we know about Jesus is what other men wrote about him, and of course there is much contradiction and inconsistencies of what these men wrote; example: If you believe the books that men wrote that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to these men, Jesus claimed he was the son of God. But if you believe some of the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels or even the Holy Koran, according to these books Jesus never even made such claims!

The Gnostic so-called gospels were forgeries, and did not theologically fit with the accepted works. No wonder they were rejected.

It seems to me whatever you believe about Jesus is determined by which flawed and imperfect authors you choose to believe; am I wrong?

At best, that's what you have to say about everything that you believe.

According to my understanding, this is how the Bible was written:
Jesus Taught and Preached on Earth, during which time he never wrote anything down. Then approx 50 yrs after he died, various men began to write about him, then many years later, the Catholic church (cannon) voted on which books were inspired by God and which ones were not. (I am sure there was an agenda involved with the choices they made)The inspired books became the Bible, the others discarded.

No. Approximately 30 years after he died, the gospels were being written - two by disciples of eyewitnesses, and two by eyewitnesses themselves. Also, the New Testament letters popped up before the Gospels, and based on their content, we can verify that certain things the Gospels mention were accepted and taught in the Early Church. The Church had its traditions and Scriptures, and the rejected books really stuck out like a sore thumb.

Had Jesus written the bible, his thoughts and wishes would have been for all to see and the Catholic church and it’s agenda wouldn’t have dared to declare any of them uninspired, and you wouldn’t have the inconsistencies you have with so many different people writing about him each with their own agenda; don’t cha think?

You, an atheist, consider apocryphal books to be divinely inspired? Which ones?

Also, how was some of this information gathered? Example: who witnessed what happened when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? All his disciples were asleep! Jesus never wrote anything down so how did St Mark (who wrote about it) get this information? What about the man who came to Jesus in the middle of the night? Who witnessed this event to be later written about?

Interviews and visions.

 

[Ken-1122]

Drich0150 says: (quote)” Evidently the actions of God by God, were far more important than actual written word of God.”

(reply) You say that now because that’s all you have to work with. But common sense tells me that words of wisdom should come from the source rather than 2nd hand information thus actions of God AND written word of God is better.

(quote)” We have a tendency to worship any and every object we have of Christ. Could you imagine how corrupt Christianity would become if we had the actual written word of Christ? Look at the stone tablets and the perversity that came out of worshiping them.”

(reply) People behave crazy because they never had something from God before so when they believe they finally see something, they go crazy. Had the written word been there since the time of Jesus, and everybody was introduced to Jesus words at the same time they were introduced to Christianity, they would behave differently

(quote)“ Look what could possibly happen when the main figure in a religion writes their holy book. Muslims look at a slight or attack on their book as a slight or attack on their prophet or their God. This is not the relationship "we" are to have with the bible, with God. God is not an idol or an object we can hold and worship.”

(reply) A wise man once said: (I can’t remember who) Good men will do good, and bad men will do bad whether they are religious or not. The only difference; the theist will use his God to justify their actions whether they be good or bad.
These Muslims are bad men and they are looking for any excuse to use their theism to justify their bad behavior.

(quote)” Again without all of these Actions, His words would be considered meaningless to all of those who live in that culture. It took all of the "miracles" of Christ and then his subsequent resurrection to establish the authenticity of His claims.”

(reply) As I said before, why not all that AND his written word?

Walter Kovacs (quote)” Because oral tradition was waaaaaaaay more serious than writing stuff down back then.”

(reply) Yeah, but now we know that is a very ineffective way to get y our message across; the “telephone game” has proven that many times over

Sketcher (quote)” If I were speaking to and healing thousands of people from day to day, I imagine I would be too busy to keep a journal.”

(reply) I thought NOTHING was impossible with God! Am I wrong?
Next when I said: (quote)”It seems to me whatever you believe about Jesus is determined by which flawed and imperfect authors you choose to believe; am I wrong?”

Sketcher replied (quote)” At best, that's what you have to say about everything that you believe.”

(reply)But I believe everything has flaws. Most Christian’s don’t believe that to be the case with Jesus.
Next when I said: “Had Jesus written the bible, his thoughts and wishes would have been for all to see and the Catholic church and it’s agenda wouldn’t have dared to declare any of them uninspired, and you wouldn’t have the inconsistencies you have with so many different people writing about him each with their own agenda; don’t cha think?”

He replied (quote)” You, an atheist, consider apocryphal books to be divinely inspired? Which ones? “

(reply) Actually I (the atheist) don’t consider any of the books divinely inspired; that’s why the questions were directed at you; not me.

Peace
Ken

 

[Walter Kovacs]

(reply) Yeah, but now we know that is a very ineffective way to get y our message across; the “telephone game” has proven that many times over

Perhaps, but not if you have thousands of men completely dedicated to preserving the original message, over hundreds of years, all working together, which is what Church history is. I recommend you look into that, you'll learn a lot.

 

[Ken-1122]

When I said:"Yeah, but now we know that is a very ineffective way to get y our message across; the “telephone game” has proven that many times over”"

Perhaps, but not if you have thousands of men completely dedicated to preserving the original message, over hundreds of years, all working together, which is what Church history is. I recommend you look into that, you'll learn a lot.

(reply)
Yeah but you have thousands of men dedicated to preserving the original message today! Yet the disagreements are as many as the stars in the sky. Why would you assume it was any different back then?

K

 

[Sketcher]

(reply) I thought NOTHING was impossible with God! Am I wrong?

Jesus did what he needed to do.

(reply)But I believe everything has flaws. Most Christian’s don’t believe that to be the case with Jesus.

Since when does "flawless" mean your flawed idea of "flawless"?

Actually I (the atheist) don’t consider any of the books divinely inspired; that’s why the questions were directed at you; not me.

And I don't consider the Apocrypha to be divinely inspired, nor authentic, nor consistent with real Scripture. How about that.

 

[drich0150]

(reply) You say that now because that’s all you have to work with. But common sense tells me that words of wisdom should come from the source rather than 2nd hand information thus actions of God AND written word of God is better.

Not according to the culture in which first received the word of God. Your "common sense" did not mean much to them. So the question should be should God have forsaken all of those generations of believers for the sake of your "common sense" for this and maybe a few generations before us?

(reply) People behave crazy because they never had something from God before so when they believe they finally see something, they go crazy. Had the written word been there since the time of Jesus, and everybody was introduced to Jesus words at the same time they were introduced to Christianity, they would behave differently

Again look at the structured belief of Islam They worship the texts of their prophet as if it were a god unto itself. And they always had what they believe the divine inspired words of their god.

Perversion in religious practices are not limited to non christian beliefs. We all (in the beginning at least) tend to start from the same place. When we infact have what we think is a piece of god we tend to reverence that piece as God. This is intrinsic to the Human condition, and should not be pandered to. (If the goal is the worship of God, and not the evidences of God.)

(reply) A wise man once said: (I can’t remember who) Good men will do good, and bad men will do bad whether they are religious or not. The only difference; the theist will use his God to justify their actions whether they be good or bad.
These Muslims are bad men and they are looking for any excuse to use their theism to justify their bad behavior.

My observation of Muslims is not to identify them as Good or bad. i reserve judgment for God. the point i was trying to make was that this system of belief has a text supposedly written to the equivalent of Jesus (In their eyes.) Because of this, it stunts their spiritual growth, and forces all believers to partake in the worship of their version of the holy texts. this divided worship limits what they can give to their god.

I believe this is what God was trying to avoid. God is a jealous God and does not want us worship anyone or thing except Him. The Command that says you shall not have any other gods before Me, includes the bible or those who wrote it. The bible was intended to be used as a tool to build whatever it is one has in his heart. If it were considered to be apart of God then it ceases in being a tool, and becomes apart of God Himself. which means as the Muslims have demonstrated it demands worship. If you do not think this is the case then take you congregation and announce that you are going to burn a few hundred copies of this book and see if the world (Including the President) doesn't turn on you. People over there burn the bible all of the time and no one cares. again because it is a tool used to find God and not a god unto itself.

(reply) As I said before, why not all that AND his written word?

And as I asked before; When was all of this to take place? With what resources was Christ to be supplied with Paper? With what authority would He have written? to whom? Especially in a culture who prizes Oral tradition over that of written expression? The only people who wrote things down were the ones He was alienating in the temples. they were the only ones who had access to the supplies and the ability to "process" the written words. If you did not know they were also the ones who had Him killed so why would they keep a record of what was written?

Arguably the first writer of the NT was Paul, and He/Saul was a scribe for the temple. why do you think He was the first one to write? Probably because He was the only one with accesses to the resources.