Why didn't Jesus write his own book?

[HeWhoSearches]

By our definition of fact and what it takes for something to be considered fact, saldly, Jesus does not meet the standard because of many factors that kept knowledge of his exsitance during his life limited to a certain area or number of people. Which is why it is called faith. We, 21st century people who have never seen Jesus, are only given parts of the whole truth, and as Christians, we trust that the information we are given, along with the things that God and Jesus have done for us, is enough, or more than enough, to believe that he is indeed real. For some, it is not enough, and only they can decide when, or if it will ever, be enough.

I agree.

 

[mark53]

Most all the yogis before and after his time wrote their own teachings.

So why didn't jesus do so? I think that if Jesus would have wrote his own teachings, he would have be understood better IMHO.

Nothing has been found .... yet!
Many argued that the so called "Q" document was fanciful and they found the Gospel of thomas - which would be very similar in style and content. They found scrolls at nag hamadi and at Qumran. What else is their to find!?

 

[HeWhoSearches]

Nothing has been found .... yet!
Many argued that the so called "Q" document was fanciful and they found the Gospel of thomas - which would be very similar in style and content. They found scrolls at nag hamadi and at Qumran. What else is their to find!?

Scrolls of ancient exterminated pagan religions?

 

[Balbatish]

Scrolls of ancient exterminated pagan religions?

Do some research on some of the Pagan houses of worship found in Israel during Rome's occupation. The Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi is a good place to start, but you'll still see Christanity in it ( The sacrements are hard to deny in some cases )

 

[Balbatish]

Ok.... but all the evidence that has been put in front of my face for Jesus existence has been lacking. Ancient Catholics were never any good at forging. So, as far as I know, there is no evidence.

I believe very much he existed. The Gospels do demonstrate, to me at least, that they have some historic accuracy, in them. Jesus was the son of somebody, just who you believe the father is, is the matter of faith

 

[arunma]

By our definition of fact and what it takes for something to be considered fact, saldly, Jesus does not meet the standard because of many factors that kept knowledge of his exsitance during his life limited to a certain area or number of people. Which is why it is called faith. We, 21st century people who have never seen Jesus, are only given parts of the whole truth, and as Christians, we trust that the information we are given, along with the things that God and Jesus have done for us, is enough, or more than enough, to believe that he is indeed real. For some, it is not enough, and only they can decide when, or if it will ever, be enough.

If you consider only what you see to be fact, then there are quite a few people who we can say did not exist. Do you believe that Saint Polycarp did not exist? How about the historian Thucydides? As a Catholic, you should take the mere existence of your church as evidence that Jesus existed. I think it is an unjustified concession to say that the existence of Jesus is not factual. You may say this about the articles of the Christian faith, but even secular historians confirm his existence.

I believe very much he existed. The Gospels do demonstrate, to me at least, that they have some historic accuracy, in them. Jesus was the son of somebody, just who you believe the father is, is the matter of faith

As is usually the case, I cannot disagree with you.

 

[peaceful soul]

Huh?

Well for one thing the Mysteries predate Christianity. Also, I'm a little confused by part of your post. Furthermore, they predate Christianity. You should read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, both world-renown on their respective subjects (Mysticism, Ancient Religions, and Philosophy, ect.) It's quite compelling, and written in a way to be easily understood and read. I knew most everything inside it before reading it, but it was still ok. Heres part of the back of the book:

What if for thousands of years Pagans​

had also followed a Son of God?​

What if this Pagan saviour was also born of a virgin​

on the 25th of December before three shepherds,​

turned water into wine at a wedding,​

died and resurrected at Easter,​

and offered his body and blood as a Holy Communion?​

---------------------------------
To the post above:

Mathew? I had heard that the gospels in their original form were merely the gospels of prominent christian sects, themselves written in all caps, practically no spacing or punctuation, and no apparent author.

The Catholic Church were the ones who gave them their authors, and many another text within the bible attributed to certain people despite it being false.

You can not prove by similarities. You actually have to show that B was a copy of A. I used the patent issue to demonstrate that it is possible to have people sharing similar or the same ideas or concepts without them having any relation to the other. In mathematical terms, prove that B is a subset of A or that B is an element of A. Not just that B and A are similar in properties or in our case, have a common attribute. I hope that simplifies things.

 

[JRNetwork]

If you consider only what you see to be fact, then there are quite a few people who we can say did not exist. Do you believe that Saint Polycarp did not exist? How about the historian Thucydides? As a Catholic, you should take the mere existence of your church as evidence that Jesus existed. I think it is an unjustified concession to say that the existence of Jesus is not factual. You may say this about the articles of the Christian faith, but even secular historians confirm his existence.



As is usually the case, I cannot disagree with you.

I do believe that Jesus exited(exists), and like you said it many secular historians do too, however at the moment there is not enough concrete evidence to make it an undisputable fact that Jesus existed as can be seen by the many arguements against his existence in the non-Christian section of this forum, and the "proof" they use to back up their arguement. And by the trial going on in Italy in which an atheist has sued a priest for publishing in a local Catholic newspaper that Jesus existed.

Yet again, there will always be people who contradict...

Concerning the "seen Jesus" thing, it seems to be the only thing that will make unbelievers believe, but you know what I mean.