For someone that liked to preach and spread the word of God...I wonder why he never wrote anything down to pass on the message

When someone is so compassionate about what they preach about, they 9/10 write them all down

So how come there is nothing from Jesus himself??

Surely you cant suggest he expected his followers to do it?? I mean did he even know anyone wrote anything down??

If he didnt write anything down...did he beleive it was meant to b written??

If he had of written stuff down..then it might have been seen as real evidence???

This is actually a very good question, but it is one that does not take into account the social background data. There are two factors that should be taken into account:

The prevalence of orality over writing in ancient society. Today transmitting something orally is considered equal with not relaying it in a trustworthy manner, and we demand to see things "in writing" before we believe them. As hard as it may seem to believe, exactly the opposite was true in ancient times!

Ancient literacy was no higher than 10 percent at any given time, so the primary method of communication was oral. Memory capabilities were correspondingly much stronger, so that it can not be said that oral transmission was unreliable, or that because something was important, it "ought to have been written down". Neither Jesus nor anyone else in ancient society would share this modern sentiment.

But, then again you have to ask yourself why is anything written down about jesus in the first place if oral translation
is just as good as written.



Regards,
Tom

I guess it's partly about passing time - the more time passed since Jesus' disappearance, the more important written accounts became. They only reached the level of 'divine' when the oral (and to a lesser extent, written) traditions became polluted beyond comprehension with silly legends and apocryphal tales (as are apparent in e.g. The Infancy Gospel of James).

Related to this is the more important reason: that Jesus and his immediate followers were an eschatological cult - they expected the End Times to happen any minute, and certainly within the lifetimes of those present at Jesus' sermons (Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28, 24:34; Luke 9:27). Why write stuff down for posterity when we're off any minute?

There's also the question as to whether Jesus did write anything down. Jesus himself is described in John as being able to write (John 8:6-8), but obviously nothing he wrote in that particular passage survived. Some who claim Jesus to be part of the Qum'ran community would say that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Jesus, but this would be horribly speculative and depends on the unproven claim that Jesus corresponds to any of the characters mentioned in the Qum'ran scrolls, such as the Teacher of Light. There is also the hugely doubtful tale of the 'Jesus Scroll' (described in a book of the same name by Donovan Joyce), which is purportedly an autobiographical Gospel. Some also claim that Matthew the Apostle was Jesus' scribe, and wrote down many of his sermons verbatim, which would have dispensed with the need for Jesus to have written anything anyway - but again, whether he did, and whether anything of this survived (as bits of the Gospel of Matthew) is highly speculative also.

In my opinion thereason he didn't write anything down was ,it was aready written down "the Jewish law " he was a Jew preaching the jewish law to Jews not starting a new religion

fullywired

He wrote pleanty, much was destroyed by the early church.

Love Omnaka

Why do you think that?

Good question! How did you reach that conclusion Omnaka?

I suspect the Romans and the Palestinians destroyed all he wrote as well as the writings of other Rabbis from that time period in Palestine. Pretty much all that we have came from copies of works from all the clerics outside for both Judaism and Christianity. It was after all, a political purge period of written documents and in that time that definitely meant religious writings.

Think of the few hidden scrolls that were hidden were a reason that have been found.

The amazing thing is not that his work is missing, the amazing thing would have been for the Romans and the Palestinians to have kept them intact while they were destroying all of the works of others there.

How would we be able to know what was written? Is there some hidden texts that not many know about? Is this knowledge gained from channeling?

If the question is how do we know he wrote then the answer would be because we know he read in public.
People who read always write, always, even if it is no more than notes and messages.

Don't forget there is something like 12 years missing from the life of Jesus, so anything is possible.

My guess is because Jesus didn't consider himself the Messiah. I think the real Jesus was probably an altruistic man with great ideals but people just couldn't live with that. So they decided to make some story about him 100 years after anyone would remember about him.

Omnaka "knows" that because he believes he can talk to the gods. He says there are two of them. A father and mother that he talks to verbally and gets verbal replies. Think of it what you will... I know I do.

Hes coming back maybe we can ask him then

What do you mean he? Isn't Omnaka a she?

No.

Can't a man still sign off 'Love Omnaka'? He is secure in his masculinity that is all lol.

coming back ?? he said that to the people at the time he was talking too.. he'd be back during 'their' lifetime.... he didn't show up. they gave up believing that until a few hundred years later.

now I know some christians try to say " no he was talking to future generations " but that isn't true no matter how many times you repeat it. That's just a rationalization to justify when in fact people of that time period thought the end of the world would happen during their lifetimes.

I had lately read of the oldest account of ' the end of the world' - much older than the bible ( hebrew belief) , it may have been hindu or sumerian. But the point is people have been thinking they know when since before recorded time................. no one is unique and no one has been right.

Oh the earth will end. The sun will expand and take us out , a rogue comet , a gamma ray , all out nuclear disaster ................. but it/there won't be a second coming.

Jesus was most likely illiterate, like most people back then. His disciples also. Being from the ghettos of Galilee, they could barely even talk correctly.

Also, back then, and even today, memorization and recitiation of a teacher's doctrine was quite common. Today we have Jews who can recite all 5 books of the Torah, about 50 chapters each. Or whole tractates of Talmud. Muslims who can memorize the entire Qur'an. About the size of a Christian New Testament. I myself have almost the entire Gospels(Jesus' life and teachings) memorized in English and Greek.

If we did have actual writings of Jesus, it wouldn't change the doubt. And yet most religions holy books were not written by their founders, but are still popular.

Most teachings back then were verbal. It wasnt until later that they were written down. And even then, most people couldnt read them. That's why the Reading of the Torah was so important in Synagogues. Becasuse people couldnt read it themselves.

Personally, I like the heresy that Jesus already did come back via the ressurection, in spirit form. The "holy spirit" if you will

^There's an article written by a (now-deceased) Australian theologian named Dr Broughton Knox. The article was titled "The Five Comings of Christ". It was most definitely a great read, very interesting and made me think (after all, five comings of Christ???). Concerning this specific coming (returning within the lifetime of the hearers), he identifies it as the third coming, which he states:

The third coming of the Son of Man distinguished in the New Testament is his coming on the clouds of heaven. It is a coming which takes place within the lifetime of Jesus’ hearers and will be recognized by them as having taken palce. Jesus predicted “They shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…. Verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass away until all these things are accomplished”. (Matt 24:30, 34). It is plain from these passages that Jesus expected with absolute certainty that the Son of Man would come on the clouds during the lifetime of his hearers. The imagery of the Son of Man coming on the clouds is drawn directly from Danily 7:13, where the son of man comes with the clouds into the presence of the Ancient of Days and receives the Kingdom.

This coming of the Son of Man is neither a coming into the world at Bethlehem nor the coming or parousia in judgement at Jerusalem but is a coming to the Father. As Jesus said inhis prayer before his death “I come to thee” (John 17:11). He comes to the Father to receive the everlasting kingdom, to be crowned with glory and honour through his death, to sit on God’s right hand, asking reigning and waiting for every enemy to be subject to him. The “coming on the clouds” is a synonym for “sitting at the right hand of God”, and both stand for receiving and the exercising of dominion and sovereignty. In recording the words of the Saviour, Matthew uses both images: “henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64). Strictly speaking the images are incompatible, but they both stand for the same truth, that through his death Christ has been raised to the Father’s right hand where he now reigns.

You might actually be interested in a thread I started a while back on this - The Five Comings of Christ. Hope you enjoy it

~ Regards, PA

Anything still there ?

ha ha funny lol...

ohh come ONNN...the son of the almighty..having him that dumb he cant read or write?? yet can preform miricles?? <------you so got to be joking with your answer will!

and some of his disciples are said to have written gosples...

so in what you are saying here is Jesus aka (mant to be god) was thick??? ..hmmmmmmmmm if he was real I sure as heck wouldnt buy that from you will!!!

I know that you are correct in your assertion that there have been many who have predicted the end, or expected it in their lifetime - including some of the Apostles of Christ himself. I would like to illuminate your statement about "future generations."

Jesus said "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matt 24:34) The problem is that people have misinterpreted "this generation" - Christians included. The generation that Jesus was referring to is the generation that "sees all these things." If you read Matt. 24, you can see Jesus predicting at least two persecutions of believers. We know that the first one was fulfilled in the first century. The generation that remains is the one in the second half of Matt. 24 that sees the "abomination of desolation." This refers to the generation of people that are alive when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt. I think it's possible that we or our children are that generation. According to the words of Christ himself, the end will not come until the temple is rebuilt and the daily sacrifices are restored. Regards.

I have to disagree - the Greek is very clear. The word translated 'generation' is in fact γενεα, which is used several times throughout the New Testament, each time meaning 'all people who are alive today'. The meaning is clarified also in other similar passages such as Mark 9:1, when instead of using the word γενεα, Jesus spells it out:


Though many have tried, for obvious reasons, to distort the obvious meaning or introduce doubt about what Jesus 'really meant' (isn't it ironic that it's largely Christians who do that?), no-one has done so successfully, because there really is no ambiguity about this.

'generation' as used in the Greek means 'generation and by implication an age' and it does not always mean the contemporary age but can be used for past or future generations. The key is that when it says in English 'this generation' is to look at which Greek word is actually being used for the word 'this'. It is not always the same word. In some cases 'this' will mean 'this' but in other cases it can be either 'this' or 'that'. So just because it says in 'this generation' it might really be saying in 'that generation'.



When speaking about the Pharisees and others the word for 'this' in bold above in the Greek is 'taute' and means 'this'.



When speaking about what is considered the Olivet discourse 'this' in bold above in the Greek is 'houtos' and can mean 'this' or 'that'.

The reader can compare both chapters of Matthew 23 and 24 and see in the full context of how they are being used. Some believe in Preterism and claim everything in ch. 24 already occurred in Roman times and others believe what was prophesied has not occurred. Either way both camps believe it was a true prophecy. There are some who do not even believe in the Bible but will usually take the view or Preterism to further dispute the Bible has any relevance to our lives today but unlike the first or second camp they do not believe it was a true prophecy so those people are not really being genuine...


The whole of ch. 24 begins with Jesus leaving the temple and telling everyone, see this beautiful building, there will come a time that not one stone is left upon another. The people who heard this surely were amazed because it was an impressive structure. The Western Wall is the largest portion of it left for us to see today. Most of the stones left weigh from 2 and 8 tons while one particular stone is believed to weigh 570 tons. But if one is to read ch. 24 they should keep that in mind because everything after speaks of a time when those stones are not in tact.

One key clue is that the abomination of desolation would stand in the temple but how can he do so after it was destroyed? It has to be rebuilt first and the heart of the Olivet discourse. Also of interest is that there never has been a time where there was not 'one stone upon another'. When Titus ordered it to be demolished he left one portion standing to be used as part of a Roman camp. That portion is the Western Wall.

Some will claim as one of our posters has that Titus proclaimed himself to be God in the temple and thus he was the abomination of desolation. History shows though that after the destruction of the temple and sacking of Jerusalem that "Titus's soldiers proclaimed him imperator in honor of the victory" and that later "Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, as there is "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God"". Titus was in fact not the one we are looking for.

Here are other reasons why Preterism is not valid in that it ignores nearly the whole text:



This has never happened in history but some do say that in order for the temple to be rebuilt that some event might have to occur destroying the whole site.



This is talking about a global perspective so that the reader would understand not about things happening that the local population of Jerusalem would not even know were occurring.



The gospel has never been preached in all the world and was only being started to at the time of the Romans. "The Bible is available in whole or in part to some 98 percent of the world's population in a language in which they are fluent." source



Clearly this was not Nero or Titus or any Roman for if we read Daniel they did not complete the prophecy, for one to complete it they would have to be accepted by the Jews as the messiah.



Anyone wishing to gain more knowledge in this should read the appropriate passages in both Daniel as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelation.



This has never happened because WW2 has clearly shown that the worse did not happen in antiquity.



Revelation 19 speaks about birds being gathered to eat of the dead. The dead made when Jesus returns as Christ the Conquerer to destroy the beast and his followers.



Preterist usually ignore this as well and explain it away in different manner but this will be an event that people will see with their own eyes and mourn.



The Rapture has not happened.

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This is the heart of the Olivet discourse. The fig tree in the Old Testament has been compared to the Israeli nation. In this sense it is thought that the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948 starts the generation of which all of ch. 24 takes place in. That was 60 years ago so we are in the end of that generation if in fact the Parable of the Fig Tree refers to this day and age (generation).



The Jews during the Roman era before the destruction of the temple were in open rebellion and violence abounded. This does not describe that era.



Another mention of the Rapture.

But he was not really from there, that was just where his family was from originally. He was from Alexandria, Egypt. If you believe he existed at all then you have to use what historical information was given on him.

He would have been raised in the diaspora of Egypt in a city that was the center of knowledge for the ancient world, the place where the Septuagint was written. It is doubtful that he left there until the time he arrived and received his baptism from John the Baptist, otherwise this would have been done at a much younger age.

He read in front of many witnesses more than once, he did not just recite. That in fact was what enraged the Pharisees. He could read what was actually written and not the interpretation and dogma that they gave out to the illiterate, such as the Sabbath was made for man and that man was not made for the Sabbath.

I have to admit, despite several attempts, I'm finding it difficult to reply to your very interesting post point-by-point since we don't share your apparent central assumption that prophecies made by Jesus can be wholly and exclusively sorted into the categories 'fulfilled' and 'not yet fulfilled' . Your attempts to marry the prophecies to actual events, and especially your conclusion that if Jesus referred to events which have not yet taken place, then they must still be in our future, to my mind put us on very different pages.

However, your proposition that the meaning of the Greek γενεα (genea - forgive me this pretention, I like the look of the Greek characters!) relies on whether it's followed by ταυτη (taute) or αυτη (haute) deserves consideration, as does your idea that context within the two chapters of Mt 23 & 24 makes the usage clear.

I don't buy that the ταυτη/αυτη distinction really does differentiate between 'this [present] generation' and 'that [future] generation'.

Consider:


Both terms used in the same verse, both clearly referring to the same, present generation.

Later in Mark, coming to the end of an eschatological discourse, Jesus says:


Which generation does he refer to here? From the context, there are two clues that I can make out: the first, that he is telling the people around him to keep watch, throughout his speech; and the second, that he says clearly that the time is very close (επι θυραις, 'at the door'). These are not prophecies which may take millennia to fulfil; they are at hand, and everyone must keep watch.

Also in Mark is that particular unpacking of the term I referred to in my last post: without using the word γενεα, Jesus explicitly states that it is the people standing around him who will not have died when the Kingdom of God comes 'with power':



Luke has Jesus berate the 'generation' before him once again, as the crowds clamour for a magic trick of some kind:


So again, 'that' (αυτη) generation still clearly refers to the one in front of him, not a future one.

I could go on with examples from Matthew too, but I think the point is made: whilst strictly αυτη may mean 'this' or 'that', Jesus clearly uses the term, in every unambiguous example, to refer to the one in front of him.

In terms of the context of Matthew 24, let's have a good look.

In Mt 24:1-3, the scene is set - after Jesus' public rant in chapter 23, Matthew has him take the disciples privately to see the temple, and then field their questions privately on the Mount of Olives. The disciples' central question is, interestingly - when will all these scary things happen? In answer to this, Jesus makes several separate points:

1) A lot of things will happen before the End - wars and rumours of wars; nation against nation; famine, pestilence, earthquake; killing and hatred of the disciples; many false prophets and miracles; people's love waning; the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world.

2) Though I'm telling you what to look out for, nobody will know the day or time

3) You'll know it when it happens (so don't believe hearsay, you'll know)

Although the several global events which must happen before the eschaton could of course take millennia to be fulfilled, this is not necessary: Jesus could equally well be talking about a sudden global descent of chaos, wherein all these events happen in close succession or even simultaneously. I think the clue as to the timescale comes from jesus' labouring of the point that 'ye know not what hour your Lord doth come', again and again throughout the passage - this, I think, only really makes sense as a counterpoint to a fairly short timescale. If he was saying "this is all going to happen, very slowly over several millennia", why admonish the disciples for trying to guess the hour and the day? Whereas, what he actually says is:


It is very close; this/that generation shall not pass away; but no-one knows the exact time, so don't bother trying!

It simply has to be 'this' generation - the one he'd just spoken to, the one of which the disciples were members, and the one that keeps bothering Jesus by asking for signs. A future generation doesn't make sense in that context, since a very long and non-specific timescale wouldn't allow for guessing the day.

Again, just to make clear - I am coming from a position in which I read the New Testament as a book like any other, and I can't find any reason to consider all of Jesus' prophecies as valid and therefore either already fulfilled or about to be fulfilled. Jesus really couldn't have made the imminence of the eschaton any clearer in the passages I've quoted above, and this anticipation is reflected in the early church's eschatological panic, as can be seen in the Pauline epistles.

I would just like to add some fuel to the fire. Matthew 24:36 is a case where there is a diversity of modern versions

"But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

(The bolded not having been in Nucular's version.) The New American Bible (Catholic, with an editorial board including Jewish and Protestant scholars) footnotes this:


Full marks for candor, no?

No. Omnaka is male.

Edit: I see belle already answered... ummmm....

Love Blindy

Well, I am looking at it from an historical perspective. Not supernatural. Either way, there is no evidence of "language miracles" performed by Jesus.

Only one. The Gospel of John. And even that is highly disputed and improbable.


Buy what? That Jesus existed? Or that he was uneducated? Which do you question to be inacurate? I think you will find both of those stances to be held by the experts in the field. Like Levar Buton always said: Don't take my word for it, find out for your self I assume everyone makes efforts to verify via third party sources.....

lollin @ one having to read and write before they can perform miracles

Jesus' kindergarten teacher: I am sorry Jesus you failed your spelling quiz so you cannot perform any miracles today

Well, honestly, I've heard nothing of this before. However, the topic generally being religious, the Bible is usually considered the base of information on the subject. Of course, I don't mind doing historical things. They can be fun too..

Good argument. He did. So maybe Jesus could read. Or, like what was common practice, he just recited what he had memorized. Also, being able to read, does not entail being able to write. For instance, I can read fluently in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syriac. But I could not write one sentance to save my life.

I found the memoirs of Jesus He wrote them on my heart, He said love on another and I would not depart, Forgive if you want to be forgiven, and Live if you want to be living.

Heavenly Father told Me.
Love Omnaka

Nowhen I turned 39 Heavenly Father and Mother (God) cam to me to enlighten me as to who Iam to Father Mother The Universe and you, My bro and sister.

For two years Father manifested To me for My Enlightenment.
I documented the question and answers and two years in chronological order, To make a book, I've just been too busy building and trying to save our house which is in forclosure to finish editing and Find a publisher. Father says There is no hurry, and What I have learned was for my comfort, But I Tell all.

Verry interesting stuff. Stuff I've wondered my Whole life.

When I was growing up, I always talked to Father, at 39 Father started talking Back to me and Manifesting Physical and etherial at my Home.

Please Don't ask what He or Mother looks like, because they can manifest as anything or anyone.
That's why any one who sees God is not to Draw Pics Or say what Father and Mother look like.

Love Omnaka

I have a totally off-topic question.....Indulge me if you will.....

Were all the religious texts (Bible, gospels etc ) written in Greek ?? *Puffs out her chest with pride* And if so, why ?? I'm no expert obviously but I thought that the Jews wrote the Bible and all other religious writings, so why are people quoting Greek ??

Also another question if I may.....Is it true that the Jews were considered God's chosen people but now it's the Greeks ?? Thanks in advance......

I have Not asked that, Not that important to me, Jesus is my brother, I love him dearly, But My enlightenment was not about Him so much as My Spirit.

Love Omnaka

Hi MUM,

To your first question, the Bible was written in three primary languages. The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew (the language of the Jews), except for the book of Daniel, which was in Aramaic (not surprisingly, written as it was during the Exile). The New Testament was written in Greek. In New Testament times there was also what we call the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament translated into Greek, as that was the most popular language of the day.

For the second question, it is true that the Jews were considered God's chosen people, but it is not true that now the Greeks are. God chose to bring about his plan of salvation through one line - Abraham's line. This was promised first in Genesis 12:1-3 where God promises that through Abraham's seed the whole world would be blessed. This is then expanded on as it is made known that the Messiah will come through Abraham's seed (his seed identified as his only son, Isaac, in Genesis 17). Today, Christians believe the Messiah has come and that all nations have been blessed through him. Now we are all God's people. It's what some have chosen to describe as "Spiritual Israel" - those who follow God are spiritually the people of Israel. Paul expands on this in Romans 9 (one of my favourite passages), in which he quotes the prophet Hosea from the Old Testament in which Hosea prophesied that those whom God had previously ignored would now be called "God's people" (Romans 9:24-29 if you want to check it out).

Hope this helps with your questions, MUM

~ Regards, PA

Thanks PA....

The reason why I asked if Greeks were the chosen ones is because I heard it from our local priest in one of his sermons.....I'm not exactly sure in what context he said this or why but I'm certain he mentioned it......I've also heard my mum-in-law say the same thing that we have 'replaced the Jews' as God's favourite.......I assume it's because they view Greek Orthodoxy (spelling ??) as the one true religion, in present time.......

Anyway, thanks for the clarification......

Because reincarnation is true, Who were Jews in the infancy of this world, Are now in every religion and race, and who were Other religions, are now Some called Jews.

Heavenly Father loves all His children Unconditionally and equally. He makes me feel pretty special sometimes , But I believe he can Do this with anyone who loves Him back unconditionally.

Love Omnaka

What is often called the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek.


The Jews were considered the chosen people. However, that ended a long time ago. Though some may argue it. According to bothe New Testament teaching,(ie: 'Christian'), and the OT prophets, it was always about those who were serving God. Regardless who your parents were...

He said he would return at the end of time. Guess what time hasn't ended yet.

Well, the debate is around when Jesus said the End Times may be (and even, as eight bits threw in, whether Jesus actually knew!), not whether they've happened yet or not.

But regardless of that - where did Jesus say he would "return at the end of time"?

Supposed to be Megiddo isn't it?

Sorry, mr nobody - I actually meant to ask in which text Jesus says "the end of time", rather than where he would be - thanks for the answer though!

This is a huge Protestant dogma. However, I think there is little, if any Scriptural evidence for it...

The bible does say that only God not the angels nor the son knows when he will return.

Yes, there is that equivocal verse in Matthew highlighted by eight bits. However, as I tried to show in my earlier post, Jesus did state fairly clearly that it would be before the people listening to his sermons died. If the 'nor the son' part of the Matthew verse is original (it seems likely it is) then he also would probably have been referring to the exact day and time, rather than the rough timescale he spoke a lot about.

It still remains that Jesus expected the end, according to his portrayal in the synoptic Gospels, to come within the lifetimes of those around him.