Why wasn't Jesus as an author of the Bible?

[FrankLee]

I don't understand why you ask this. Jesus, that's God's first name of course, does whatever He pleases. He was pleased to have others do this. We are co-laborers with Him in all of his works. Just as any father shows his children how to set their hand to things so God sets all of our hands to things. Things that He gave us inborn talents to do. We are obligated to Him to use the talent he placed in us. By using the hand of man to write these books and letters He put the works of God in writing through the perspective of man.
But tgat He did, does author yet is evidenced by;

Hebrews 12:2 KJVS
Looking unto Jesus the AUTHOR and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

If any man speak let him speak as the very oracles, the very speech of God. God spoke through prophets since the very beginning. He is the author and penman of the ten commandments which He wrote into stone tablets.

In Him we live and move and have our being. Since He dwells in every one of us He takes a real part of every move we make. God put on Gideon like an overcoat an marched into battle. God's not way out somewhere away from us but near at hand whatever we do that's good He is part of it.

 

[Stranger36147]

Even if he didn't write anything, we still have accounts of the things that he said. That's pretty cool, right?

 

[pottersclay]

1....jesus did not come here for himself it was the will of the father

2 ......he made himself of no reputation

3.....he was here to bare witness

4.....then jesus asked "who do you say Iam" .

 

[jaybird88]

maybe Jesus didnt write these things because He wanted us to seek out and experience what His disciples experienced. the disciples didnt get that by reading books.

 

[breno785au]

He didn't need to..And even if He did, I don't think it would make an ounce of difference for a darkened mind.

Can you imagine how it would sound if He did?...

Jesus 4:1-3
It was a rough, stormy night. The waves crashed and tossed our boat around as I slept soundly in the hull. Then suddenly, those unbelieving oafs run in screaming at me. So I got out to show the storm who's Boss and I said, "Quiet! Be still!"

 

[seed_time_harvest]

I have wanted to get some insight into the following for awhile now:

Why didn't Jesus author at least a portion of the Bible?

I ask for the following reason: Humans are imperfect, our perception of events and memories are imperfect, and our ability to describe things using language is imperfect. Jesus was perfect, and his understanding of God's message was as well: therefore, wouldn't Jesus be a better author than any of his disciples?

I know that the standard response is to say that God divinely inspired the Gospels, and so it is "like" God writing it...but that still does not address why Jesus, the son of God, did not write something directly while on earth. In other words, I have always wondered why God would use middlemen to spread His word when Jesus was here on earth and was sent to convey His message directly.

Serious replies only please! I am genuinely interested in thoughtful explanations.

After JESUS was baptized,HE was led by the SPIRIT Into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

JESUS said man shall not live by bread alone,but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of GOD.

The just shall live by faith.

 

[resurrection33]

I have wanted to get some insight into the following for awhile now:

Why didn't Jesus author at least a portion of the Bible?

I ask for the following reason: Humans are imperfect, our perception of events and memories are imperfect, and our ability to describe things using language is imperfect. Jesus was perfect, and his understanding of God's message was as well: therefore, wouldn't Jesus be a better author than any of his disciples?

I know that the standard response is to say that God divinely inspired the Gospels, and so it is "like" God writing it...but that still does not address why Jesus, the son of God, did not write something directly while on earth. In other words, I have always wondered why God would use middlemen to spread His word when Jesus was here on earth and was sent to convey His message directly.

Serious replies only please! I am genuinely interested in thoughtful explanations.

First, who would have believed Jesus if he had written a book about himself? And he had plenty of other things to do besides author the Bible.

 

[graceNpeace]

First, who would have believed Jesus if he had written a book about himself? And he had plenty of other things to do besides author the Bible.

He did actually author the whole thing - He just used "ghost writers"!!!!

 

[silentrob]

People who do this are making an error.
The subject of our worship should be the God described in the writings - not the writings themselves.

We look to Scripture as the truth of the matter about God, but Scripture itself is not God!

This is getting closer to the source of my original question and why I asked it. If we use the words in the Bible to link us to His Truth, then wouldn't the words chosen by and written by Him be closer to his Truth than others?

The reason I do not like the "standard" reply of divine inspiration, especially for the disciple writings, is that they have been translated and standardized for our modern times. The King James version reads like a single author because in the past the language was standardized by men other than the original divinely inspired authors. So my concern is was this standardization also an extension "the hand of God"? Can anyone be divinely inspired? Can I write a translation and will that be the Truth???

In my mind if we had writings directly from Jesus then there would be no question about it's divinity...it would literally be from God and the point could not be argued! Thus, once again, I am wondering why Jesus didn't author something for the Bible...not necessarily His story but His message!

 

[graceNpeace]

This is getting closer to the source of my original question and why I asked it. If we use the words in the Bible to link us to His Truth, then wouldn't the words chosen by and written by Him be closer to his Truth than others?

The reason I do not like the "standard" reply of divine inspiration, especially for the disciple writings, is that they have been translated and standardized for our modern times. The King James version reads like a single author because in the past the language was standardized by men other than the original divinely inspired authors. So my concern is was this standardization also an extension "the hand of God"? Can anyone be divinely inspired? Can I write a translation and will that be the Truth???

In my mind if we had writings directly from Jesus then there would be no question about it's divinity...it would literally be from God and the point could not be argued! Thus, once again, I am wondering why Jesus didn't author something for the Bible...not necessarily His story but His message!

The original writings were divinely inspired.
Subsequent translations are not - however, one is never directed to worship the writings, even the original divinely inspired writings - most emphatically we are to worship the God that writings are all about.

 

[tourist]

"I know that the standard response is to say that God divinely inspired the Gospels, and so it is "like" God writing it...but that still does not address why Jesus, the son of God, did not write something directly while on earth. "

He did some writing on the ground when the crowd was accusing the woman of adultery.

 

[breno785au]

This is getting closer to the source of my original question and why I asked it. If we use the words in the Bible to link us to His Truth, then wouldn't the words chosen by and written by Him be closer to his Truth than others?

The reason I do not like the "standard" reply of divine inspiration, especially for the disciple writings, is that they have been translated and standardized for our modern times. The King James version reads like a single author because in the past the language was standardized by men other than the original divinely inspired authors. So my concern is was this standardization also an extension "the hand of God"? Can anyone be divinely inspired? Can I write a translation and will that be the Truth???

In my mind if we had writings directly from Jesus then there would be no question about it's divinity...it would literally be from God and the point could not be argued! Thus, once again, I am wondering why Jesus didn't author something for the Bible...not necessarily His story but His message!

There is no "closer to the Truth than others" in regards to the scriptures. The testimonies from the disciplesand the message they carry and the teachings of Jesus are just as much the truth as if Jesus had written them. My spirit knows this.
My question is, do you believe the scriptures?

It is better for someone to declare something about you, than for you to declare about yourself.
What sounds better? I come to you and say, "I'm a great guy!"
Or if someone came to you and said, "Brendan's a great guy!"?

 

[South_FLA]

I like this question. I used to ask it a lot, even recently. Truth is it doesn't matter. I know people have told you this already but God wrote the bible through his Holy Spirit. I think God decided to use humans to write the bible to show how much he values them. I think he enjoys telling stories of his glory through the eyes of his people.

 

[breno785au]

We also remember to that Jesus came to do the will of the Father, not His own. If it was His will Jesus would have penned writings and we would have them today. But it wasn't and His will is good and perfect.

 

[silentrob]

The original writings were divinely inspired.
Subsequent translations are not - however, one is never directed to worship the writings, even the original divinely inspired writings - most emphatically we are to worship the God that writings are all about.

The two common points made are:
1. The writings were divinely inspired.
2. We, as Christians, should not worship the writings.

I have addressed my issue with the first not fully explaining why Jesus did not contribute to the Bible, but it is important to further address the second, which actually is at the heart of my question.

None of us, regardless of faith or individual connection with God, can "know" God without language as we know it from the Bible (which is why I posted in this forum). The Bible (which is language) is THE essential way we come to know Jesus. Without having written Word there is no Christianity (i.e. community) and we do not "know" God (i.e. share knowledge of Him). For what other way could you come to know Him? Think of the importance of scripture in shaping our shared understanding of God and Jesus. Think of the communication in church that we share with others that shape and reinforce our knowledge of His Truth, think of what we are sharing now...it is ALL language, written or otherwise. Hence the centrality of the Bible!!!

Jesus was sent by God to bring mankind a message (i.e. communicate His will). It was communicated through many mediums, and the one that we are left with is language of what happened (the Bible), and it is through that language that we can be linked to God's Truth. So we do worship language, the language of God.

Therefore, my question, again, is that if part of what Jesus was sent here to do was to bring God's message/salvation to us, then why would Jesus not have contributed directly to that message since writing/language is what connects everyone to Him post 0 A.D.?

And do I believe in the scriptures? That is a good question, I believe that they capture something about God's will and message, but I also know that man has played a direct role in bringing the message to us (e.g. King James Bible). If anything, my question bring about more awareness about the potential harms of "worship to writings" than just accepting that they were divinely inspired and therefore they are perfect? Were the monarch of the English Church who were commissioned by King James to write the translation "perfect" and divinely inspired? I have my doubts...which brings me back to why wasn't Jesus an author of something in the Bible?

 

[Zmouth]

The two common points made are:
1. The writings were divinely inspired.
2. We, as Christians, should not worship the writings.

So the knowledge of the written word evolved from man's own reason and wisdom?

How does man learn to read and write without something in writing in order to learn from?

Of course man's knowledge and command of the written and spoken languages has improved from a simple to a more complex form from which it originated amongst men, yet if true it originated from man's own reason then the precepts by which it originated should be demonstrable.

So how do the cuneiform and hieroglyphic forms evolve from drawn images such as,

which one has to be told its meaning before they can convey the message to others, manifest into

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


​

 

[MattforJesus]

Jesus is the author of the whole Bible,and we know Jesus is God manifest in the flesh,for He is God with us,so why does the man Christ Jesus have to have a written book,when His deity is God,who is the author of the whole Bible,for Jesus already wrote a book,the Holy Bible,for they are not the words of people,but God.

Also Jesus writing a book would not be better than any of the other disciples in truth,for if it comes from God it will be the same message.

Out of 2 or 3 witnesses let everything be established.

God uses humans to convey His message,and it could be that since Jesus is God manifest in flesh,there will not be a book written by Him,and He did not come to write a book,but to preach the kingdom,and reach the lost.

All 4 Gospels tell a different aspect of Jesus.

Matthew:Christ is the Son of David rightful heir to the Messianic throne.Here we see Christ's royal genealogy,the visit by the magi from the East to announce His kingly birth,and the proclamation of His laws in the Sermon on the Mount.

Mark:Here we find Jesus as the Servant of God.Although Jesus came as God to earth,He completely submitted Himself to the will of the Father in heaven and took on the form of a servant.Anything extraneous to that theme is excluded,which is why the narrative contains no references to Jesus's birth or youth.

Luke:To Luke,Jesus is the Son of Man—fully human but unlike any other human being in His perfect submission to God's will. For this reason,Luke traces the genealogy back to Adam(the first human).

John:John presents Jesus as the Son of God—fully divine.Jesus is not only flesh and bones,but He is also the Creator of all things in the beginning(John 1).Jesus reveals His nature as "I am,"a title God gave as His own.''

If we know God is the author of the Bible,then it does not matter who writes the books,the message will be the same.

That might be why there is 4 Gospels so they can all convey a different aspect of Jesus throughout their Gospel.

 

[OneFaith]

I have wanted to get some insight into the following for awhile now:

Why didn't Jesus author at least a portion of the Bible?

I ask for the following reason: Humans are imperfect, our perception of events and memories are imperfect, and our ability to describe things using language is imperfect. Jesus was perfect, and his understanding of God's message was as well: therefore, wouldn't Jesus be a better author than any of his disciples?

I know that the standard response is to say that God divinely inspired the Gospels, and so it is "like" God writing it...but that still does not address why Jesus, the son of God, did not write something directly while on earth. In other words, I have always wondered why God would use middlemen to spread His word when Jesus was here on earth and was sent to convey His message directly.

Serious replies only please! I am genuinely interested in thoughtful explanations.

ALL scripture is God- breathed, it does not come from man. Jesus told His apostles to teach us everything that He told them to. So they are His teachings- the apostles just wrote them down.

 

[silentrob]

Jesus is the author of the whole Bible,and we know Jesus is God manifest in the flesh,for He is God with us,so why does the man Christ Jesus have to have a written book,when His deity is God,who is the author of the whole Bible,for Jesus already wrote a book,the Holy Bible,for they are not the words of people,but God.

Also Jesus writing a book would not be better than any of the other disciples in truth,for if it comes from God it will be the same message.

....

If we know God is the author of the Bible,then it does not matter who writes the books,the message will be the same.

That might be why there is 4 Gospels so they can all convey a different aspect of Jesus throughout their Gospel.

You demonstrate exactly why saying that the Bible is all written by God does not satisfy the question as to why Jesus did not contribute. If this is so (i.e. God wrote the Bible via divine inspiration), then why are there writings from different authors (Mark, Mathew, Luke, etc.)? Why not have one? And moreover, why are the 1604 translations of KJ "more" divinely inspired than other translations?

The other issue is that in your description of the gospels each disciple adds a different "voice" but, if as you assert, it is really a single voice (i.e. the voice of God), then again, why have different voices to begin with? The fact that each disciple adds their humanity to it (i.e. their perspective of Jesus and his message), which I think is good, means that it is divinely inspired but also imperfect because man played a role in writing it...even if it is divinely inspired...that does not mean perfect! This goes back to my original points: wouldn't it be good to have the "pure" voice of God--Jesus as an author?

BTW: To say it is all just "God" provides a nice simple explanation and offers perfect tautology for any argument and I do not subscribe to it, which may explain some of my questions.

 

[silentrob]

"

which one has to be told its meaning before they can convey the message to others, manifest into"

You assume understanding occurs at an individual level. It does not. We do not have to be told anything for something to mean something. We only have to agree something has meaning and share it. As meanings are shared more routinely over time, and across generations, they become more permanent. For example, the meanings of the language used in the KJ version of the Bible has been around for over 400 years and is the dominant interpretation of the Bible. So it has a more permanent impact on the language (and thus meaning) of the Bible than any other written form of the original scriptures. So yes, this can and is easily demonstrable, just not at the individual level...cause meaning is not independent from shared understanding.
​