Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe "Bart" Rossi) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: MailJC Message-ID: Date: 17 Sep 90 07:44:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Jet Propelled Lab - Pasadena CA Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >>strikingly simple, poignant and direct. I suppose, though, it is >>important to note that Jesus never wrote down anything, so maybe > >While there is nothing in the canon that is attributed to Jesus and there >are no writings extant, there is considerable reason to believe that Jesus >may indeed have written something. agreed. I didn't mean to imply I thought Jesus illiterate, or that he had never ever written anything down, but it is apparent perhaps that writing things down was not his forte. One has to wonder if he preferred one on one simple direct communication and maybe even perhaps was supiscious of the "written tradition." Some evidence of this is his hostility towards those who did things to "letter of the law," but were lacking in the "Heart" Department. Anywhere in the gospels does it indicate that Jesus wanted his disciples to write down what he said [don't get me wrong...I'm glad that much of what he said is available] aside from his comments in John pertaining to the "blessed who will hear of him through the disciple's and believe even though they had not seen." He could have meant just those the disciples personally reached as opposed to those throughout time who would read their words. I guess I'm just wondering if Jesus was sensitive to way the written word can be distorted, and perverted, and thus avoided committing his ideas to paper. Just a thought. -- "The affirmation of one's own life-the acceptance of one's destiny as it manifests itself in each moment-is the supreme act of faith."