QuickPoll
Reader Feedback
Nick responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nate responds to "The Progressive D…"
chandani responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nick responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nate responds to "The Progressive D…"
chandani responds to "The Progressive D…"
What if Jesus had been a writer?
What if instead of a "bible" composed of several books by dozens of authors over the centuries, Jesus had taken time out of his travels to write the parables and blessings himself? What if instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we had just one book -- the book of Jesus?
We might assume that had Jesus written and published his own teachings, poor fishermen would not have seen it necessary to chronicle them after his death.
The priests and scholars of the early church would have seen no need to compile the myriad writings about God and Jesus into a collection.
We would have no bible.
Instead, we would have Parables and Blessings by J. Christ. We would know Jesus' teachings, but everything we would know about the man himself would come from the "About the Author" box on the back flap:
"Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, Israel on December 25, 0, to an unwed mother. Growing up in Nazareth, he displayed an unusual fondness for spiritual matters, and in his adult years, he travels the country giving captivating speeches and attracting crowds."
After his ascension, the editors might add something about his rising from the dead to the second printing.
How would we be different?
Without Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us "Jesus told this parable:", would we read the parable of the mustard seed and insist on planting them in our backyard as the "seeds of Jesus"?
Perhaps we would take the parable literally and miss the point entirely.
I bring this up because many books in the bible are a lot like what I've described. They were the words of spiritual leaders and prophets to their followers.
Why should we insist on taking those books literally as long as we aren't all planting mustard seed gardens?
six comments: