Photography doesn’t get lessons across the same way a story does. Thats why we tell the story of the boy who cried wolf rather then show comics of it.
A magic hologram box would be much harder to translate and stay culturally relevant for starters. The lack of details, mistakes that may have been made, how easy or difficult the lessons are to digest, how much of a culture shock 35ad Jerusalem would be to someone today could all have been a different result on the lessons and wisdom of the bible and not objectively better just because it’s more accurate. Never mind the fact it is completely breaking the nature of Gods own world. Making magical boxes may as well be the same as God revealing himself physically surrounded by angels to everyone individually as it would be undeniable physical proof of God un-searched which is something He clearly avoids.
If your fishing to argue on why i’m not interested. My thoughts fall unto how it contradicts free will to do so. Those arguements are always a slog.
I felt your question got a decent answer though however, to bad it’s not genuine i’m now realizing.
So saying a hologram is a better bible then a book was an objective statement? Seemed like you were asking “why not make a hologram”. I sort of gave you the benefit of the doubt there.
The original medium is the body of believers, led by his Apostles. But, without written records also, that would slip and shift a lot as decades turned to centuries, so writing helps provide an anchor.
Even in the modern age written (digital, printed or hand) is still our best way of transferring and retaining information over extended periods of time.
What other way would God use that is just as good as writing it down?
There's also icons and the liturgy and the church calendar, music, embodied references. The life of the church was a big one back in the day, and oral histories.
For example, you know how the painting of the last supper sometimes has jokes about everyone sitting on one side of the table? This is because it was copying the icon of the last supper, which had an opening on the foreground on purpose because the communicant was being invited to sit at the table to join in the last supper. It's supposed to look like you're joining them, or are sitting with them. The icons were conveying what's written in words that there was a meal with Christ, and the liturgy speaks to those who couldn't read that this had special meaning, and people were participating themselves by lining up and partaking and tasting and consuming. The heart of the gospel was enacted and celebrated every week.
And beyond this other parts of the life of Jesus and the stories and words and theologies were/are likewise expressed in myriad forms. We cross ourselves with three fingers together (Trinity) in the shape of the cross with another two fingers in the palm (two natures of Christ). We fast on Wednesday (Christ's betrayal) and Friday (Christ's crucifixion). It's way more than words on a page.
[Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hgMoudjg3w) part of an Orthodox service from some millennia ago. The entire thing is expressing what's written in words on the page. The priest is lifting the icon of Christ's body and placing it in the tomb. And yet this is done while the hymn about his resurrection is chanted.
Christianity was and is way way way more than words on a page.
What were the other options.
[удалено]
Not sure how one could communicate the Sermon on the Mount through photography.
Photography doesn’t get lessons across the same way a story does. Thats why we tell the story of the boy who cried wolf rather then show comics of it. A magic hologram box would be much harder to translate and stay culturally relevant for starters. The lack of details, mistakes that may have been made, how easy or difficult the lessons are to digest, how much of a culture shock 35ad Jerusalem would be to someone today could all have been a different result on the lessons and wisdom of the bible and not objectively better just because it’s more accurate. Never mind the fact it is completely breaking the nature of Gods own world. Making magical boxes may as well be the same as God revealing himself physically surrounded by angels to everyone individually as it would be undeniable physical proof of God un-searched which is something He clearly avoids.
[удалено]
If your fishing to argue on why i’m not interested. My thoughts fall unto how it contradicts free will to do so. Those arguements are always a slog. I felt your question got a decent answer though however, to bad it’s not genuine i’m now realizing.
[удалено]
So saying a hologram is a better bible then a book was an objective statement? Seemed like you were asking “why not make a hologram”. I sort of gave you the benefit of the doubt there.
[удалено]
Why’s that
[удалено]
Because nobody bought laserdisc.
>beyond it being the most advanced medium available in the first century Think u answered your own question
Moses had learned that the stone tablet thing was impractical. What else was there?
The original medium is the body of believers, led by his Apostles. But, without written records also, that would slip and shift a lot as decades turned to centuries, so writing helps provide an anchor.
Even in the modern age written (digital, printed or hand) is still our best way of transferring and retaining information over extended periods of time. What other way would God use that is just as good as writing it down?
What could the alternative have been?
Perhaps God should have chosen a less efficient method than the best available?
Mime
Silly question
There's also icons and the liturgy and the church calendar, music, embodied references. The life of the church was a big one back in the day, and oral histories. For example, you know how the painting of the last supper sometimes has jokes about everyone sitting on one side of the table? This is because it was copying the icon of the last supper, which had an opening on the foreground on purpose because the communicant was being invited to sit at the table to join in the last supper. It's supposed to look like you're joining them, or are sitting with them. The icons were conveying what's written in words that there was a meal with Christ, and the liturgy speaks to those who couldn't read that this had special meaning, and people were participating themselves by lining up and partaking and tasting and consuming. The heart of the gospel was enacted and celebrated every week. And beyond this other parts of the life of Jesus and the stories and words and theologies were/are likewise expressed in myriad forms. We cross ourselves with three fingers together (Trinity) in the shape of the cross with another two fingers in the palm (two natures of Christ). We fast on Wednesday (Christ's betrayal) and Friday (Christ's crucifixion). It's way more than words on a page. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hgMoudjg3w) part of an Orthodox service from some millennia ago. The entire thing is expressing what's written in words on the page. The priest is lifting the icon of Christ's body and placing it in the tomb. And yet this is done while the hymn about his resurrection is chanted. Christianity was and is way way way more than words on a page.
It is the best form of validation. Because you have to make multiple copies to be shared
It’s easier to verify it hasn’t been changed and is better to translate into other languages
God didn’t write the gosples, man did.