Since Jesus didn't write his parts in the four gospels...

...the word written "to" could truely be "two" in, say, an english version for an example of much more concerning words Jesus chose to utter by voice than write himself.

It is a good damn reason why Jesus did not write his parts in these gospels we get to read. The reason is maybe Jesus wanted each people to go by the sound of the words written in their language rather than the original written word by translation. The language Jesus spoke may also have words where if written by someone else other than Jesus you could be missing the actual truth in what word Jesus actually uttered verbally.

Here is an example by the english language. Take this gospel quote below and go by what it sounds like in the way that may happen to also make sense, and see if it makes sense or not:

"For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch." What it may sound like: Fore the Sun of Man is ass a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority two his servants, and two every man his work, and commanded the porter two watch.

Well, that's just for starters as to a reason why Jesus chose not to write the exact words he was speaking, but left it up to them which originally wrote what they can only think Jesus spoke. Anyone see what I mean?

Oh yeah, and from the sound like version I take it the two servants watch the porter (baggage carrier or burden carrier) for reasons being the baggage or the burden rather than the porter just watch.

Truth is universal when you uncover it, so I take it the english words written in, say, the KJV can also be translated to what they may also happen to sound like. But what think you?

Here is another last example I'll leave you with:

"Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." What it may sound like: To women, shell bee grinding together; the won shell bee taken, and the other left.

bee would mean to have eccentric or fanciful ideas or schemes. And so I take the sound like version to mean the other is the shell which lost in being, say, a fanciful scheme. See how what it sounds like goes well?

The truth is in truth. Why else did Jesus say "in truth" a lot? It is what it sounds like there. And it's since you have to uncover the uttered secrets from the foundation of the world for yourself. An uttered secret is what it may happen to also sound like. Get what I'm implying now?

A conspiracy is the uttered words have been sealed up by the writings by others other than Jesus himself. It's up to us to wipe away the conspiracy that's coving up the utterance. Utterance is vocal expression which trumps vocal expression being written down by someone other than the one uttering.

 

"32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:"

^^The fig represents the written word different than the utterance, but the tree represents the utterance of a vocally expressed word different than the written word. Ha! I stand correct in where wisdom lies by way of hearing the sound versus going by what is written not by the one giving the utterance.

"Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

^^WHY ELSE IS THAT STATED in the gospel? Huh? Tell me! Because Jesus has secrets revealed only when you go by what a word written happens to also sound like in your ear, since afterall, Jesus did not write his own parts in the gospels for a reason. A reason I've explained in the OP well enough.

I guess it goes in one ear and out the other with certain of you people whom show a lack in being wise persons.

 

But they always ask: "do you want this thing?", a second time; or "do you not know it's price?"

Knowing well, from the Gideons, that we (in our embodiment) are bought. I believe we always pay anyway. But the will is available on the account of insistence that the mood can never be duplicated at an event of the magnitude of ME being becoming.

 

I'm never sure whether some of these things are meant to be taken seriously or not. If the question is why didn't Jesus contribute writings to the gospels (if there is a question instead of a sentence fragment), maybe he couldn't write. I think it would be fairly unusual for a peasant carpenter from Galilee of that era to be literate. Or maybe he was aware that his audience couldn't read. Another question: Since the OP didn't post a coherent topic...

 

Read the Gnostic Gospels.

 

If you mean Thomas, Philip, Mary, and Judas, I have. I don't see anything about them that strikes me as particularly convincing, except maybe for the saying in Thomas:" The Kingdom of Heaven is spread out everywhere around them, but they do not see it. "

 

The Gnostic Gospels are filled with sayings very similar to the one you just mentioned. If that is the only line that strikes you, then you are obviously not looking hard enough. Plus, there are many more than just four books. Try reading The Book of Thomas the Contender, or The Parable of the Pearl, or the Sophia of Jesus Christ...