Why didn't Paul write about what Jesus said and did? Or can you show us that he

[oldbadger]

Paul DID constantly explain the communion and the resurrection of Jesus....yes he did.

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Maybe he didn't think that the words and actions of Jesus were that important?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

Or maybe the letters have a different purpose than the gospels. Take John, for example. He quotes Jesus extensively in his gospel, but only once (I think) in his three letters.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

Or maybe the letters have a different purpose than the gospels. Take John, for example. He quotes Jesus extensively in his gospel, but only once (I think) in his three letters.

Paul told about how to live, what to believe, how to congregate and the rest of it. He repeatedly told about the communion and resurrection, but at no point did he write anything such as 'Remember what Jesus said', or 'Look at what Jesus did when....' Let's face it, Paul didn't seem to care about what Jesus said or did.

And John was hardly the Galilean boatman, son of Zebedee; or do you really think that he truly wrote G-John, or letters, or that he lived on the prison island of Petros when Revelation was written?

Paul's whole purpose was to communicate with the congregations all over, and yet not a sentence about his God.......... Nah!

[POI]

do you really think that he truly wrote G-John, or letters

Prolly not, being there is a fair chance 'John' was not literate enough to do so anyways. Writing literacy was not a necessity, and was known by few during this time period. Which then begs the next set of questions... As with any said 'historical document' -- (which is filled with 'said magic'), we can start to ask ourselves; who actually did write this stuff, where exactly did they get their information from, did they add stuff on their own, and what was their bias and/or political motivation(s) - (if any)? Being that "the church" is what ultimately founded 'Christianity', seems a little suspect to me. Being that during these times, a "theocracy" was the way things were.... Just say'n....

[The Tanager]

Paul told about how to live, what to believe, how to congregate and the rest of it. He repeatedly told about the communion and resurrection, but at no point did he write anything such as 'Remember what Jesus said', or 'Look at what Jesus did when....' Let's face it, Paul didn't seem to care about what Jesus said or did.

Talking to specific communities about how to live doesn’t need to have biographical details of Jesus’ life. Some central events (like the communion and resurrection) did impinge specifically on the issues Paul wanted to address.

Paul does seem to quote Jesus on a couple of occasions, though. 1 Cor 7:10-11 about prohibiting divorce and 1 Cor 11:23-25 about the communion. He quotes them because of the direct issue he is addressing at that time. All of his writings are focused on Jesus, especially concerning the death and resurrection.

And John was hardly the Galilean boatman, son of Zebedee; or do you really think that he truly wrote G-John, or letters, or that he lived on the prison island of Petros when Revelation was written?

If you want to support your claim, I’m all eyes.

Paul's whole purpose was to communicate with the congregations all over, and yet not a sentence about his God.......... Nah!

No, just more appropriate sentences about what his God did and applications of what we should do.

[oldbadger]

Paul does seem to quote Jesus on a couple of occasions, though. 1 Cor 7:10-11 about prohibiting divorce ......

Paul couldn't bring himself to mention Jesus's name, even. :-
Corinthians 1 {7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {7:9} But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. {7:10} And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: {7:11} But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife. {7:12} But to the rest speak I, not the Lord

.......... and Paul does speak, all the time, about what to do, say, and more, all for himself.
And by the way, I don't know many Christians who keep such rules today.

............and 1 Cor 11:23-25 about the communion. He quotes them because of the direct issue he is addressing at that time. All of his writings are focused on Jesus, especially concerning the death and resurrection.

I wrote about exactly that in the OP. All that Paul needed was his Lord's communion, death and resurrection. He didn't need anything else, which is how Christianity tended to focus upon Paul's rules and laws before all others.

If you want to support your claim, I’m all eyes.

How old do you think that John BarZebedee was when he went with Jesus?
When do you think he wrote G-John?
When do you think he wrote Revelations, and from where?

No, just more appropriate sentences about what his God did and applications of what we should do.

Are you proposing that the life and times of Jesus, what he said and did...were not appropriate in connection with what Paul's congregations should do?
I think that you've just hit some truth right on the nail!

[oldbadger]

do you really think that he truly wrote G-John, or letters

Prolly not, being there is a fair chance 'John' was not literate enough to do so anyways. Writing literacy was not a necessity, and was known by few during this time period. Which then begs the next set of questions... As with any said 'historical document' -- (which is filled with 'said magic'), we can start to ask ourselves; who actually did write this stuff, where exactly did they get their information from, did they add stuff on their own, and what was their bias and/or political motivation(s) - (if any)? Being that "the church" is what ultimately founded 'Christianity', seems a little suspect to me. Being that during these times, a "theocracy" was the way things were.... Just say'n....

Great post, imo! Thankyou.

John's gospel, letters and Revelation were all produced by Church, I think. Even the church took 2-3 hundred years before it could bring itself to include Revelation in it's book. The churches were founded on dogma which included the inclusion of all kinds of pagan beliefs, followings and rituals for the increase in it's numbers and fold. Even the pagan meeting places were embraced as churches reversed themselves in to those sites and built it's own buildings upon them. Holy pagan people were adopted as Christian Saints across Europe and Conan-Doyle explains all this clearly in his novels about medieval life.

The true story of Jesus does seem to have fitted with the church as neatly as it wanted, it seems to me. It became a 'construct'.

[1213]

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Probably because he was not with Jesus at that time. How could he write about things he did not witness?

[The Tanager]

Paul couldn't bring himself to mention Jesus's name, even. :-

You are saying Paul doesn’t care about Jesus because he calls him “the Lord” instead of “Jesus”?

Corinthians 1 {7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {7:9} But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. {7:10} And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: {7:11} But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife. {7:12} But to the rest speak I, not the Lord

.......... and Paul does speak, all the time, about what to do, say, and more, all for himself.

On occasion, Paul does speak about his own view, noting that they shouldn’t take it as they do anything that Jesus said. This is a rare occasion that he makes this note.

And by the way, I don't know many Christians who keep such rules today.

We do have free will.

I wrote about exactly that in the OP. All that Paul needed was his Lord's communion, death and resurrection. He didn't need anything else, which is how Christianity tended to focus upon Paul's rules and laws before all others.

Why is it a problem that most of his writings apply those central events? That doesn’t mean the other issues are completely ignored or rejected. This isn’t focusing on Paul’s rules above all others.

How old do you think that John BarZebedee was when he went with Jesus?
When do you think he wrote G-John?
When do you think he wrote Revelations, and from where?

You made a claim, you support it with evidence and reasoning answering these questions and more then we can analyze it.

Are you proposing that the life and times of Jesus, what he said and did...were not appropriate in connection with what Paul's congregations should do?
I think that you've just hit some truth right on the nail!

No, I didn’t propose that. Many of the events in Jesus’ life wouldn’t need to be discussed to address a point. Teachings wouldn’t need to be quoted directly for many of them, either. Many were about different issues than Jesus’ teachings in the gospels, but they still share the same kind of principles.

[oldbadger]

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Probably because he was not with Jesus at that time. How could he write about things he did not witness?

So you think that Paul didn't know anything about Jesus, what he said or did?
He pretended to know all about the last supper with communion, or about Jesus's death and resurrection, but couldn't stop telling about those.

Luke wasn't there either, you know, but he even wrote a deposition about the life and times of Jesus.
No...... I think that Paul simply didn't give a hoot about Jesus, the new religion was going to be all about what he thought.