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]

If Paul and Jesus are talking about the exact same thing, then these could be contradictions. Why do you think, from the contexts, they are talking about the exact same thing in each pair of verses?

[Example #1 (Rom 13:12 and Luke 21:8) - you gave no reason

Example #2 (Rom 14:9 and Luke 20:38) - you gave no reason

Example #3 (Rom 9:15-18 and Matt 5:7) - you gave no reason

Example #4 (Eph 1:7, Rom 4:25 and Matt 6:14-15) -]

From the words:
Paul: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses
Jesus: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you,

Blood is involved with how Paul's religion has forgiveness come about. (Christianity)
Jesus's claimed words do not involve blood, just compassion. (Mahayana Buddhism perhaps?)

Jesus talks about his blood being for the forgiveness of sins as well, though (Matt 26:28). Matt 6:14-15 isn’t a teaching on how to be saved, but about not being a hypocrite who is praying for forgiveness from God but doesn't want to forgive others.

Example #5 (Rom 3:24-28, Rom 5:9 and Matt 12:37) - you gave no reason

The fact that there are so many examples like the few I have supplied is what matters and it suggest what many of us suspect already, that Paul was out to create a new religion. Sure it is based off of the claimed sacrifice of Jesus, but that is not a requirement if we heed the claimed words of this Jesus.

If you have interpreted those passages (and the other ones you allude to) correctly, sure, but you need to establish that.

Example #6 (Rom 6:23 and Matt 19:29)

Take getting eternal life, the main reward the religions claims awaits after death:
Rom 6:23 Paul says: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal live in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Matt 19:29 Jesus says: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

How are these different? Paul says eternal life is found in Jesus and the Matthew passage is about those who have left family, houses, etc. to follow Jesus (v. 27). Following Jesus leads to eternal life in both.

Example #7

Paul on creating his church:
1 Cor 12:28 Paul says: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers.
Eph 4:11 Paul says: And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1st Tim 2:7 Paul says: For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Now Jesus:
Matt 23:8 Jesus says: But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
John 10:16 Jesus says: And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold, I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one pastor (shepherd).
It's like Paul is justifying creating a church while Jesus tells us that we only have one teacher (God).

Jesus talks about building a church as well (Matt 16:18). Matt 23, in context, is about how the Jewish religious leaders were not practicing what they preached (v. 3), put burdens on others and don’t lift a finger (4), do what they do to be seen by others (5), want to be called Rabbi as a sign of prowess (7), etc. The context is about humility (11-12) and how one leads/serves, not what kind of stuff one does (like teaching) or having titles for those roles.

These seemingly differing opinions about both religious ideas are not in short supply and is what has caused me to notice that Paul and Jesus were not unified.

I understand the reasoning, I just don’t see any division in what you have shared.

[TRANSPONDER]

O would expect the gospels and Paul to agree on a number of things, if - as i have argued - the content of Jesus saids were based on Paul's views anyway. But, apart from the impression I get that Paul never suggested that Jesus was God incarnated, but a man who took upon himself the sins of the world (or had them dumped on him by the 'spirit') to be atonedon one big sacrifice for sins, the problems lie rather in Paul's surprising reticence in avoiding saying anything about what Jesus did.

After all, I see (I suggest) Romans as an explanatory thesis, based rather on theological reasoning, rather than Jesus saying so and his Authority being that he healed the sick and raised the dead. Nor in writing to his Churches does he refer to this stuff he (in the gospels) did or said, despite the conversion being in evidently an early stage (for example that the Corinthians had rather upset his thesis in Romans that Jesusfaith would make them plaster saints only to find out that they appeared to think that freedom from sin left them free to party with their aunties). He refers back to his 'Thesis' several times, but never refers to anything other than this oddly ritualistic last Supper speech and the claim of resurrection.

The former (I suggest and suspect) being a 'handing over' (betrayal) not by Judas, but by God to make the redemption - plan work...something that the gospel - writers seem to have overlooked, like centuries of Bible Savants after that.

The resurrection itself, (forgive me if I have said this before) does not look, in Paul, much like the events in the gospels, Paul seeing no difference between his vision of the resurrected Jesus and the others, and nor do I, the Gospel accounts being so contradictory that I (on evidence) regard them as concoctions added onto the original story which was no more than an empty tomb (John has no explanatory angel, even) if we take Mark as the earliest evangelical version of what happened after the entombment.

The upshot being, why is that hypothesis not tenable, or even preferable, given the contradictory nature of the gospel accounts?

[oldbadger]

Could it be that Mark just didn't know that they moved closer, when Jesus was dying? Perhaps Mark left and didn't know that the others moved closed in the end?

What a massive stretch that was, eh? Jesus's mother suddenly taking an interest in her first son and risking her neck by approaching the execution site?
I expect that the church needed to introduce a female diety in to the religion to replace pagan Godesses.
Roman soldiers would have kicked, beaten and struck any locals getting anywhere near them at an execution.

And you know that because you were there watching?

I know that because Romans were not much loved by the people of the Palestinian provinces.
Had you been there you wouldn't have got anywhere near a section of Roman soldiers......that's fairly certain!

[TRANSPONDER]

Could it be that Mark just didn't know that they moved closer, when Jesus was dying? Perhaps Mark left and didn't know that the others moved closed in the end?

What a massive stretch that was, eh? Jesus's mother suddenly taking an interest in her first son and risking her neck by approaching the execution site?
I expect that the church needed to introduce a female diety in to the religion to replace pagan Godesses.
Roman soldiers would have kicked, beaten and struck any locals getting anywhere near them at an execution.

And you know that because you were there watching?

I know that because Romans were not much loved by the people of the Palestinian provinces.
Had you been there you wouldn't have got anywhere near a section of Roman soldiers......that's fairly certain!

Our pal is grasping at straws here. The 'reporter notebook' apologetic is damn near a fallacy. I counter it with a contradictory apologetic 'Campfire stories'.

Sorry, it's what I do . The reality is that the supposed eyewitnesses all swapped stories about Jesus and what he said and did. Not only should they ALL have known really important stuff (Biggies) but apologists use it to explain how they knew things they couldn't have known - they heard it afterwards.

And yet they try to argue like the 'witnesses' were jotting it all down in a notebook and never updated it later. This idea is a silly one and they contradict it themselves. They either knew all the details or they didn't know important things; it cannot be both.

But as we know, logic, reason and evidence and even intellectual integrity doesn't matter - it is all about Faith, which is to say, refusing to accept they might be wrong.

Another fallacy and again an irrational one is the above point - 'Were you there?' which applies to the NT as well as the OT. It is simply more 'science denial' which is to say that historical knowledge, about conditions at the time or how people reacted or even (as we have seen) what they meant when they wrote is denied as much as in evolution - denial.

Were you there?' or 'As you didn't see it with your own eyes, you (we) cannot know what happened'.

Evidence is denied. But it cuts both ways.... bear with me, I know Believers dismiss this but it will count, later... nobody was there, so their interpretation of how people acted, how they thought or what they meant is just as open to dismissal as 'science' or the skeptic view of scripture.

"But the Bible says..." The Bible says that the women ran into Jesus, but Luke has no such thing. We have seen the attempt to fiddle what's in the Bible to make Belief work when it does not.

It isn't evidence counts here but denial of the evidence in favor of Faith, and it always was. It's why self -contradiction, double -standards denial of everything is the operational norm. e,g keyword exegesis (including skipping over the point, losing the thread and forgetting and denying what they posted a page ago) and a snarky quip or grubby accusation is as good an argument as referencing a science paper. Evidence doesn't matter and lies are ok to support what is Known to be rue On Faith. That is the key to understanding Bible apologetics.

That's the Best view. There are those who appear to be just in it for money and power, but all the Believers here are real believers, I deem, but a lack of intellectual honesty in argument is ok, and part of the game, as evidence only matters when it supports the Faith. That is why false arguments are ok. Logic never mattered; "God's Logic" was all that ever mattered. The best case based on the evidence (what's in the Bible) never mattered; it was always how far denial could stretch to Keep the Faith, which is all that ever mattered.

As an example (and for once not our pal 1213 but JW on the Passover timing). The disciples ate it last thing Thursday before the arrest at Gethsemane, Friday at night with the trial Friday daylight. But the priests hadn't eaten Passover yet, says John, so the Passover was Saturday at the earliest A contradiction. our pal JW did a great effort (is somewhat fiddled) to excuse this and ended up with a Draw, with the possibility that the Sanhedrin could eat Passover any time during the week.

I doubt that Passover wasd a vague as that, but I couldn't find proof of it. But the point is that burden of proof should be on those to show that Passover need not fall on the same day for everyone, but a mere possibility (with all the evidence actually saying different) had to be the 'Best Explanation because it supported the Bible, or rather, the Faith.

It is a different approach to logic and evidence and we have to understand faithbased thinking.

[1213]

If the Bible is just a collections of the writings of men, your explanation would make sense.
If there was an all powerful and all knowing god concept behind the writings, what you say wouldn't make sense.

Why would it not make sense, if God would be behind the writings?

By what is said in the Bible, it is a collection of writings of men (at least mostly). But, I believe God has guided those people.

[1213]

I know that because Romans were not much loved by the people of the Palestinian provinces.
Had you been there you wouldn't have got anywhere near a section of Roman soldiers......that's fairly certain!

Sorry, you offer no good reason to believe they could not have moved closer when Jesus was dying.

[oldbadger]

[

Sorry, you offer no good reason to believe they could not have moved closer when Jesus was dying.

That's alright, I forgive you. No need for sorrow.
That Roman soldiers were very wary of The people of occupied lands is an extremely good reason.

By the way, apart from the claims that Jesus died, I have no reason to believe that he did. I think that he lived on after the events of that week. There are several strong arguments for that.

[TRANSPONDER]

If the Bible is just a collections of the writings of men, your explanation would make sense.
If there was an all powerful and all knowing god concept behind the writings, what you say wouldn't make sense.

Why would it not make sense, if God would be behind the writings?

By what is said in the Bible, it is a collection of writings of men (at least mostly). But, I believe God has guided those people.

It does not make sense on evidence because it has errors. Contradictions and denial of science that would invalidate it as anything but the false opinions of men.

Thus it makes no sense to postulate a god behind a book that is unreliable. It makes 'sense' to assume there is no god behind it, just as the Christian assumes there is no god behind any other holy hooks.

I know that because Romans were not much loved by the people of the Palestinian provinces.
Had you been there you wouldn't have got anywhere near a section of Roman soldiers......that's fairly certain!

Sorry, you offer no good reason to believe they could not have moved closer when Jesus was dying.

I looked back and this seems to be about where the women were and who heard what. I already addressed this in the post on the swapping of stories after the events vs. an apparently daily news version taken straight from the notebook.

Without even looking at the contradictions and aside making stuff up to get around the problems, the idea that contradictions can be excused by supposing they had never talked about some of these stunning events afterwards is not believable, other than to those who want to believe what is unbelievable, on Faith. But again, their denial of evidence, logic or what the Bible actually says, doesn't matter - Their Faith being maintained through denial is not the issue - the case that best fits the evidence is the case, but the Faithful never understand that.

[Clownboat]

I understand the reasoning, I just don’t see any division in what you have shared.

I provided the sources (scriptures) and see no need to provide reasons. The words are there for all of us to read.

The words I quoted being from a Jesus, no one actually knows if they were said by any such person. Same goes for the claims about a Jesus building a church and other explanations. The truth of the matter is that what people claimed a Jesus said are explanations that are retroactive to what Paul had already claimed (I believe there is a reason you are finding your explanations in John and Matthew for example and also why we have no recorded writings from a Jesus himself).

It's logical to me that there was a Jesus or Jesus's that had a message. It also seems that Paul created a religions based around the message of this (these) person.

If Jesus was a god and had a message for all of humanity, it is a shame nothing was written down by said god though. I certainly see differences between the words of Paul and the claims of Jesus though from within the book itself and my explanations don't require any miracles and honestly just place Christianity to be on the same playing field as all other religious options (no special pleading needed).

I do agree that there are contradictions in the Bible though, but more on what I suspect was

Matt 19:29 Jesus says: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Matt 19:17 - It is also claimed that Jesus said to keep the commandments to get eternal life.
Most Christian's will note that these mechanism are NOT how eternal life is now claimed to be obtained. Paul's religions is about a blood sacrifice while Jesus offers other avenues.
Ask yourself if the prayer of salvation seems to be a Paul thing or a Jesus thing. I know what I suspect.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #49]

If Jesus was a god and had a message for all of humanity, it is a shame nothing was written down by said god though.

The only record we have of Jesus writing something, was in the dust. It is not revealed to us what he wrote in the dust, but what is revealed in the action, is that writing things down (on parchment) amounts to the same thing.

Further clues to this can be gained in understanding how a god actually "writes things" in relation to human being "reading" those things.

Re the thread subject, does Paul go into any detail on how God writes things for human to read, and if so, are they the same as what Jesus said, or contrary.

Indeed, did Jesus tell how God interacts with individuals?