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?

[SiNcE_1985]

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?

Or, maybe Paul's intention wasn't to write a biography of Jesus but rather to write about things pertaining to Christian theology.

Which is what he did.

[The Tanager]

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

All words must be interpreted and those interpretations can't just be begged if one is after a rational discussion.

[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?

Or, maybe Paul's intention wasn't to write a biography of Jesus but rather to write about things pertaining to Christian theology.

Which is what he did.

Ha ha! Well fancy that!
So Paul could write many letters to the young churches ....which included nothing about the Christian God!
That just shows how far removed from 'church' Jesus's life, words and actions had been.

[1213]

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.

But you can't prove there is an error. And it has been shown that the history of science is full of errors. Science can't prove Bible wrong. If it could, you could show it easily, but you can't.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

But you can't prove there is an error. And it has been shown that the history of science is full of errors. Science can't prove Bible wrong. If it could, you could show it easily, but you can't.

But this applies even more to the Bible and Christian apologetics. The difference is that Science accepts errors (it is built on the idea of correcting mistaken hypotheses) while the Bible, religion and Christian apologetics have been shown wrong time and again, and the believers only refuse to admit the mistakes and insist that what is not on all reason and evidence, is false is somehow true.

Not only does the Bible fail and Bible apologetics fail, but the very basis on the epistemology, logic and even understanding of the subject is a faitl, and we are left only with denial, Faithclaims and not wanting to understand.

I know it is pointless to appeal to some kind of better nature as Faith makes you feel you are doing it right even when it is demonstrably wrong, but you might at least get the point that your invention, fiddling of the Bible and making stuff up is not going to persiude others or make a case. It is simply about

(1) denying anything that might get you to look at your faithclaims objectively
(2) betting that enough people are similarly deluded that they will support your Faithclaims.

In the USA, if not in Europe, Christianity is relying on Votes (numbers) rather than the best case.

[SiNcE_1985]

Ha ha! Well fancy that!
So Paul could write many letters to the young churches ....which included nothing about the Christian God!
That just shows how far removed from 'church' Jesus's life, words and actions had been.

Hmm.

Funny you should mention that lol.

Let's see, in 1 Corin 15:3-7, Paul is writing to the Church in Corinth and he mentions..

1. Jesus' death
2. Jesus' burial
3. Jesus' resurrection
4. Jesus' post mortem appearances

He mentions these things, despite not being an original follower of Jesus...and he wrote these things before the biographies..and he also wrote it to an already established Church.

He also writes about the events of the last supper (1 Corin 11:17-34), despite those same reasons I just mentioned.

Jesus was already a pop star by then and his death/resurrection only magnified his legendary status.

Now, that is the long answer.

The short answer is simple; it worked, didn't it?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Or, maybe Paul's intention wasn't to write a biography of Jesus but rather to write about things pertaining to Christian theology.

Which is what he did.

This is just excuses for the question - when trying to argue and persuade in the letters after Romans and explain his reasoning in Romans, Paul never one used Jesus as support for his arguments.

Thus the reasonable person must wonder why the doings and sayings of Jesus are ignored so much.

You propose the idea that Paul had other things to write about, but why, when Jesus said and Jesus did is bread and butter of Christian argument?

Others propose that Paul did not know or did not want to know what Jesus said or did. It is a question of the browsers (as always) and whether your excuse is more probable or that the Bible is seriously open to question is the reasonable approach.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is just excusesfor the question - when trying to argue and persuade in the letters after Romans and explain his reasoning in Romans, Paul never one used Jesus as support for his arguments.

Thus the reasonable person must wonder why the doings and sayings of jesus are ignored so much.

You propose the idea that Paul had other things to write about, but why, when Jesus said and Jesus did is bread and butter of Christian argument?

Others propose that Paul did not know or did not want to know what Jesus said or did. It is a question of the browsers (as always) and whether your excuse is more probable or that the Bible is seriously open to question is the reasonable approach.

Hmm, he didn't care what Jesus said or did.. yet..

1. He preached the resurrection as a historical fact and stressed it's significance.

2. He knew of and spoke of the last supper and quoted Jesus during the event.

3. He claimed that Jesus appeared to him.

4. He got the approval of the original Apostles and was a leader of the early Church and suffered for his beliefs in Christ.

Doesn't quite sound like someone who doesn't know or care about what Jesus taught.

But hey.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is just excusesfor the question - when trying to argue and persuade in the letters after Romans and explain his reasoning in Romans, Paul never one used Jesus as support for his arguments.

Thus the reasonable person must wonder why the doings and sayings of jesus are ignored so much.

You propose the idea that Paul had other things to write about, but why, when Jesus said and Jesus did is bread and butter of Christian argument?

Others propose that Paul did not know or did not want to know what Jesus said or did. It is a question of the browsers (as always) and whether your excuse is more probable or that the Bible is seriously open to question is the reasonable approach.

Hmm, he didn't care what Jesus said or did.. yet..

1. He preached the resurrection as a historical fact and stressed it's significance.

2. He knew of and spoke of the last supper and quoted Jesus during the event.

3. He claimed that Jesus appeared to him.

4. He got the approval of the original Apostles and was a leader of the early Church and suffered for his beliefs in Christ.

Doesn't quite sound like someone who doesn't know or care about what Jesus taught.

But hey.

Not the way you present it - which is the Christian apologetics way.

Let me present it is the Questioning way which accounts for the problems, while your way ignores them.

1. Paul took over the belief in a resurrection from Jesus' followers, yes.

2.He claimed that Jesus appeared to him. Belatedly, long after the resurrection. Thius it was a vision and Paul equates that with the apostolic visiopns, swhich moreover do not match the gospel accounts. Thus the apostles arguably saw Jesus in their heads, just as Paul did.

3.He does refer to the last supper quot in an almost ritualistic way,like a declaration of why he was being 'handed over' (betrayal) to the lords of the world (Romans) who crucified him not knowing what they were doing. This looks more to me as a ritual enactment of a piece of theology rather than a description of an actual event. And there is nothing else; none of the miracles, none of the teachings. Just page after page of Paul's opinions.

4.Paul worked hard to get approval for his mission to the gentiles,like passing the tin around the churches to buy his way in with relief for the 45 AD famine. We only get Paul's side that nothing was laid on him but what seems to be the rules for gentile God -believers. But afterwards we get hints of opposition, warning against 'gospels' other than his own and even sneering at 'super -apostles'. This is arguable and we only get Paul's side and he is not very open, but it looks like he got an inch from the Nazoreans under James and took a mile.

Thus I suggest (people must decide, or argue with me ) that Paul borrowed a vision of a spirit Jesus, adapted it to suit gentiles, and fought the Jewish Christians, who were the ones who had known Jesus and what he did and said. Which is why Paul says virtually nothing about that.

Bible apologists can only use weak dismissals like'Paul wasn't writing about that'. By all reason, he should have been.

[Clownboat]

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

All words must be interpreted and those interpretations can't just be begged if one is after a rational discussion.

No interpreting is needed. The words are clear and clearly not inspired if you ask me.

Here's more:
Eph 5:2 Paul says: And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Matt 9:13 Jesus says: Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'.

1 Cor 4:15 Paul says: For though you have countless leaders in Christ…
Matt 23:10 Jesus says: Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader,

1 Cor 4:15 Paul says: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Matt 23:9 Jesus says: And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

If there was an all powerful God behind these writings, I would think there wouldn't be so much of this.