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]

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.

No, interpreting isn't just needed, it's logically necessary and what everyone does with every text ever written. Refusing to support one's interpretations by saying stuff like "the words are clear" is simply begging the question. Without supporting your interpretation, you've proven nothing else that follows from that. Bad interpretations that contradict don't mean the texts themselves actually contradict. Without support, there is no reason to believe your interpretation is a good one.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

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

2. Paul didn't care what Jesus said or did.

Something doesn't seem right between the two.

I don't know.

2.He claimed that Jesus appeared to him. Belatedly, long after the resurrection.

If Jesus appeared to him, then he appeared to him.

Doesn't matter how long ago after the fact it was.

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.

Cool theory (hallucination theory).

The problem with it is; it doesn't explain the empty tomb, does it?

Nope.

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.

Well, that would be an interesting theory, if it wasn't for the fact that Paul clearly states that he received the information of the event (the last supper), from the Lord (1 Corin 11:23-24).

So obviously, Paul viewed it as a historical event.

And there is nothing else; none of the miracles, none of the teachings. Just page after page of Paul's opinions.

Paul was hand selected by Christ.

When God hand picked someone, their opinions must matter for something.

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.

A unbelieving skeptic is telling us what Paul should have done.

How foolish is that?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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

2. Paul didn't care what Jesus said or did.

Something doesn't seem right between the two.

I don't know.

2.He claimed that Jesus appeared to him. Belatedly, long after the resurrection.

If Jesus appeared to him, then he appeared to him.

Doesn't matter how long ago after the fact it was.

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.

Cool theory (hallucination theory).

The problem with it is; it doesn't explain the empty tomb, does it?

Nope.

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.

Well, that would be an interesting theory, if it wasn't for the fact that Paul clearly states that he received the information of the event (the last supper), from the Lord (1 Corin 11:23-24).

So obviously, Paul viewed it as a historical event.

No 1 Cor.11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
This lookslike Jesus told him - not from men. He also says he didn't get his gospel frommen but from a divine source. We already saw his vision of Jesus was not 'historical' but visionary and thee is the record of a man who went to heaven which we might interpret aspaul hobnobbing with Jesus.
Accordingly, this is visionary, not historical.
Please explain why we should take any of it as 'historical'. The crucifixion, yes, but the Last supper...possibly. Though I repeat that it looks ritualistic, not historical. But that is a matter of opinion, of course.

And there is nothing else; none of the miracles, none of the teachings. Just page after page of Paul's opinions.

Paul was hand selected by Christ.

When God hand picked someone, their opinions must matter for something.

Paul thought he was selected for his mission. There is a difference.

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.

A unbelieving skeptic is telling us what Paul should have done.

How foolish is that?

Not too foolish, if "Interpretation" counts for anything. I haven't made up text evaluation for reliability or not; it has a long history of scholarship. To deny that is what is foolish.

Again, if anyone can come up with a good explanation of why Paul related little or nothing of what Jesus did or said, I'm sure we should love to hear it. I say that it is not what we would expect from a new preached religion based on what Jesus said and did.

[oldbadger]

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

You can't have been reading the whole thread.
I have constantly pointed out that the communion, execution, resurrection and appearances were repeated by Paul, again and again. And yet nothing about his words and deeds through his mission.

All Paul needed from Jesus were those events.

And since you mention the later appearances of Jesus, surely that proves that he never died? The spear thrust probably cleared a lung of blood and fluids, enabling Jesus to breath. I've seen doctors do exactly that in A&E wards. I've got such a wound myself.

The reason why Christianity is a faith is because nothing is certain about any of it, surely?

[1213]

...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.
...

Please give one example?

[SiNcE_1985]

You can't have been reading the whole thread.
I have constantly pointed out that the communion, execution, resurrection and appearances were repeated by Paul, again and again.

And those repeats are essential to Christian doctrine/theology.

And yet nothing about his words and deeds through his mission.

Which is nothing new, considering in the book of Acts, Peter and John were going around preaching without necessarily giving accounts of Jesus' words and deeds through their mission.

What they were doing is preaching the good news on the resurrection and salvation through faith in Christ.

And again, as for Paul, his intent wasn't to give a biography of Jesus, but rather to teach about Christian theology and Christian doctrine.

Since you are an unbeliever, your expectation and/or opinion on what Paul should have done is quite irrelevant.

They did it the way that they did it, according to God's inspiration and will.

All Paul needed from Jesus were those events.

And since you mention the later appearances of Jesus, surely that proves that he never died? The spear thrust probably cleared a lung of blood and fluids, enabling Jesus to breath. I've seen doctors do exactly that in A&E wards. I've got such a wound myself.

The narratives states that he died.

Stick to the narrative.

And besides, if Jesus never died the Apostles knew he never died, then it would have been lunacy for them to go around risking their lives, reputation, and freedom by preaching that Jesus was the risen Messiah sent here by Yahweh to save Israel.

The reason why Christianity is a faith is because nothing is certain about any of it, surely?

The whole Bible is certain.

[TRANSPONDER]

...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.
...

Please give one example?

Why do you keep doing this.

Daylight before the sun, cetan seqwuence validates speciation, validates evolution, debunks 6 day creation.

Slavery.
Resurrection contradictions. All denied by you and time and again you ask'what'. The NT is shot through wih contradictions and you habitualy try to evade, invent and in the end dismiss analytical reasoning and final denial "I don't believe you" or "I don't see it".

It is ultimate in denial and you seem to have the idea that the case doesn't win for the critic, but denial wins the case for you.

[TRANSPONDER]

You can't have been reading the whole thread.
I have constantly pointed out that the communion, execution, resurrection and appearances were repeated by Paul, again and again.

And those repeats are essential to Christian doctrine/theology.

And yet nothing about his words and deeds through his mission.

Which is nothing new, considering in the book of Acts, Peter and John were going around preaching without necessarily giving accounts of Jesus' words and deeds through their mission.

What they were doing is preaching the good news on the resurrection and salvation through faith in Christ.

And again, as for Paul, his intent wasn't to give a biography of Jesus, but rather to teach about Christian theology and Christian doctrine.

Since you are an unbeliever, your expectation and/or opinion on what Paul should have done is quite irrelevant.

They did it the way that they did it, according to God's inspiration and will.

All Paul needed from Jesus were those events.

And since you mention the later appearances of Jesus, surely that proves that he never died? The spear thrust probably cleared a lung of blood and fluids, enabling Jesus to breath. I've seen doctors do exactly that in A&E wards. I've got such a wound myself.

The narratives states that he died.

Stick to the narrative.

And besides, if Jesus never died the Apostles knew he never died, then it would have been lunacy for them to go around risking their lives, reputation, and freedom by preaching that Jesus was the risen Messiah sent here by Yahweh to save Israel.

The reason why Christianity is a faith is because nothing is certain about any of it, surely?

The whole Bible is certain.

But the book of Acts is not what it purports to be - an account of what the apostles did after the resurrection. It is a biographical fantasy based on Paul's letters and a bit of Josephus. Of course there wouldn't be a depiction of the apostles repeating what Jesus said and did because that was already in Luke's gospel.

It isn't what the apostles would reasonably do in preaching Jesus (what he said and did as support for the doctrine) but what Luke needed for his alteration of the gospel and addition of what he learned about Paul.

Just as Paul should (reasonably) have had to say more about what Jesus said and did, but (unaccountably) did not use any of that to support his worked - out theology (Romans) which he got from the divine source (visionary Jesus) not from men (the apostles) and I have reason to believe that Paul avoided talking about Jesus because the man was executed for the usual reasons the Romans did that and the reason even nailed to the mast - Rebellion.

You may see that as fanciful and speculative, but so is all of the Bible and Christianity, and at least my Explanation explains the problems. Yours just waves them away.

[Clownboat]

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.

No, interpreting isn't just needed, it's logically necessary and what everyone does with every text ever written. Refusing to support one's interpretations by saying stuff like "the words are clear" is simply begging the question. Without supporting your interpretation, you've proven nothing else that follows from that. Bad interpretations that contradict don't mean the texts themselves actually contradict. Without support, there is no reason to believe your interpretation is a good one.

I'm not offering an interpretation, just the available words that we have for all to read.

You do bring up a good point though. It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

[William]

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.

No, interpreting isn't just needed, it's logically necessary and what everyone does with every text ever written. Refusing to support one's interpretations by saying stuff like "the words are clear" is simply begging the question. Without supporting your interpretation, you've proven nothing else that follows from that. Bad interpretations that contradict don't mean the texts themselves actually contradict. Without support, there is no reason to believe your interpretation is a good one.

I'm not offering an interpretation, just the available words that we have for all to read.

You do bring up a good point though. It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to the interpret the message.

This reminds me of a short a viewed the other day where one pastor is telling his flock that another pastor who preaches "prosperity gospel" was wrong but that the many thousands who flock to embrace the P.Gospel giving what little they have in the false hope that this will lead to riches from God deserved what they got, because this was Gods judgment upon them and the pastors mis-leading them were Gods' way of judging and sorting out the false from the real.

Here is another take on the P.Gospel.



One could also argue that the rise of the P.Gospel can be traced directly to the history of Christianity, and the underlying claim that Jesus himself was a Christian. Christianity - as we know - didn't exist at the time of Jesus, as it was a later invention by Rome (specifically).