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?

[POI]

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.

Somewhat related to this topic, (writings vs. preaching):

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41566

[SiNcE_1985]

But the book of Acts is not what it purports to be - an account of what the apostles did after the resurrection.

Yet, the book details exactly 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.

First off, Luke's Gospel wasn't circulating during the events in the book of Acts.

Second, even if what you say is true (which it isn't), that wouldn't stop the Apostles from repeating what Jesus said and did over the course of their ministry campaigns as they went on their preaching and testifying tours.

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.

Paul did more than just talk about Jesus, he deified him.

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.

I've addressed all of your points, sir.

[The Tanager]

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.

You weren't just listing verses, you made a claim based off of your understanding of those verses. If you aren't offering an interpretation, then your claim that Paul's teachings contradict Jesus' teachings is empty because one must offer interpretations of both texts to say they contradict.

But now you want to make a different claim. Okay, will you support that one? Why isn't it logical for God to have some things that require certain knowledge to properly understand it?

[TRANSPONDER]

But the book of Acts is not what it purports to be - an account of what the apostles did after the resurrection.

Yet, the book details exactly what the Apostles did after the resurrection.

It is a biographical fantasy based on Paul and a bit of Josephus.

It is a biographical fantasy based on Paul's letters and a bit of Josephus.

?

You are at a loss, sir Because Christian propagandists never see (nor want to see) these problems. First off, Luke alters the angelic message to go to Galilee, because he knows from Paul that they stayed in Jerusalem and founded the 'Church'. Second off, he knows from Paul that Jesus appeared to Simon and 'then' the others. So he altered the gospel to get an appearance to Simon in there, and i suspect the returning Jesus giving scriptural lessons was supposed to cover the 500 disciples all at once. Christian savant apologists ignore all this and just teach you that Luke 'exactly' relates what happened when they should see that he fiddles so much of it,

Third off, he sorta sees, sir, that Paul's belated vision of Jesus was ...visionary and he works out that it should be between racing to Damascus to ruin Christians callcenters there and being converted when he is there. So a sorta Vision is invented on the way. Yet Paul suggests it was a visit to the Third heaven where Jesus told him his gospel, I suppose, as Paul got it from above, not from men. So the conversion doesn't fit what Paul says.

Nor does the escape from Damascus. Paul says it was to escape the Nabatean army. He absurdly claims they were after him, but he simply fled danger leaving is fellow Christians to face the heat. Luke relates this bit of Bio. but alters it to smear the Jews, saying it was a plot to kill him (cue the 'weaving together' apologetic).
The council of Jerusalem in Paul is a private chat with James and maybe a couple of others (though he apparently quarreled with Peter) but Luke can't resist turning this into a full council hearing with all the Jews on one side and all the Christians on the other and Peter acting the lawyer for Paul, and quoting Paul too. The Law is a burden their fathers could not bear.

"?" as you say. Jews would say the law is their treasure and joy and only Paul depicts it as a burden - because we can see he was not a good Jew and his 'sin' in not keeping the Law was a burden to him.

Finally I submit two bits of Josephus - Gamaliel's speech, which links the 'Census' with the Roman takeover, not something in Herod's time, but he gets the rebellions in the wrong order - Judas' being in 6/7 AD and that of Theudas is later..under procurator Felix, I recall. Then there is the death of Herod Agrippa, taken wholesale from Josephus, but replacing the Owl with the more Christian angel.

There are other points, but those are the main ones. Over to you, sir.

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.

First off, Luke's Gospel wasn't circulating during the events in the book of Acts.

Second, even if what you say is true (which it isn't), that wouldn't stop the Apostles from repeating what Jesus said and did over the course of their ministry campaigns as they went on their preaching and testifying tours.

But Luke had evidently written the gospel before Acts, so he knew he didn't have to show the apostles telling anyone about Jesus, because it was all in 'the previous book'. Second, you agree with me. The apostles could and one would expect, should be telling people what Jesus did and said. That Acts contains nothing of that tells me (and I propose it to anyone else) that Luke didn't need to repeat his gospel material in his Apostles fantasy.

You can't show what I say isn't true (a dismissing faithclaim, which means nothing) but I can show evidence of borrowing from Paul and Josephus, and getting it wrong, too.

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.

?

You are at a loss again sir, because your mentors and teachers ignore these matters. As I have said, Acts is as silent as Paul on what Jesus said and did, Paul because (I propose) he didn't like it and Luke, because he didn't need it.

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.

Paul did more than just talk about Jesus, he deified him.

You change the subject, I see. You say below you answered all my points, sir. You evaded them all sir and answered nothing, sir.

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.

I've addressed all of your points, sir.

It's a hypothesis, but explains all the problems (missed or ignored by all those Bible Experts, that Jesus was executed for a Messianic rebellion (He said he was king of tte Jews) and the gospels is shot through with zealot rebellion, papered over with Christian wallpaper. If Jesus was a messianic rebel, so were the apostles, and that is why Paul worked for the Sanhedrin to oppose or expose them, because he was a Roman Citizen. It makes no sense that he was against Jesus as a failed messiah, but perfect sense if his followers were messianic subversives.

Why then, change? That his mission was to the gentiles explains it. He knew that the religion he believed (phariseeism) envisaged a last days with God saving his people. Paul wanted his fellow Romans to be saved, too, so he had to sell them God -belief. He needed to junk the Mosaic law, which the Romans would never accept, and used Jesus' death as a blood sacrifice for all sins - if they believed in God, like Abraham... no scrub that, in Jesus as the risen messiah.

That's what I propose and there is evidence for it. It's uncommon doctrine, I know, but it addresses the problems; Christian apologetics ignores them, sir.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]
Messianic Military Rebel and Blood Magic Atonement dont fit together in my book!

Isnt it part of Jesus Blood Magic that he was innocent and freely out of his own will gave himself into the hands of his Executors?

Paul wanting to protect all romankind from Dantes Inferno also seems to me a Fairy Tale.
And hell was borrowed from greek mithology.
And the principle of Atonement through believe that a military leader was Jahwe in person was thought up by the apostolic adjutants and later Paul decided to buy that Hogwash?

[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?

Why do you keep doing this.

Because you don't seem to understand my answers.

Daylight before the sun

With this you have only shown that you can't understand any other light than sun light.

cetan seqwuence validates speciation, validates evolution, debunks 6 day creation.

No it doesn't. And also, even if things would have been created as told in the Bible, it could mean that there happens some kind of variation, as we all can see, not all are identical to Noah's family.

Slavery.

The subject of slavery has shown that atheists are hypocrites. They claim they are against slavery, but still support mandatory taxation, which is worse than Biblical 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".

There is contradictions only if you don't understand it correctly.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]
Messianic Military Rebel and Blood Magic Atonement dont fit together in my book!

Isnt it part of Jesus Blood Magic that he was innocent and freely out of his own will gave himself into the hands of his Executors?

Paul wanting to protect all romankind from Dantes Inferno also seems to me a Fairy Tale.
And hell was borrowed from greek mithology.
And the principle of Atonement through believe that a military leader was Jahwe in person was thought up by the apostolic adjutants and later Paul decided to buy that Hogwash?

They don't fit together in mine either, and evidently they didn't fit together in Paul's book which is why what Jesus really said and did (apart from the Last Supper christian bread and wine magic and the fact of crucifixion), is entirely left out of any of Paul's letters.

It is indeed part of the atonement for sin that Jesus gave himself freely to be handed over to the Lords of the World (who would never have executed them if they had known what they were doing, so Forgive them, as Luke says, again borrowing from Paul - which of course no other gospel has.

I know it's a bit radical,and the most any usually go is make Jesus a reforming Rabbi, though some do say a failed messiah. But is is seen as a meek humble Messiah, not one that intended to start a rebellion.

Do you see how this explanation makes sense of these problems, which are indeed Problems, although of course the Bible Experts never mention them and hope nobody else will notice.

[otseng]

How foolish is that?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting about others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.

Because you don't seem to understand my answers.

Daylight before the sun

With this you have only shown that you can't understand any other light than sun light.

cetan seqwuence validates speciation, validates evolution, debunks 6 day creation.

No it doesn't. And also, even if things would have been created as told in the Bible, it could mean that there happens some kind of variation, as we all can see, not all are identical to Noah's family.

Slavery.

The subject of slavery has shown that atheists are hypocrites. They claim they are against slavery, but still support mandatory taxation, which is worse than Biblical 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".

There is contradictions only if you don't understand it correctly.

I understand your answers and refut them and yet you keep denting, everything and repeating the debunked arguments. And example ..let me check...yes it's you,is the Marys splitting up.There is NO reason to propose this and every reason to dismiss it and it doesn't really help anyway. This is an example of refuted apologetic invention and denial and pretending you were never debunked.

I thank nongod every day that I am a rationalist and don't have to deal with such deniual. I'fI'm wrong, I put up my hand and move on.

What more you got? Some pitiful excuse of variation in Noah's family explains the evidence of speciation from a land critter to a sea mamma? Your feeble attempt at an excuse must make even creationists laugh.

Atheists are not hypocrites, it is Bible apologists who are dishonest and hypocritical because they try to use the paying of taxes and somew howequivalent to slavery.

Folks, don't ever make me dictator Though I reckon \I'd be a better one than Trump, or I'd give all these fact - denying Bible apologists the option not pay taxes, and I'd let them do it and stop national amenities the taxes pay for and see how they like it.

[The Tanager]

As I’ve looked into it more, I think there are quite a few more comments of what Jesus said and did, extending beyond the death, resurrection, and communion.

Don’t repay evil for evil (Rom 12:17)
Jesus was meek and gentle (2 Cor 10:1)
Jesus was selfless (Phil 2:5-6, Rom 15:3))
Marriage (1 Cor 7:10-11)
Receiving money for proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 9:14)
(Un)cleanliness (Rom 14:14)
Jesus’ return being like a thief in the night (1 Thess 4:15, 5:2)
Paying taxes (Rom 13:6-7)
Loving neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:9)
Faithful stewards (1 Cor 4:2)
Faith that can move mountains (1 Cor 13:2)
Calling God “Abba” (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6)
Jesus’ genealogy (Gal 3:16, Rom 1:3, 2 Tim 2:3, Gal 4:4, Gal 1:19, 1 Cor 9:5)
Jesus being poor (2 Cor 8:9)
Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all people (1 Tim 2:6)

Paul also laments not having a command from Jesus on virgins (1 Cor 7:25), which shows his respect for Jesus’ teachings on matters. Paul also talks about sharing the traditions of their faith with his people (1 Cor 11:2). Those would have also taken place outside of these letters and wouldn’t need repeated in letters addressing specific topics. But when they do, Paul uses Jesus’ teachings as seen above.

Books to look into on this issue include David Wenham’s Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?, James Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem and Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Wrenham (which I haven’t read yet) supposedly notes allusions of Paul’s teachings including Jesus’ baptism by John, the temptation, commissioning Peter, transfiguration, “Son of Man” statements, parables of the sower and prodigal son, teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (not sure if this extends beyond not repaying evil for evil), peacemaking, cutting off sin-causing parts, taking up your cross, drinking his cup and sharing his baptism,