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?

[oldbadger]

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

I'm saying that Paul didn't care about Jesus at all. Now the authors of G-John raised Jesus up to 'Lord', only 40-50 years after Paul's letters were written, but they tried to include some anecdotes about Jesus, but with Paul it is 'not so'.

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.

Everything that Paul wrote was his own view. If Paul wanted the congregations 'to do as Jesus said' then I just wonder why he never wrote a sentence about 'what Jesus did or said'.

We do have free will.

....not if you are so keen to get to your heaven you aren't!
And only a few hundred years ago (where I live) they tortured, executed and murdered Christians who thought they had free-will.

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.

Yes, it does mean that 'other issues' including Paul's God's own actions and words are ignored.
And Yes, Paul is focusing upon his rules above all others.

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

So you need a basic lesson in how to date timelines in the bible. OK. I cannot write a volume to you for the purposes of showing how John's gospel and his attributed-Revelation were dated and placed by contexts, references, language and all....... you'll study this all for yourself or not. I'll just tell you that researchers have dated both to between 90-110 AD. And many tell us that Revelation was written on the prison Island offshore from Ephesia, where a wild hallucinogenic mushroom grows in abundance....... that information does just click in to place nicely, don't you think?

So when do you think that G-John was written, and where from?

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.

How very strange. So you don't think that many events in your God's time on Earth would need to be talked about?

[The Tanager]

I'm saying that Paul didn't care about Jesus at all. Now the authors of G-John raised Jesus up to 'Lord', only 40-50 years after Paul's letters were written, but they tried to include some anecdotes about Jesus, but with Paul it is 'not so'.

1. Paul, who wrote before the gospel of John calls Jesus “the Lord” in 1 Cor 7, so it’s clearly not the author(s) of the gospel of John that raises Jesus up to “the Lord”.

2. Paul wouldn’t call Jesus “the Lord” if he didn’t care about Jesus.

3. Ancient biographies and letters are different genres, so it’s not surprising that they contain different kinds of information.

Everything that Paul wrote was his own view. If Paul wanted the congregations 'to do as Jesus said' then I just wonder why he never wrote a sentence about 'what Jesus did or said'.

Paul felt he was sharing God’s wisdom with others. He did write sentences about what Jesus said and did, although nowhere as much as the gospels because he wasn’t writing that kind of account.

We do have free will.

....not if you are so keen to get to your heaven you aren't!

Why?

And only a few hundred years ago (where I live) they tortured, executed and murdered Christians who thought they had free-will.

How is this relevant?

Yes, it does mean that 'other issues' including Paul's God's own actions and words are ignored.
And Yes, Paul is focusing upon his rules above all others.

Paul was addressing issues that didn’t require writing a biography, so he doesn’t. That means he ignored all of that? That’s an argument from silence

So you need a basic lesson in how to date timelines in the bible. OK. I cannot write a volume to you for the purposes of showing how John's gospel and his attributed-Revelation were dated and placed by contexts, references, language and all....... you'll study this all for yourself or not. I'll just tell you that researchers have dated both to between 90-110 AD. And many tell us that Revelation was written on the prison Island offshore from Ephesia, where a wild hallucinogenic mushroom grows in abundance....... that information does just click in to place nicely, don't you think?

So when do you think that G-John was written, and where from?

Why do you think I didn’t have answers? All I did was ask you to support your claims instead of making claims and then asking people to prove you wrong by answering questions like you asked. The gospel of John and the 3 letters of John scholars usually date between 85-110. I didn’t say anything about Revelation. This fact alone does not rule the disciple out from being the author of some or most of this content.

How very strange. So you don't think that many events in your God's time on Earth would need to be talked about?

Not in the letters to address the questions the authors were addressing.

[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?

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.

First you say Paul didn't write anything about the life and times of Jesus. And now you say he "pretended to know...couldn't stop telling about what happened to Jesus". Do you not see the contradiction you just made?

[TRANSPONDER]

The above couple of responses are just excuses to wave away problems. Specifically that Paul (on peddling his Belief to the Greeks) didn't deal with what Jesus did, when the gospels write reams about it.

It is a miserable excuse to say Paul was concerned about other things. He was - in peddling the spirit Jesus as 'Lord' (a heavenly messiah who would redeem from sin everyone who beleived in him, making the need for Judaism obsolete...oh, pardon me - "Fulfilled".

cue: "It was already in the gospels".

Apart from my belief and contention that the gospels came later and were basedon Paul's views, not the other way around, Paul's Thesis (Romans) is all about his logical working out of a messianic salvation based on how the Jews fell short and the Law would no save them because of that, and this Jesusfaith is what will do it.

There is no a single reference to the 'Gospel' as in the Synopticsor John, (other than some quotes of Paul's that later on turn up in the gospels) but read like Paul's opinion not a quite from Jesus.

We hear virtually nothing about Jesus other than he was crucified by the Romans 'Lords of this earth' who would not have done it if they had known whom he was - leading (I argue) to Luke (alone) having that memorable appeal by Jesus to forgive the Romans because they did not know what they were doing.

But that (I argue) is what the gospels are notably about - excusing Rome for killing Jesus and finding a way to blame the Jews. And it all started with Paul.

So why was Paul so cagey about Jesus'life? If he had been (as I think it heavily evidenced) a rebel messianist against Roman Rule, of course he was decline to deal with that aspect of the story.

[Difflugia]

We hear virtually nothing about Jesus other than he was crucified by the Romans 'Lords of this earth' who would not have done it if they had known whom he was - leading (I argue) to Luke (alone) having that memorable appeal by Jesus to forgive the Romans because they did not know what they were doing.

That's an interesting connection I hadn't made myself. If it is a genuine connection, though, it seems to me that Luke has reversed the sense a bit. 1 Corinthians 2:8 reads to me that the rulers wouldn't have crucified the Christ if they had known that it was ultimately for God's glory. Luke's Jesus, though, seems to be asking for their forgiveness because they're ignorantly doing harm. Luke/Acts does seem to butcher Pauline theology a bit, though, so this might be an explicit rehabilitation of Paul's "rulers of this age" by Luke.

[oldbadger]

First you say Paul didn't write anything about the life and times of Jesus. And now you say he "pretended to know...couldn't stop telling about what happened to Jesus". Do you not see the contradiction you just made? Paul didn't give a hoot about Jesus words and deeds.

[oldbadger]

Paul felt he was sharing God’s wisdom with others. He did write sentences about what Jesus said and did, although nowhere as much as the gospels because he wasn’t writing that kind of account.

Apart from the last supper, communion, execution and resurrection please show us ANY sentences that describe anything said or done by Jesus in Paul's letters. None? QED.

Why do you think I didn’t have answers? All I did was ask you to support your claims instead of making claims and then asking people to prove you wrong by answering questions like you asked. The gospel of John and the 3 letters of John scholars usually date between 85-110.

Yes, about 35-50 years before John's gospel, and probably before any of the gospels, which shows clearly that Paul was writing much about Jesus out of the religion. He only needed the communion, execution and resurrection for his purposes.

[The Tanager]

Apart from the last supper, communion, execution and resurrection please show us ANY sentences that describe anything said or done by Jesus in Paul's letters. None? QED.

We’ve already talked about Jesus prohibiting divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11), so if you want to use this standard, then your claim here is obviously wrong.

But the real point is that you are simply asserting that Paul should have written a biography or included more biographical data with no reasoning that supports it. You are just saying he should have done it. Explain why you think that.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

Excellent question, and a corollary of "Why did they never meet?" Paul and Jesus were about the same age and lived in the same place and Jesus was famous. Why did Paul never seek him out. Paul was obsessed with 'Christians,' persecuted them. Why did he and Jesus never meet?

Paul was nothing if not a promoter/organizer/preacher/advocate. Paul argued, he made his case with arguments. He cited to facts (or alleged facts) frequently if not constantly. Paul apparently knew nothing of the actual life of Jesus. His interest is purely dogmatic, doctrinal. If he had known anything about the details of Jesus life or even his parables, he would have cited them frequently to bolster his arguments.

Paul appears to know nothing of the Gospels (his own books are the first NT books written) and he knew nothing of the myths, legends, stories, or accounts upon which the Gospels were based.
The answer to these questions is obvious. Paul was a real person. Jesus was a myth based upon a real person or persons. Some of what the Gospels record may be based on real incidents. But those stories were told and retold and retold again; eventually written down in such a way as to serve the purposes of the anonymous authors.

[oldbadger]

Apart from the last supper, communion, execution and resurrection please show us ANY sentences that describe anything said or done by Jesus in Paul's letters. None? QED.

We’ve already talked about Jesus prohibiting divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11), so if you want to use this standard, then your claim here is obviously wrong.

Obvious not..........
See what Jesus is claimed to have said, as in Matthew:-
(Matthew 19:8-9) Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:8-9, NIV).

And he re we see how Paul can only just bring himself to tell part of that, thus:
1 Corinthians {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: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Oh no! Paul commands, with a half hearted reference to his God, and then to build upon that with yet more commands of his own. It was all about Paul.

I ask again, how could Paul write so many letters to believers without mentioning anything about what his God had said or done in life? Apart from continuous referrals to communion, execution and resurrection, which is all that he really needed from Jesus....true?

But the real point is that you are simply asserting that Paul should have written a biography or included more biographical data with no reasoning that supports it. You are just saying he should have done it. Explain why you think that.

Because Paul was supposed to be building churches that worshiped their God! It was supposed to be all about God, and Paul makes no mention of his God's words and deeds. I don't think Paul needed that much of (or about) Jesus for the new religion.