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]

[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?

Yes.... Paul was contracted to seek out Jews, any Jews, who were not supporting Temple funding and (probably) other taxations. He was an enforcer who didn't take notice of the Jesus story until afterwards, I expect.

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.

Again....Yes. And so Paul was building up a new religion, possibly in the hope of success within that religion. He didn't need more of Jesus other than some rituals and a God-head, I think he preferred the title 'Christ' to 'Jesus' in any case.

The Traditions about Jesus were being spread about, all around Paul...he must have heard many stories imo, but he clearly wasn't interested in all that. Paul was all about Paul, I think.

[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?

From the very First I have pointed out that Paul constantly repeats the communion, execution and resurrection! It was all that he needed to concentrate upon.
But Paul does not ever tell the people 'See what Jesus did when..........' or 'Remember what Jesus said..........'
Paul was an impost, and out for himself.

[oldbadger]

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.

Was Jesus the exemplar of the Christian Faith?
Why didn't Paul bother to remind folks about what Jesus said and did, in every paragraph????

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.

No, he wasn't, and he didn't.
Paul was sharing HIS wisdom with all around. It was all about Paul!

[1213]

...
But Paul does not ever tell the people 'See what Jesus did when..........' or 'Remember what Jesus said..........'
...

Ok, I think it is understandable, because he was not with Jesus when Jesus was on earth. He converted after Jesus had already died and risen. If he would speak like he would have been with Jesus on earth, it would ruin the credibility of the story.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12]

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

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Many care about their particular idea of "Jesus". Paul was well positioned to be a deciever - to lead folk astray...how do/can we know for sure?

Is there any point in following after Pauls word? Can anything in Paul's writing be identified as possibly contrary to what the gospels say Jesus taught?

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to William in post #25]

Hello
That is indeed the question, William. Is Pauline teaching a lava-lamp extrapolation or a continuation of the Jesus message. My personal opinion is that Paul is ,almost totally, an unsubstantiated grasping at straws. My opinion might be the same.

The real crux of the matter has been alluded to previously on this thread. We need to nail down the timeline ,the choreography and the personalities of the early Christian writings to figure out the base from which Paul speaks. Did the first followers believe that Jesus had appeared after death to them(in the flesh). Had there been Resurrection denialists(disbelievers) among the early Christians, were they still there when Paul was writing. I think that there were circulated gospel writings before Paul but TRANSPONDER, and others strongly disagree. We need as much help as possible on this.

Thanks

[The Tanager]

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.

So, which is it? Paul never mentions Jesus' teachings/doings beyond those few you named or he does, but it's "half-hearted"?

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?

I answer again, because he isn't writing a biography.

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.

Paul's writings weren't worship guides to churches, but letters written to address specific issues those churches were dealing with. Why are biographies the only kind of writing Paul should have done?

And you still haven't shown the letters of John to be written by someone other than the gospel of John, yet we see this same thing happening. The gospel has lots of biographical details and teachings quoted, while the letters do not. This is simply a question of genre and purpose.

[oldbadger]

...
But Paul does not ever tell the people 'See what Jesus did when..........' or 'Remember what Jesus said..........'
...

Ok, I think it is understandable, because he was not with Jesus when Jesus was on earth. He converted after Jesus had already died and risen. If he would speak like he would have been with Jesus on earth, it would ruin the credibility of the story.

Really? Is that what you think when/if you hear priests, pastor's, vicars etc reminding congregations about what Jesus said or did?

No credibility for them?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12]

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

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Many care about their particular idea of "Jesus". Paul was well positioned to be a deciever - to lead folk astray...how do/can we know for sure?

Is there any point in following after Pauls word? Can anything in Paul's writing be identified as possibly contrary to what the gospels say Jesus taught?

Wow!
What an amazing post!

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12]

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

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Many care about their particular idea of "Jesus". Paul was well positioned to be a deciever - to lead folk astray...how do/can we know for sure?

Is there any point in following after Pauls word? Can anything in Paul's writing be identified as possibly contrary to what the gospels say Jesus taught?

Wow!
What an amazing post!

The overall point of my post is to show that the buck apparently starts with and continues on with "what Jesus said" - not "what Christians say", and not even with what any other scripture says or even claims (as in "all scripture is inspired by God") and that while Jesus said "follow me" (to those listening to him at the time as per the gospels) he was actually not pointing to himslef but rather to his understanding of "God" (as The Father - Jesus did no directly call "God" by any particular other name/naming device).

His "pointing" was making claims about God (in relation to himself) and saying that every human being also has to have the same relationship with The Father as he (the son) claimed to have.

For that to occur, we are informed that Jesus acts as an "introducer" between \God/ and a \human personality/.

"William Dad - Dad, William." - after which - Dad and William (Father and Son) begin their interaction.

Not "William - Paul" or "William-Pastor/Priest" et al nor even "William - Bible".

The Bible is simply "William - Jesus"...that which introduces Jesus to the human personality.

So - if someone were to ask me "William, do you have a relationship with The Father Jesus spoke about?" I can reply, "Yes - I believe so" and base this on the discernment that for "oh so many years" the relationship has strengthened, not in small part to how The Father provides me (this subjective personality) with verification by aligning said subjective personality with objective happenings (things that are going on) re the human personality experience.

I also understand why Jesus (per the bible) went on about it so much. I see no point is being distracted by the external voices of apostles, saints, angels cultures politics et al because The Father is clearly The Voice I need be listening to.