The puzzling silence of Paul

AvisG · Nov 6, 2019

Quid est Veritas? said:
If four other scholars can easily point out the flaws in methodology and conclusions, that is the very definition of a 'lunatic fringe' position. You are labouring the point. As I said, you can drop the lunatic if you wish, but the position remains easily dismissed. It need not be taken all that seriously.

Then please demonstrate why he should have. You are making the claim it is odd, so please show your reasoning. The Pauline corpus is not quoting the gospels, but neither is it in opposition to it. I don't see how it would particularly enhance his argument, when his readers are presumably recent converts who were probably unaware of much of it. He rather quotes Greek writers, in common Hellenistic culture.

I could say it is odd that Leibnitz and Newton both developed Calculus separately, or odd that European Feudalism and the Japanese variety seems so alike. This is more an argument for similar underlying structures. If Paul or the Gospels were referencing the exact same to one another, that would more argue for an Hegellian Synthetical structure. That both were valued by the same nascent movement rather argues both as independant sources of the same, therefore.

We're talking past each other, so I will allow you to have the last substantive word with the above post.

tz620q · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
No way on earth is that true. I am very, VERY well-versed on this subject. The vast majority of reputable scholars place Mark after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. If you are reading scholars who date Mark to the early 50's, you need to get out more because this is, figuratively speaking, the lunatic fringe.

I think Packermann is referring to the Papias fragment where he quotes John the Elder, a disciple of the Lord as saying this,
"The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything."
The Early Church Fathers looked at the point in 1 Peter where Peter refers to "my son Mark" as referring to Mark, the evangelist. So when a Gospel is "written" could not be a firm date; but could be composed over time and finished and published on a set date. The legendary tales of Mark's Gospel state that these sayings were written down by Mark and only published after Peter's death and Mark's moving to Alexandria to avoid the Christian persecution.

SPF · Nov 6, 2019

Irenaeus (writing circa 180) wrote:

"What [the apostles] at first preached, they later delivered to us in writings ... Matthew ... also produced a written Gospel ...; Peter and Paul, however, were in Rome preaching the gospel and founding the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also delivered to us in writing the things that were then being preached by Peter."

At first glance this might look like Mark wrote Peter's words after Peter and Paul's joint visit in the 60s. But the writings were simply what was being preached while in Rome. They would therefore need to be written while they were being preached. According to the lists of who presided over Rome and when, this preaching began on Peter's first visit, AD 42. Mark's text proved so useful (as an early account of what happened) that it eventually spread from Italy to the rest of the church, and became the basis for later gospels.

Clement of Alexandria (writing circa 195) is quoted as follows:

"The Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward."

Again, if Peter first visited in AD 42 then this argues for the gospel being written in the same year. Note that Peter was lukewarm about the text: this argues both for Mark's objectivity, and for the likelihood that he included some details that were not from Peter, but from other sources.

Eusebius repeated what Papias and Clement said, and this emphasises how the gospel would have been written as soon as Peter arrived the first time, and not on a later visit, or after he left:

"But a great light of religion shone on the minds of the hearers of Peter, so that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with every kind of exhortation besought Mark, whose Gospel is extant, seeing that he was Peter's follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally, nor did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so became the cause of the Scripture called the Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the Apostle, knowing by the revelation of the spirit to him what had been done, was pleased at their zeal, and ratified the scripture for study in the churches. Clement quotes the story in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, and the bishop of Hieropolis, named Papias, confirms him"

There are various other sources from later centuries, but they all repeat the same message: when Peter arrived in Rome the people demanded a written version of his message, and Peter's companion Mark provided it.

- Credit to Chris Tolworthy

AvisG · Nov 6, 2019

tz620q said:
I think Packermann is referring to the Papias fragment where he quotes John the Elder, a disciple of the Lord as saying this,
"The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord.

SPF said:
At first glance this might look like Mark wrote Peter's words after Peter and Paul's joint visit in the 60s. But the writings were simply what was being preached while in Rome.

Thanks to both of you. Somewhere up above, I acknowledge my error in stating that a date for Mark in the early 50's was a "lunatic fringe" position and that a date of 70 AD would be an "early" date. Neither is true. The "consensus" dating is roughly 65 to 80, but good arguments can be made for earlier dates. The real issue is that those who opt for a later date often do so on the basis that Jesus couldn't have been predicting the fall of the temple in 70. But this simply isn't true - Jesus obviously could have made that prediction in, say, 33 AD even if Mark was written in, say, 71.

Hawkins · Nov 6, 2019

The OP has such a question simply because no humans (I say no humans) ever understood the process reckoned as human witnessing.
It's more like in a car incident. The reporter acquired information from eyewitnesses accounts then composed the article about what have been witnessed. However a professional is needed to provide an explanation on why it happened. Say eyewitnesses won't usually be able to give an account of explanation on how an air flight fell down accidentally. They can only provide the information on what they saw about it's falling down.

That being said. The first 3 gospels are basically more like the testimonies from eyewitnesses accounts. John's gospel added in theological contents because he's given the job doing so (Peter asked Jesus why John doesn't go the same path as he does. John has a job to do). Paul the Pharisee professed in Jewish Law acts as the professional who gives an explanation on what's going on behind the scene related to a New Covenant brought us by Jesus Christ.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
Does it seem plausible that, in an area of this size, an individual doing the things Jesus is described in the Gospels as having done would not have achieved FAR greater notice during His lifetime? Does it seem plausible that the Gospels would be almost entirely silent regarding the 30 or so years of His existence before He burst on the scene? Does it seem plausible that the Roman and Jewish historical records would barely even take notice of Him?

Not only plausible, but true.

AvisG said:
This topic is a favorite of those who argue that Jesus is a mythic figure who never even existed, but I'm NOT approaching it from that angle. However, it's a genuine mystery that causes me to suspect that Jesus' ministry may have been quite different from the biblical portrayal.

The Breathed Word of Yahuweh, All Scripture Inspired as Written, is TRUTH. It is Yahuweh's "portrayal" perfectly, as He Planned and Designed and Purposed.

AvisG said:
I see no plausible way to explain these things except to conclude that Jesus' ministry was most likely far more localized and obscure than the Gospels suggest

OR
someone thought the Gospels suggested something that the Gospels did not suggest. (this is most common, as Yahuweh decares through His Word, much more common than the truth ....)

Bible Highlighter · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
Sure, that is one perspective. It isn't my perspective or the perspective of vast swaths of believers. It is, in fact, a fairly recent perspective. There can be quite a wide gulf between "divinely inspired" and "100% the words of God, all of it is true, every word." I am at the "divinely inspired" end of that spectrum.

I love the assumptions that are made at places such as this. No, I really do. I know you mean well, but come on. I was born again in 1971, I served with Campus Crusade, I attended Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, I have been steeped in heavy-duty philosophy, theology and apologetics for decades. I'm not strutting my stuff, just making the point that Sunday School lessons aren't necessary.

As I said to someone else above, your position is more of an "avoidance" of the puzzles I have highlighted rather than an explanation for them: "The Bible is 100% God's word, it says what He wanted it to say, and I don't have to think about why it says what it says." OK, fine - that flows from your understanding of the Bible, but it doesn't flow from mine.

There are people of other religions who have studied their religion their whole lives. It does not mean that their religion is correct. I believe the same is true for those who do not want to see certain truths in regards to the Bible. A person can be for false doctrines or beliefs involving the Bible their whole lives. Time in a particular belief does not make one correct or right. The evidence is what makes one correct. The evidence of Scripture, and the evidence that backs up Scripture.

But if you are open to the truth, then by all means, check out the Blogger article. But if not, then remain in your own worldview or personal belief (Which runs contrary to many evidences).

May God's blessings be upon you.

packermann · Nov 6, 2019

timewerx said:
It's the reason why Jesus often spoke in parables "only for those with ears that hear" and even avoided places where he knew everyone would ridicule Him.

Not sure about this. He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. And He was very conversant with the Jewish leaders who eventually handed him to Pilate.

Fortunately, not every mystery was written down. The knowledge can be misused and abused.

I am sorry to mention this, but this smacks of the heresy Gnosticism. More on this later.

At some point, Jesus called His disciples friends and no longer servants (John 15:15). So they were like "initiates" prior to that.

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge". The initiates graduate to having an inner knowledge that comes only directly by God. With Gnosticism, you don't need the teaching of the apostles or the Church or even the Bible. All you need the Holy Spirit. And since what the Holy Spirit reveals to you is different than what the Holy Spirit reveals to me there is no objective, absolute truth binding on everyone. What is true for me may be different than what is true for you.

It would not be unusual they would treat Paul the same. To test him probably. 15 days isn't enough to know someone enough to trust. Plenty of examples to prove this and from personal experience.

For three years they heard that Paul was risking his life preaching the gospel. They trusted him so much that they sent him out with Barnabas to the churches.

They trusted Paul enough to send him but not enough with the knowledge of the "Mysteries of Heaven".

Where does that say in the Bible that they held back any of their knowledge?

Paul received that knowledge from the Holy Spirit instead of the disciples....

That is not how I see it. True, he did receive guidance from the Holy Spirit. But this guidance was not some mystical, direct knowledge. Paul knew that the devil can masquerade himself as an angel of light. He relied on the scriptures. When he wrote to Christians, he did not appeal to inner knowledge of the Holy Spirit as he appealed to scripture, which is there for anyone to read. He also went to see Peter to ensure that what he was preaching was in line with the teachings of the apostles.

My point is, there are things we are not supposed to teach, even with each other and even with people we trust. They are for the Holy Spirit to manage.

And what are those things you are not supposed to teach. Oh, I forgot - the Holy Spirit will tell me what not to teach. But how do know that I am not led by the devil or by my own emotions? What if you feel that the Holy Spirit is leading you not to teach something but I feel that the Holy Spirit is leading me to teach it?

That is true but it's also quite possible, we have misinterpreted the scriptures. Happened a lot of times in the past when people are generally less precise in their knowledge of things of nature of how things work.

I agree, but how do know that you are not misinterpreting scripture?

It is prophesied that our time will be the age of knowledge when people would know how things work, better methodologies, and knowledge of our history. It would certainly offer a different perspective not surprising if we misinterpreted some of the teachings in the past.

C.S. Lewis called this chronological snobbery - this that we have a better understanding than people in the past. This may be true in science and technology. But why should we think we have a better understanding of Jesus 2,000 years ago that His disciples and His disciples' disciples?

Never assume you are right without double, triple checking under critical scrutiny if your life depended on it. The mindset is often behind fatal accidents and disasters.

I agree, but I am surprised you omitted prayer. Would not the Holy Spirit guide those who fervently ask for His guidance?

AvisG · Nov 6, 2019

Gideons300 said:
In another post, you bemoan the condition of the church. Here, here. However, do not let the enemy get you focused on things that mean nothing.

God has made many mind blowing promises to us. Not for the sweet bye and bye but NOW. Are our affections set on abiding in Him and how to walk pleasing to Him, victorious over the enemy. Is our real battle how to escape the bonds of Romans 7?

Do not let your faith in His Word in any way decrease. It is our misunderstanding of it that has created our mess. We will need the confidence in God's Word in the days to come.

I hope you will forgive me if I have seemed to have spoken out of turn with you. You just remind me of someone I knew about 13 years ago. Yeah, me. LOL.

There is an answer to the mess we have made of Christianity. It is about to overtake us. Thank God.

blessings,

Gids

I'm sure you think I've been ignoring you! I had hoped to move your sincere and well-meaning post to the "other thread" because I believe it fit better there. But they closed the other thread just as I was attempting to do so - not that I blame them, because the other thread was turning into a swamp. So I will beg the indulgence of the other posters here, who may well wonder what this response has to do with the subject of this thread ...

As you say that you've been where I am (or at least where you think I am) now, so I have been where you are (or at least where I think you are) now. Actually, I don't think that where you are now and where I am now are all that far apart.

As I've described in other threads, I had a completely unanticipated "born again" experience as a college student 48 years ago. No one "led" me to Christ. This was completely out of the blue, alone, on a dull afternoon in a dorm room. At the age of 69, I don't doubt the reality of that experience. I've seen the hand of God in my life in too many astounding and really quite miraculous ways - ways that the average Christian would envy - for me to doubt the reality of it. There is no way that anyone, ever, fellow Christian or otherwise, is ever going to tell me that I'm on a path not blessed by God. I have no patience with that sort of nonsense.

After my experience, for better or worse, I became part of Campus Crusade, which as you may know is an extremely conservative (to put it mildly), dogmatic ministry. Despite my involvement, I realized almost immediately "I am NEVER going to fit into this brand of simple-minded (mindless?) Christianity." I existed for a period of years in a state of cognitive dissonance, pretending to believe things I could never really believe. This was true not only of Campus Crusade but of a Baptist seminary and assorted churches as well.

So I decided at about the age of 25 to flush it all and start anew, with Christianity at least as my working template. I've been blessed with a good mind and I believe God expects me to use it. Over the decades, my studies ranged far, wide and deep, including esoteric areas that I won't bore you with here. My goal was the Truth, or at least as close as I could get to it in this lifetime.

In addition to actually constructing a belief system, I focused extensively on HOW to construct one. I gradually realized that I could never really believe anything other than what my own experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition told me was True. Any other belief system would require me to "pretend" and live in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Constructing a belief system in the manner that I did is heavy and time-consuming work. Fortunately my legal career gave me the time and money to do it.

Probably five times over the years, however, the task seemed endless and exhausting and I said "Oh, forget it. I'm just going to accept garden-variety Christianity lock, stock and barrel and stop worrying about it. I'm just going to 'have faith.'" But that never lasted. In the first place, it simply isn't who I am; I don't think it's who God expects me to be. In the second, I knew I'd never have any confidence that where I'd landed was the Truth. So I always resumed the quest in pretty short order.

Perhaps 15 years ago, I felt that I had a belief system in place in which I could genuinely believe, one that was consistent with my experiences, observations, studies of what I believed to be the best evidence and reasoning, reflection and intuition. When I lost my first wife to breast cancer at just about that time (2005), we were both gratified to discover that our belief system withstood this trial and sustained us through it. Because I know I'll continue my quest to the end of my life, my belief system will always remain flexible and open to new experiences and observations, better evidence and fresh insights.

A very large percentage of my experiences, observations, studies and reflection related directly to Christianity. For a long time, I was in search of a connect-the-dots theology that was intellectually satisfying, that "made sense." I eventually realized this was never going to happen. Even the very best systematic theologies don't really connect the dots very well. Moreover, there are large bodies of evidence that simply don't fit the standard Christian paradigm. For these, I have "niches of possibility" that I leave open for possible incorporation into my belief system.

So anyway, 15 years ago I had arrived at a belief system that I'd describe as "basically Christian" but not one that closely matched any of the creeds or denominational statements of belief. Rather than pretend to believe things that I didn't believe, I decided that I would never again attend a church that required me to do so. I have since pretty much gone my own way, with a brief period of attendance at a Southern Baptist church so Russian wife could see what an American church was like (which, alas, was precisely what she had been warned it would be like by her pastor back in Russia!).

Having devoted so many years to the construction of my belief system, and having arrived at a "basically Christian" one, I then rediscovered the value of simplicity. This is why I say that I don't think I'm really too far from where you are. The Christianity that I try to live by is extremely simple and almost entirely dogma-free, relying extensively on prayer, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and actions rather than words. If some of my more technical theology proves to be incorrect, as I'm sure it will - hey, so be it, all I can do is believe what my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition tell me is True. To the extent that I appear to be still doubting or questioning, as may have been suggested by this thread, that's really more in the vein of intellectual exercise or even entertainment; it doesn't really affect my very simple core Christianity or Christian walk.

People like me are, of course, the bane of "Christians" (as I describe them in the other thread) most of whom are actually very insecure in their beliefs and deeply threatened by those who think differently (or even who merely think for themselves). They crave someone to think for them, which is why they flock to "Christianity" and perhaps even why they keep insisting on the other thread that I tell them what I think Christianity should look like (good grief, are you kidding me?).

My nagging feeling that what I describe as "Christianity" on the other thread had little or nothing to what Jesus was talking about began at a pretty early stage of my Christianity. "Something is wrong with this picture" gradually evolved into "Something is REALLY wrong with this picture" (perhaps 20 years ago), then to "This has NOTHING to do with what Jesus was talking about" (perhaps 10 years ago), and finally to "This is SO FAR from what Jesus was talking about that I am simply going to withdraw from it completely."

So there you go. That gives you some idea of where I am coming from - which, despite superficial appearances, doesn't strike me as too different from where you are coming from. At least you will no longer thinking I'm ignoring you!

Thanks for your kind words, and blessings back at you! Apologies to the others for this slightly weird interruption in the flow of the thread.

St_Worm2 · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
There can be quite a wide gulf between "divinely inspired" and "100% the words of God, all of it is true, every word." I am at the "divinely inspired" end of that spectrum.

"The Bible is 100% God's word, it says what He wanted it to say, and I don't have to think about why it says what it says." OK, fine - that flows from your understanding of the Bible, but it doesn't flow from mine.

Hello again Avis, if only parts of the Bible are the breathed words of God, who decides which parts are of Divine origin (are Holy Scripture), and which parts are simply the musings of men?

Thanks!

--David

AvisG · Nov 6, 2019

St_Worm2 said:
Hello again Avis, if only parts of the Bible are the breathed words of God, who decides which parts are of Divine origin (are Holy Scripture), and which parts are simply the musings of men?

Thanks!

--David

I really don't think it's a matter of saying "this part is inspired" but "that part isn't." I can believe the entire Bible is "inspired" in the sense of expressing deep spiritual truths - God's message to humanity - through myths, stories and poetry without believing that every single word was dictated by God or that the Bible is not only spiritually true but historically and scientifically correct as well. Or I can believe the latter - I'm not saying there is anything wrong with an extreme literalist view (and why would I be so presumptuous as to say that anyway?). Or I can believe something in-between. The spectrum of believers who claim to be Bible literalists is astoundingly wide.

And then there are those who, like me, don't claim to be Bible literalists at all. I take the Bible as divinely inspired for the great spiritual truths it expresses. Sure, I question the inspiration of some parts that make me cringe or seem unthinkable (to me) for the wise, loving, just and merciful Creator of the universe, but this really doesn't affect my overall view of the Bible or its message. Even Bible literalists typically make some sort of peace with the cringe-worthy passages that really wouldn't qualify as strict literalism.

As I said above, I don't think any of us is capable of believing anything other than what our experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition tell us is True. This is as true for the Bible as anything else. If we read the Bible prayerfully and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I don't we'll go too far astray even if our views of something like the story of Adam and Eve or the Tower of Babel are in some respects very different.

tz620q · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
I really don't think it's a matter of saying "this part is inspired" but "that part isn't." I can believe the entire Bible is "inspired" in the sense of expressing deep spiritual truths - God's message to humanity - through myths, stories and poetry without believing that every single word was dictated by God or that the Bible is not only spiritually true but historically and scientifically correct as well. Or I can believe the latter - I'm not saying there is anything wrong with an extreme literalist view (and why would I be so presumptuous as to say that anyway?). Or I can believe something in-between. The spectrum of believers who claim to be Bible literalists is astoundingly wide.

And then there are those who, like me, don't claim to be Bible literalists at all. I take the Bible as divinely inspired for the great spiritual truths it expresses. Sure, I question the inspiration of some parts that make me cringe or seem unthinkable (to me) for the wise, loving, just and merciful Creator of the universe, but this really doesn't affect my overall view of the Bible or its message. Even Bible literalists typically make some sort of peace with the cringe-worthy passages that really wouldn't qualify as strict literalism.

As I said above, I don't think any of us is capable of believing anything other than what our experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition tell us is True. This is as true for the Bible as anything else. If we read the Bible prayerfully and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I don't we'll go too far astray even if our views of something like the story of Adam and Eve or the Tower of Babel are in some respects very different.

I find that extreme Biblical literalists flatten the meaning of the Bible down from what it was meant to be. It is as though they have lost all senses except one.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
This topic is a favorite of those who argue that Jesus is a mythic figure who never even existed, but I'm NOT approaching it from that angle. However, it's a genuine mystery that causes me to suspect that Jesus' ministry may have been quite different from the biblical portrayal.

The way the NT is organized, it's quite easy to be lulled into thinking that Paul was writing his epistles against the backdrop of the four Gospels. This is, of course, wildly incorrect. Paul wrote long before the Gospels were written and indeed died long before they were written (i.e., he is believed to have died in 62 AD vs. sometime after 70 AD as an early date for Mark, while some of the epistles are much earlier).

Yet Paul scarcely even mentions the historical Jesus. There is no mention of the Virgin Birth, Mary, the teachings and parables, the miracles or anything else that is central to the Gospels. (Paul does, of course, emphasize the Resurrection, but he doesn't mention the empty tomb.) On the other hand, the Resurrection appearance to more than 500, which Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians, is never mentioned in the Gospels - an extremely odd omission that I find as puzzling as Paul's omission of the historical Jesus.

It's believed that the Gospels arose out of eyewitness accounts, a carefully preserved oral tradition, and one or more "sayings" documents such as Q. Hence, the Gospel material was certainly available when Paul was writing, but he never mentions it.

It can be argued that Paul had other concerns, but this isn't really true. He repeatedly addresses hot-button issues in the churches and gives direction on Christian living to which Jesus' parables and teachings would have been directly relevant, yet he never mentions those teachings.

I recently did a study of just how tiny Judea was in Jesus' time. To give an idea, the entire territory of modern Israel, including the disputed territories, is approximately the same size as the Phoenix (Arizona) Metropolitan Area or the state of New Hampshire. The population of Jerusalem in Jesus' time is estimated at 60,000 to 80,000 with Judea estimated at 200,000 to 300,000 (these figures are scholarly estimates and there are estimates that are fantastically higher, but these are mainstream estimates). In any event, Jesus operated in quite a small area with quite a small population.

Does it seem plausible that, in an area of this size, an individual doing the things Jesus is described in the Gospels as having done would not have achieved FAR greater notice during His lifetime? Does it seem plausible that the Gospels would be almost entirely silent regarding the 30 or so years of His existence before He burst on the scene? Does it seem plausible that the Roman and Jewish historical records would barely even take notice of Him?

I see no plausible way to explain these things except to conclude that Jesus' ministry was most likely far more localized and obscure than the Gospels suggest and that it was the Resurrection that caused a certain degree of "mythologizing" to develop around the historical figure He actually had been. This is why I always take the position that Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection and pretty much NOTHING else.

I don't believe that honestly addressing puzzles such as this is in any way heretical or blasphemous or even something God would discourage. Even the question as to whether Jesus existed at all is a perfectly legitimate one; the vast, vast majority of scholars, including secular scholars, believe that He did. On the other hand, I don't believe there is anything particularly pious, faithful or pleasing to God about pretending these puzzles don't exist or trying to explain them away with glib and facile "explanations" that really don't fit the facts.

So, you're saying something like I'd say: that all human writing is representative (or perhaps mythologized to some level) and this goes even for those writings which we think represent some of what we think we know about Jesus of Nazareth? That Jesus' ministry was fairly 'smallish,' really? Ok. Fine. That explanation has already received treatment; it's not new news.

Puzzle or no puzzle, how would you like for this to affect our thinking? That all we need to do is have the same knowledge and attitude of Paul for us to be saved?

Maybe, maybe not.

Robin Mauro · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
Well, I'm happy to see that my somewhat obscure topic has generated this much interest. Just some quick responses:

Indeed, I do find that EXTREMELY odd. Odd enough to make question whether it happened.

You may know that some of the early Church Fathers speculated that the number of Gospels is symbolic for "perfection" or "completeness."

But of course the puzzle isn't "Why didn't Paul write another Gospel?" but rather "Why is the historical Jesus so curiously missing from his epistles when the material that later formed the Gospels was in circulation at the time?"

Well, uh, what are YOU talking about? I didn't say the Resurrection wasn't mentioned in the Gospels - I'm not completely delusional. I plainly said that the appearance to the 500 that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians isn't mentioned in any of the Gospels - a truly astounding omission. Perhaps try to read more carefully before leaping into Response Mode?

Sure, Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. But the question isn't "Why didn't Paul give an eyewitness account of Jesus' ministry?" or even "Why didn't Paul write a Gospel?" Scholars are in agreement that an oral tradition based on eyewitness accounts, which would later provide the foundation of the Gospels, WAS in circulation when Paul was writing. The puzzle is "Why, in offering correction, instruction and guidance to the churches, did Paul never mention the historical Jesus and specifically parables and teachings that seemingly would have been directly relevant to that correction, instruction and guidance?"

I am not making ANY argument regarding Paul's silence about the historical Jesus. I specifically said that. I am merely highlighting Paul's silence and a couple of other undeniable realities as "puzzles" that I find interesting and worth thinking about.

Yes, the "Jesus Myth" view is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, including secular ones. But it is not a "lunatic fringe" position. Robert M. Price and scholars like him are scarcely "lunatics." I was surprised myself to find Price among the five very prominent NT scholars whose views are discussed and debated in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, which is part of the respected Spectrum Multiview Book Series, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002YFC1OM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1.

I'm not defending the Jesus Myth view by any means. But as I have made clear on other threads, one of my pet peeves is with that variety of Christian apologetics which mischaracterizes opposing views and fails to confront them honestly.

You either believe the Bible or you don't. Paul never contradicted the 4 gospels. It seems to me you are creating an argument when there is none, and attempting to disprove the Bible.
Are you a believer or not? Do you believe Jesus was the one and only savior or not?
I would love to hear a straightforward answer from you on this, but I suspect I won't.
And you did say in your original post that the gospels did not mention the resurrection. The gospels do, and Paul does. Christ died and was risen, the sacrificial lamb for mankind. That is all that matters. Either you believe it or you don't. Which is it? It is not a difficult question.

packermann · Nov 6, 2019

tz620q said:
I find that extreme Biblical literalists flatten the meaning of the Bible down from what it was meant to be. It is as though they have lost all senses except one.

I do not consider myself a Bible literalist, but I believe that we seek to find the intention of author. I take it literal when the human author intended it to be taken literally. For instance, I do not think John's vision in the Revelation of John was intended to be literal - it was of a genre that was highly symbolic. But a gospel writer intended to be historical - so I would take a gospel literally historical. Poetry literature would use figurative language, so I tend to not take the Song of Solomon literally. But a letter is didactic, so I will tend to take it more literally that the poetry books in the Bible.

St_Worm2 · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
I really don't think it's a matter of saying "this part is inspired" but "that part isn't." I can believe the entire Bible is "inspired" in the sense of expressing deep spiritual truths - God's message to humanity - through myths, stories and poetry without believing that every single word was dictated by God...

Hello again Avis. Nice avatar, though I have to admit that you seem a tad younger than I imagined you to be

Silliness aside for the moment, one of the big problems that I see (logically) with the kind of approach that you are taking to the Scriptures is that it makes one out to be the creator and leader of their own religion (granted, to varying degrees). If people are able to choose to believe whatever seems right to them personally, IOW, if they can keep the parts of the Bible/Christianity that they like, while denying/rejecting the parts that they don't like, then they stop worshipping the Judeo-Christian God who we find in the Bible, and they begin to worship a god and a faith of their own making instead

--David

St_Worm2 · Nov 6, 2019

tz620q said:
I find that extreme Biblical literalists flatten the meaning of the Bible down from what it was meant to be. It is as though they have lost all senses except one.

Hi tz620q, the RCC continues to maintain both a literal and a very high view of the Bible, yes? (not unlike we find in all but the most liberal of churches in Christendom these days). For instance, the CCC tells us:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." ~Catechism of the Catholic Church

--David

RDKirk · Nov 6, 2019

AvisG said:
The omission of the historical Jesus from Paul's epistles (and elsewhere) is a genuine puzzle that cries out for an explanation.

No, actually it does not.

It's not necessary information to carry out the mission day-to-day, and that's what Paul was concerned about in his letters.

You've already been told this. Paul had not only taught the gospel basics to the congregations he established, he also even left them with teachers in the gospel, teachers of sufficient knowledge to train more evangelists.

So why would he go over basic information when clearly his purposes for writing the letters are beyond those basics?

Why would it be puzzling?

How much of the Declaration of Independence did Lincoln include in the Gettysburg Address?

timewerx · Nov 6, 2019

packermann said:
That is not how I see it. True, he did receive guidance from the Holy Spirit. But this guidance was not some mystical, direct knowledge. Paul knew that the devil can masquerade himself as an angel of light. He relied on the scriptures. When he wrote to Christians, he did not appeal to inner knowledge of the Holy Spirit as he appealed to scripture, which is there for anyone to read. He also went to see Peter to ensure that what he was preaching was in line with the teachings of the apostles.

Have you read the chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 and 2 Corinthians 12:1-10?

Guojing · Nov 7, 2019

AvisG said:
The puzzle is "Why, in offering correction, instruction and guidance to the churches, did Paul never mention the historical Jesus and specifically parables and teachings that seemingly would have been directly relevant to that correction, instruction and guidance?"

You don't accept Paul's explanation of "your puzzle" in 2 Cor 5:16?

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

The puzzling silence of Paul

Active Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Junior Member

Active Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Active Member

Regular Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Simul Justus et Peccator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Similar threads