The puzzling silence of Paul

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sure, I absolutely agree. I happen to be 69 myself. 1989 seems like yesterday. I was not suggesting that the Gospels are not accurate. As I said, the scholarly consensus is that they arise out of eyewitness reports, a carefully preserved oral tradition, and one or more early collections of Jesus' teachings. Nothing wrong with that. The puzzle is why none of this found its way into Paul's epistles.

Perhaps you posted it somewhere else - What IS the origin, the source, of Scripture.

It is not even recognized in this quote of yours. (the scholarly consensus is wrong, and not Godly) (so yes, there is VERY MUCH WRONG with that, for followers of JESUS, for all who trust Him and Yahuweh)

 

[AvisG]

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.

The puzzle of Paul that I set forth above has been acknowledged and discussed by Christians since the early days. It is not an invention of the Jesus Myth movement. I just put a very simple search into Google (Paul + Jesus + silence). Here, from the first two pages of results, are FAITH-BASED sites that discuss this issue. If you or anyone else wishes to live in Perpetual Vacation Bible School, this is certainly your choice.
paul's failure to teach us about jesus
Eschaton Now: How to Explain Paul's Silence on Jesus?
Did Paul Write About Jesus as a Historical Person?
Jesus Tradition in Paul’s Letters
http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/If-We-Only-Had-Paul.pdf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Jesus_Paul.pdf

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.

I have set forth the evolution of my beliefs in great detail immediately above. You obviously did not read my post. I am not answerable to you. Questioning whether I am a believer is contrary to the terms of service of this site as I understand them, and I'm going to let the Site Administrators review your post.

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.

No, I did not. As I pointed out to you the first time you said this, what I said was that the Gospels astoundingly never mention the appearance to 500 witnesses at one time that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians. Deliberately mischaracterizing what I have stated, even after your mischaracterization has been pointed out once, is contrary to the terms of service of this site as I understand them, and I am going to let the Site Administrators review your post.

This is what I said - I believe rather clearly, as is my wont - in my first post: "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."

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

In the interests of strict accuracy, I should admit that this photo is almost two months old. I now favor a propeller beanie. I'm one of them there child prodigies.

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

On the other hand, to NOT be the "creator and leader" of one's own religion, at least in the sense that I describe in my very lengthy post above, inevitably places one in the position of pretending to believe and/or choosing to ignore things that are contrary to one's own experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition. This is simply impossible for me. "Bibliolatry" is to me one of the truly great puzzles. I see no reason to start with the unalterable axiom that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its entirety and then try to interpret all of my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition on the basis of this axiom. For me, this is nothing but trying to pound a "round Reality" into a "square Bible" and a sure path to cognitive dissonance.

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?

You have provided what you believe to be a satisfactory explanation for the "Paul puzzle." The fact that you have 'told" me your explanation does not mean that I am obligated to accept it or that the puzzle has been solved. The puzzle continues to puzzle sincere Christians, and various explanations have been offered (as you can quickly see from the links I posted above). I started this thread because the puzzle was only recently highlighted for me (in the HISTORICAL JESUS text I cite above) and I find interesting and worthy of discussion. Ditto for the non-reference in the Gospels to the Resurrection appearance to the 500 that Paul describes; rather a screaming and virtually inexplicable omission, it seems to me. If those whose Christianity stands on such a shaky foundation that they find discussions such as this disturbing, it seems to me that it's their obligation, not mine, to avoid such discussions.

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?

I would like for it to affect your thinking in whatever way it affects your thinking. Why would I care how it affects anyone's thinking? I simply raised it as a point of discussion. Your second question simply makes no sense to me. How you would move from anything I have said here to the suggestion that "all we need to do is have the same knowledge and attitude of Paul to be saved" is an utter mystery to me. I would assume that anyone with the same knowledge and attitude of Paul would be a pretty enthusiastic Christian and possibly even the leader of his very own mega-church. What does this have to do with the simple and undeniable fact that Paul's epistles are virtually silent regarding the historical Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would like for it to affect your thinking in whatever way it affects your thinking. Why would I care how it affects anyone's thinking?

... maybe because as "teachers" in whatever capacity that may be, whether intentionally or unintentionally, folks like you and I will be judged more stringently by God? Moreover, I would think that with all you've said since you joined CF, you'd have more motivating you in the act of creating your "threads of deliberation" than merely offering us passive playtime, right? I could be wrong, and I'm sure I am at times, but it seems to me you have a built in intention to persuade us to not only accept you apart from the strictures of something like the Nicene Creed, but also to reify what seems to be an amorphous alternative form of faith.

Personally, I don't care too much about whether or not you adhere to the Nicene Creed in some super strict fashion, but the website management does, so we have to keep that in mind.

I simply raised it as a point of discussion. Your second question simply makes no sense to me. How you would move from anything I have said here to the suggestion that "all we need to do is have the same knowledge and attitude of Paul to be saved" is an utter mystery to me.

I'm not 'moving' to that. I'm simply asking a question to better assess where you're coming from and where you'd like your ideas to take us. If you have no intention to offer us something substantive by which we might "do better" in our thinking and thereby in our spiritual lives, then as an advocate of education myself, I'm left wondering what this is all about.

I would assume that anyone with the same knowledge and attitude of Paul would be a pretty enthusiastic Christian and possibly even the leader of his very own mega-church.

So, in this case, there might be such a thing as a "good" mega-church, if we could even just adhere to just what Paul taught (or as we assume he taught based upon a few remaining letters)? I mean, I might be persuaded that this could be the case to some degree ... I've even proposed by own 'A.D. 43' test as a kind of counter to the creeds, but in doing so, I also realize that I go beyond even what my Disciples of Christ/Christian Church influences would deem appropriate.

What does this have to do with the simple and undeniable fact that Paul's epistles are virtually silent regarding the historical Jesus.

I'm just wondering what this 'Pauline silence' means to you; as for what it means to me, I think it just means that I'll need to pop a couple of books off of my shelves, dust them off, and see what the authors of each book have to say on this same subject matter which you're bringing to our attention.

I'm not actually here to stop you, but I am here to question it in a reasonable way, perhaps even try to learn something that you have to offer us in the process, as hard as that might be for you to believe.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

... maybe because as "teachers" in whatever capacity that may be, whether intentionally or unintentionally, folks like you and I will be judged more stringently by God?

Yes, God Says to be careful so to speak, and warns not too many to be becoming teachers for that reason.
It might however, be an assumption, "folks like you and I " , or it might be seen, yes,
who is called or chosen to be a teacher.... but it is not something generally "seen" properly on this forum, and it seems very difficult to point out/identify who is a true teacher when there is one, while many false teachers are posting and unknown number of unbelievers are reading .... et etc etc

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, God Says to be careful so to speak, and warns not too many to be becoming teachers for that reason.
It might however, be an assumption, "folks like you and I " , or it might be seen, yes,
who is called or chosen to be a teacher.... but it is not something generally "seen" properly on this forum, and it seems very difficult to point out/identify who is a true teacher when there is one, while many false teachers are posting and unknown number of unbelievers are reading .... et etc etc

Yes you're right, Yeshuaslavejeff, but my comment to the other poster was more or less to imply that any of us Christians, of whatever stripe, who deign to push forward some idea that we think is important enough to shape our faith or to live by have, in that sense, become "teachers" whether or not we are ordained by Church leadership. So, like you're saying, we need to be careful. And in this sense of 'teacher,' this affects all of us: you, me, and just about any other poster on CF who is proactive to 'push' an idea of whatever sort.

As Paul said, what we build on the Foundation of Christ will be tested with fire ...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

AMEN AND HALLELUYAH !

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

p.s. WHO is Paul's so-called silence puzzling to ? Only those who don't KNOW it is as Yahuweh Breathed... as Paul is a chosen messenger of Yahushua(Jesus), and was taught personally by Yahushua, as written. So young/ new/ untaught believers, like new converts, might be puzzled by a false teacher who presents Paul's so-called silence as puzzling, but otherwise, WHY would anyone consider it puzzling ? < shrugs > I don't know, for believers with good teachers why it would be puzzling at all.
For the world, and for scholars, that's a whole different realm.... many things puzzle them....

 

[AvisG]

Perhaps you posted it somewhere else - What IS the origin, the source, of Scripture.

It is not even recognized in this quote of yours. (the scholarly consensus is wrong, and not Godly) (so yes, there is VERY MUCH WRONG with that, for followers of JESUS, for all who trust Him and Yahuweh)

Why would you ask me the source of Scripture? Surely you are confident of your own understanding of the source - right? Why would you be interested in my understanding? Is this your little litmus test for "real Christians," perhaps? Or merely one of 25 or 50 such litmus tests, perhaps? (Take it to the bank: I will fail at least half of your litmus tests, possibly more.)

The "scholarly consensus is wrong"? How is it you know this? Isn't the answer that you assume the scholarly consensus is wrong because your particular Christian paradigm will not allow your understanding of the Bible to be wrong?

According to your paradigm I guess I must not be a "follower of JESUS" or someone "who trusts Him and Yahuweh." (I thought it was Yeshua or maybe Yahsua rather than JESUS in your neck of Christianity - was that a slip?) Does that seem slightly presumptuous on your part? No?

OT and NT scholars (Jewish, Christian and secular) have a pretty firm grasp on the development and structure of the books. Archaeologists and historians have a pretty firm grasp on ancient history. If folks want to take an extreme literalist view of the Bible - and it's fine if they do - they are going to be wildly out of synch with the best biblical scholars, the best archaeologists and historians, and the best work from virtually every area of academia and science. If it makes them feel like better Christians to say "We ARE wildly out of synch and proud of it because we believe GOD'S WORD, and we DON'T CARE what the world thinks!!!" - well, that's fine, but it seems to me that they are going to be living in a constant state of cognitive dissonance.

To take an extreme example, I do not accept that ANYONE, from Ken Ham on down, ACTUALLY BELIEVES the earth or the universe is less than 10,000 years old. They KNOW as well as I do that both are billions of years old. They choose to live in a state of cognitive dissonance because, for some reason that is completely unfathomable to me, they think pretending pleases God. In some cases such as Ham's, of course, they also manage to make a lucrative career out of it.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” - Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.

Wise man.

The source of Scripture? Sure, I'll humor you. Perhaps in some sense 30-40% divine inspiration by God (but certainly not in any sense "Godly dictation"); perhaps 30% reasonably accurate history; perhaps 30% either mythology borrowed from other cultures, local tribal mythology, local customs and codes, or, alas, utter nonsense. Those are very rough estimates, but I'm pretty sure I failed your litmus test by a very wide margin.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Those who reject God's Word also reject Jesus, as Jesus Says.

 

[AvisG]

Personally, I don't care too much about whether or not you adhere to the Nicene Creed in some super strict fashion, but the website management does, so we have to keep that in mind.

I honestly was not aware that this was one of those sites with its very own Statement of Faith or that said SOF mirrored the Nicene Creed. It actually took me a while, just now, to discover where said SOF is buried. I do now see that my understanding of Christianity is so wildly at odds with the SOF that I would be relegated to posting in the "Cat Owners" sub-forum of the "Furry Friends" forum. Ergo, I will simply move along once and for all, which is at least consistent with what I said on my other recent thread (which, weirdly, is still Featured even though it is locked!). Nice chatting with you folks. Enjoy Perpetual Vacation Bible School or Perpetual Sunday School or Perpetual Catechism or whatever this site conceives itself to be (there is an awful lot of fussin', feudin', screamin' and yellin' if that's the objective). Ta-ta.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We'll hope God permits us to pray for you, wherever you go......

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I honestly was not aware that this was one of those sites with its very own Statement of Faith or that said SOF mirrored the Nicene Creed. It actually took me a while, just now, to discover where said SOF is buried. I do now see that my understanding of Christianity is so wildly at odds with the SOF that I would be relegated to posting in the "Cat Owners" sub-forum of the "Furry Friends" forum. Ergo, I will simply move along once and for all, which is at least consistent with what I said on my other recent thread (which, weirdly, is still Featured even though it is locked!). Nice chatting with you folks. Enjoy Perpetual Vacation Bible School or Perpetual Sunday School or Perpetual Catechism or whatever this site conceives itself to be (there is an awful lot of fussin', feudin', screamin' and yellin' if that's the objective). Ta-ta.

If you're going to leave, then maybe consider some of the things that Craig L. Blomberg and Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory Boyd say about your topic, or things in relation to your topic, in certain chapters of their respective books.

Reference
Blomberg, Craig L. (2004). Making sense of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Eddy, Paul Rhodes & Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A case for the historical reliability of the Synpoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

 

[questionman]

I see no reason to start with the unalterable axiom that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its entirety and then try to interpret all of my experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition on the basis of this axiom. For me, this is nothing but trying to pound a "round Reality" into a "square Bible" and a sure path to cognitive dissonance.

I have struggled with the exact same thing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why would you ask me the source of Scripture?

For obvious reasons revealed now.

Rejecting Scripture, is the same as rejecting Jesus, and rejecting God the Father.
This is written in Scripture, and is true, and is unchangeable, and unchanging.

 

[questionman]

The source of Scripture? Sure, I'll humor you. Perhaps in some sense 30-40% divine inspiration by God (but certainly not in any sense "Godly dictation"); perhaps 30% reasonably accurate history; perhaps 30% either mythology borrowed from other cultures, local tribal mythology, local customs and codes, or, alas, utter nonsense. Those are very rough estimates, but I'm pretty sure I failed your litmus test by a very wide margin.

Fail!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have struggled with the exact same thing.

Simple really - it is not meant to be an axiom, or whatever, and cannot be used via the ways of men/ the mind of unregenerate men cannot in any case grasp the truth, as written in Scripture.

It is open when God opens it - the understanding is granted freely by the Father to little children,
as JESUS SAYS.

Thus, for little children God chooses to grant understanding (including Salvation) to, no willful disobedience, no struggle in vain.

 

[questionman]

Simple really - it is not meant to be an axiom, or whatever, and cannot be used via the ways of men/ the mind of unregenerate men cannot in any case grasp the truth, as written in Scripture.

It is open when God opens it - the understanding is granted freely by the Father to little children,
as JESUS SAYS.

Thus, for little children God chooses to grant understanding (including Salvation) to, no willful disobedience, no struggle in vain.

Sorry, just want to ask so I'm clear. Are you saying that anyone who struggles with the idea of inerrancy has "the mind of unregenerate men", or are acting in "willful disobedience"?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, just want to ask so I'm clear. Are you saying that anyone who struggles with the idea of inerrancy has "the mind of unregenerate men", or are acting in "willful disobedience"?

No.
Glad you asked openly instead of holding it quietly and maybe letting that cause problems later....

 

[questionman]

No.
Glad you asked openly instead of holding it quietly and maybe letting that cause problems later....

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[ChetSinger]

They may well have been. I assume they were. But the fact that the historical Jesus is almost entirely missing from Paul's numerous epistles remains very puzzling. In giving correction and instruction, references to Jesus and his teachings seem so likely and even inevitable that the absence is startling. Paul does make enough references (e.g., "born of a woman") that it's clear he isn't talking about some mythical figure as some claim - but still, the paucity of references is certainly odd. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation along the lines you suggest - it's just puzzling and was startling to me since I had read Paul's epistles many times without ever really noticing it.

I've gathered that this is a complaint by some of the more virulently anti-Christian writers such as Price and Doherty. So I did a quick search and found some Christian responses to it:

Did Paul Write About Jesus as a Historical Person?

The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters in: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Volume 16 Issue 2-3 (2018 )

I'm satisfied with what I've read above (I didn't read the second one in its entirety). I don't think we need to be worried about these guys and their arguments.