Need some help this Argument. . .

[Guest]

Regarding love vs apologetics , Paul said something like "without love we have nothing" so certainly anything not done in love won't work. But apologetics and love don't have to be mutually exclusive they s/b teamates. Of course if the unbeliever only wants to debate then it's time to move on.

[Guest]

This has been a very edifying discussion for me. I agree, and have seen first hand, that having the better argument will not win people to Christ out of necessity. In those types of discussions the person often takes a defensive posture. I like to contrast the way Jesus spoke to the woman at the well in John 4 with the modern approach. Instead of calling her a whore that would be damned to hell for eternity, Jesus simply told her that he offered living water and those who drink of it will never thirst. In that conversation Jesus didn't even use condemning words as he had with the Pharisees, but simply told her he was aware of her situation and offered her a better way. If anything, we can certainly see a style of evangelizing that is different than the current flavor. Maybe someone else has better insights on John 4.

Also, I was recently thinking a great deal about how Jesus and the apostles evangelized. It seems the only apologetic they used (aside from the resurrection, of course) was that of fulfilled prophecy. I almost never use that angle myself when witnessing so perhaps it would be wise to use that approach.

One question I have about witnessing is: How far into a discussion with an nonbelievers will you go if he's resistant? I seem to be overly optimistic in my talks with them so I usually continue pleading my case, even after I've worn out my welcome, so to speak. I don't know if that's something that can be answered on a message board but I'd like to hear some personal experience from those in this community since we all seem to have a similar mentality.

[Guest]

JCDV said:

since we all seem to have a similar mentality.

How true that is and refreshing also. I just came from a discussion board at www.trumpetsounds.com . The owner of this site used to be a good friend and brother in the Lord but since he now knows that I am not of the same opinion as him and do not accept his writings, he has poured curses down on me as if he has such authority and uses choice words to describe his distain for me. This, of course, saddens me but I am who I am. I have never retaliated and have had to let him have the last word which is an awful hard thing for me to do sometimes.

I know this does not necessarily fit the subject, but I just wanted to say that I am happy to be connected here

[Guest]

JCDV, IMHO if you sense resistence you ought to stop. It's like any other situation in that for progress to be made both parties have to have an interest. That's been my experience with people , they have to be ready to at least listen and consider.
However in the ministry of The Way of The Master with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort they ask people if they think they will be acceptable to God on judgement day. Almost everyone says yes, so they they proceed to read a few of the 10 Commandments. They ask, have you ever lied? have you ever used God's name in a curse? have you ever stolen anything? etc. Then they explain that on judgement day they will be guilty before God because they violated God's law. The idea is to get people to understand why they need a savior. If this sounds effective check out wayofthemaster.com

[Guest]

This pertains not only to discussions with unbelievers but it would also help to satisfy some nagging doubts in my own mind. Conversation goes something like this:

Unbeliever: Why do you believe the gospel accounts?
Me: They are eyewitness testimony from people who were there.

No, they likely weren't eyewitnesses, or based on eyewitness accounts. Mark makes too many mistakes in palestine geography and jewish tradition to have been written by a palestinian jew. Matthew learned what he knew about Jesus from reading a copy of Mark, and probably Q, not from being an eyewitness. Likewise, Luke had to copy Mark, and maybe Matthew. He was believed to be a companion of Paul, who never met Jesus and talked little if at all about Jesus with the apostles. John is too old, and revised too much to be reliable.

Unbeliever: How do you know they didn't make up or add to what happened?
Me: Lack of motive since they all sealed this testimony with their blood and I don't know anyone, including myself, who would do that for a lie.

We don't know who wrote the gospels, and can only infer their motives. There's nothing showing these authors died for their beliefs.

Unbeliever: How do you know they died for their testimony?
Me: We have church tradition and the early writings of the church fathers that tell us such details.

Those traditions are based on writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long after the fact. Their reliability is suspect.

Unbeliever: So everything we know about these early apostles comes down to human tradition?
Me: Yes. But if the gospels had not been accurate accounts of what took place in the early part of the 1st century, then something else has to explain the sudden increase in converts to a persecuted movement.

There are many other plausible explanations for the spread of christianity, including the zealous evangelism of Paul. And Paul shows little knowledge of the events of the living Jesus portrayed in the later gospels.

This is essentially how I argue my point to unbelievers but I'm wondering if there are stronger arguments available to answer these questions. Again, my goal is not really to win an argument (unbelievers don't care if they lose an argument) but to satisfy my own mind. Thanks again, brothers and sisters.

That is good, because these arguments don't really hold water all that well.

[Guest]

Hi Jackal,

You might get someone to bite if you actually substantiate some of your claims with actual facts and references. We're all lovers of truth here and are happy to engage in a meaningful conversation.

You might want to start with this one:

Mark makes too many mistakes in palestine geography and jewish tradition to have been written by a palestinian jew.

Name a few so we have something to work from.

Matthew learned what he knew about Jesus from reading a copy of Mark, and probably Q, not from being an eyewitness.

Again, what's your source. Do you even have a shred of evidence that Q ever existed? If it did, how would it take away from the authenticity of the gospels?

Likewise, Luke had to copy Mark, and maybe Matthew.

Luke had many sources (Luke 1:1-4), he doesn't seem to be ashamed of that. What's your point?

He was believed to be a companion of Paul, who never met Jesus

I beg to differ. Have you read Acts 9?

and talked little if at all about Jesus with the apostles.

Is that so?

Acts 9:26-28
26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.
NKJV

Gal 2:7-9
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
NKJV

Funny, with all this contact with them, I would've suspected they talked about Jesus at least a little....occasionally....at least mentioned His name or something. They were, after all, the leaders of His church.

John is too old, and revised too much to be reliable.

Do tell.

[Guest]

Hello, Christopher,

You might want to start with this one:

Mark makes too many mistakes in palestine geography and jewish tradition to have been written by a palestinian jew.

Name a few so we have something to work from.

All right, a few examples. In Mark 5:1 et seq., Jesus allows the demons to go into a herd of swine, which then run to the lake and drown themselves. Unfortunately, Mark puts that at Gerasa. From Gerasa, the pigs would have died from exhaustion long before they reached the lake. Matthew, in copying this story, corrects this mistake by placing it at Gadara.

In Mark 7:31, he has Jesus and his entourage going from Tyre by way of Sidon to the decapolis and the Sea of Galilee. That is like going from New York to Philadephia by way of Boston.

Matthew learned what he knew about Jesus from reading a copy of Mark, and probably Q, not from being an eyewitness.

Again, what's your source. Do you even have a shred of evidence that Q ever existed? If it did, how would it take away from the authenticity of the gospels?

There are many sources on the synoptic problem, and the two-source hypothesis in its solution. One source is the Cathlic Church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published the New American Bible edition. In its introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, the USCCB states:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

Likewise, Luke had to copy Mark, and maybe Matthew.

Luke had many sources (Luke 1:1-4), he doesn't seem to be ashamed of that. What's your point?

If he had to copy Mark, his gospel is not independent evidence, and is no more probative than Mark.

He was believed to be a companion of Paul, who never met Jesus

I beg to differ. Have you read Acts 9?

Yes, and I don't give credibility to hallucinations. Even by the gospel accounts, Jesus had died, risen and ascended by the time of Pauls conversion.

and talked little if at all about Jesus with the apostles.

Is that so?

Acts 9:26-28
26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.
NKJV

That's odd, because Paul himself says, "Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother's womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach the gospel about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia." Gal. 1:15-16.

Gal 2:7-9
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
NKJV

But as Paul points out immediately prior to that passage, "it was not till fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as the result of a revelationi, and privately I laid before the leading men the gospel as I already proclaim it among the pagans."

It sounds as though, after 14 years, Paul was doing more talking than listening with the apostles, more preaching than learning.

Funny, with all this contact with them, I would've suspected they talked about Jesus at least a little....occasionally....at least mentioned His name or something. They were, after all, the leaders of His church.

But Paul clarifies that as well. "The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the gospel I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is soemthing I learned only through the revelation of Jesus Christ." 1 Gal. 11-12. In other words, whatever Paul supposedly knew about a Jesus, did not come from the apostles, but out of his own head.

[_Steve]

Hi Jackal,

You raised two instances of what you regard to be geographical confusion in Mark's gospel, so as to suggest that Mark could not have been a Jew of Palestine.

You first mention Mark 5:1, and say that Mark puts the miracle at Gerasa., which, you say is too far from the lake to be the correct location. You suggest that "Matthew, in copying this story, corrects this mistake by placing it at Gadara."

The confusion, however, certainly can be attributed to copyists, who seemed unable to decide which location, of several possibilities, was the correct venue for the story. In Mark's gospel, some manuscripts call the place "the country of the Gadarenes" and some manuscripts read, "the country of the Gerasenes." The same is true of the manuscripts of Luke. When it comes to Matthew's account, some manuscripts say "Gadarenes," and others read, "Gergesenes" (a third possibility). Because of manuscript differences, it is impossible to be certain which location was identified by Mark himself, and which were miscopies of his work made by scribes.

According to one source, Gadara was six miles (another says sixteen) from the shore, and Gerasa was forty miles away. It is not necessary to place the miracle at either of these cities, however, since the words of Mark refer not to the city but "the country" of the Gerasenes. Gerasa was a famous Greco-Roman city, and the capital of the region. Thus it would not be strange to speak of a place nearer the lake as being part of the country of the Gerasenes.

According to Ederscheim (a Palestinian Jew of the nineteenth century), there is only one place on the eastern shore of the lake where there are cliffs such as must have featured in the story of the swine. That place bears the Arabic name, Khersa—or Gersa—which he thinks must represent the ancient Gerasa. According to Ederscheim, this place "entirely meets the requirements of the narrative."

With these things in view, one ought to be cautious about jumping to conclusions against Mark's accuracy. I believe that Schweitzer was the first to suggest that this story indicates Mark's lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography. I wonder why scholars in the first eighteen centuries never considered this evidence to point toward such a conclusion. I imagine some might say, "It is because they were prejudiced in favor of the Bible's accuracy." To which, I would respond that the modern criticisms all just happen to arise from scholars who are prejudiced against the Bible's accuracy. This renders it necessary to examine the validity of their objections carefully before trusting them.

You think you found another proof of inaccuracy:

"In Mark 7:31, he has Jesus and his entourage going from Tyre by way of Sidon to the decapolis and the Sea of Galilee. That is like going from New York to Philadephia by way of Boston."

Yes? So what is your point? Has no one ever gone from New York to Boston (let us say, on business), and subsequently gone to Philadephia (on other business, or to visit relatives)? I am sure that such a sequence has been repeated millions of times in modern history.

True, it is not anything like a direct route. Neither did Sinai lie on any kind of direct route from Rameses to Canaan. So what? People travel to the places they wish to go in whatever order suits their purposes. No law says that Jesus had to be in the kind of rush to get from "Point A" to "Point B" that characterizes our hectic lifestyles.

Jesus, like the children of Israel in Sinai, went to the places where God led Him. There is no reason to assume that, when Jesus set off from Tyre northward to Sidon, that He knew or intended that He was going next to Decapolis, far to the southeast. Things have come to a pretty pass when 21st century critics want to find fault with Christ's preaching itinerary!

Jesus went where He needed to go. We read in Luke of Him gradually making His way to Jerusalem by way of Perea, and doing extensive ministry in Transjordan. That certainly was not a direct route to Jerusalem. He also, on one occasion, went from Galilee to Jerusalem, and then to Sychar. Why didn't He simply visit Sychar on His way from Galilee to Jerusalem? Who knows? Who cares? The recording of such movements in John does not indicate that John's Gospel was written by a man unfamiliar with Palestinian geography.

Alfred Ederscheim, as I said, was himself a Palestinian Jew, who wrote an exhaustive treatment of the gospel accounts. In reading his comments on Mark 7:31ff, I find nothing in his tone to indicate surprise or incredulity at the route Jesus traveled. If Ederscheim, as a Palestinian Jew, found nothing unrealistic about such an itinerary, why would Mark's acceptance of it prove that he was not a Palestinian Jew? Ederscheim points out (as do others) that Jesus took such a route, perhaps, in order to avoid population centers. There is desperation in the attempt of modern scholars to try to make such passages disqualify Mark as an accurate historian.

With reference to your source of information about "Q", I appreciate your honest admission that there actually is no definitive proof that "Q" ever existed. However, your entire thesis concerning the origin of Matthew and Luke seems to depend substantially upon this phantom "document" that may well have never existed. The source you cite admits this at the outset:

"The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability."

Again, the theory that Mark's gospel was the earliest, and that it was used as one of at least two sources by Matthew and Luke, is of relatively recent vintage. Scholars, for the first seventeen centuries of biblical scholarship did not find it necessary to explain the similarity and dissimilarity of the synoptics by this modern expedient. Nor is the "two-source theory" universally accepted by all competent scholars today.

A woman named Eta Linnemann was formerly a leading liberal scholar in Germany, writing a number of theological texts espousing your views on the gospels and their origins. Then she got converted, met Jesus Christ, and re-looked at her writings through an objective (that is, not prejudiced against the gospels) lens.

As a result, she burned the previous books that she had written, and wrote a couple of very revealing books exposing the sophistry and the bigotry of the critical scholars with reference to their treatment of the gospels. Anyone who would like to disabuse himself of the intellectual dependency upon vacuous liberal mantras and propaganda should read her work. The books are entitled, "Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology," and "Is There a Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels" (both by Baker Book House). Obviously, liberal theologians hate her new books, but one should assess her arguments personally before deciding what to think.

Historically, the church believed in the priority of Matthew's gospel—not Mark's. According to Papias (who, living in the late first century, was much closer to the sources than was Schweitzer), Mark wrote what Peter preached. Luke may have known and used the works of Matthew and/or Mark, since he tells us at the outset of his awareness of previous literary gospels, though he obviously had access to these men personally, and to other first-hand sources as well.

The similarities between the wording of Matthew and Mark need not point to the literary dependency of one upon another. Since the stories of Jesus were preached daily by the apostles in Jerusalem and thereabouts for the first twenty years of their ministries, it is quite likely that the stories took on a standardized wording (as we can observe even in ourselves when we retell the same story to several different audiences). That many of these stories, early on, came to be thus standardized in the apostolic preaching would mean that Matthew and Peter (and the other apostles) would have become accustomed to reporting many incidents in a verbatim form long before Matthew wrote his gospel or Mark wrote down Peter's preaching. Thus we would find (as we do) much verbatim agreement in the various accounts of certain events in their two written gospels.

The thesis that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source does not account for the extreme literary independence of these writers. When Matthew and Mark place the transfiguration seven days ("after six days") after Caesarea Philippi, why would Luke, if dependent upon them, describe the interval as "about eight days"? Why do Mark and Luke speak of a man dwelling in the tombs, whom Jesus delivered from demons—but Matthew, exhibiting total independence of information, mentions that there were actually two men there?

Such cases are not contradictions. They can be harmonized easily enough. What can't be easily explained is why such differences exist, if these men extensively depended upon each other's work as their sources. It is not likely that an imaginary "Q" can help us here, since that document is imagined to contain, primarily, teachings of Jesus—whereas these examples (and dozens of others) have to do with narrative facts.

An alternative postulate, suggesting that all of the writers had some independent knowledge of the facts, which they inserted whenever they wished, but that they were also familiar with a well-established verbal testimony of many incidents, which were often cited more or less verbatim, is the best theory (in my opinion) for explaining the phenomena of the synoptic gospels. You may disagree, but I do not think you have very impressive reasons for doing so.

You wrote:

"If [Luke] had to copy Mark, his gospel is not independent evidence, and is no more probative than Mark."

There is no reason to believe that Luke "had to copy Mark." For all we know, he may have had Mark, and Matthew as well, to consult, but Luke has much independent material that he could not have "copied" from either of those books. Your bias against the gospels has prevented you from thinking rationally about the evidence. I doubt that you slant the evidence so outlandishly when arguing on subjects about which you have no preference regarding the conclusions.

I recently watched a documentary film on the life of a person I knew (now deceased), named Lonnie Frisbee. The maker of the film may have known Lonnie, but my impression is that he may never have met or seen him. However, the filmmaker's fascination with Lonnie led him to interview dozens of people who knew, lived with, or were related to Lonnie, so that the documentary has great historical credibility. It is possibly the most comprehensive and authoritative production that will ever be made about Lonnie Frisbee, notwithstanding the filmmaker's dependence upon the testimonies of eye-weitnesses.

The fact that Luke (or Paul) may never have seen Jesus in His earthly lifetime does not in any way diminish the historical value of Luke's record. The suggestion that Paul or Luke did not talk much to the apostles about Jesus is absurd in the extreme! What else would they have discussed in the weeks they spent together?

Luke had occasion to know all of the apostles personally, and probably was in Rome along with Mark as well. With Luke's obvious penchant for writing historical accounts, how could he possibly have restrained himself from grilling these men for all the details they could tell him about the life of Jesus? He was certainly closer to the sources than any of your critical scholars ever were. Why discount his book? Why not discount theirs?

Though it is irrelevant to the discussion of the writing of the gospels, you do not miss the opportunity to call Paul's conversion a "hallucination." I don't object to a person concluding that Saul had a hallucination on the road to Damascas, if that is the best explanation of the evidence. But is it? How does having a hallucination empower a man to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc.? I think Paul's own story (partially witnessed by traveling companions with him), which the other apostles initially doubted, but reluctantly were forced to believe, makes more sense.

Your inability to harmonize the accounts of Paul's early years as a Christian, in Acts 9 and Galatians 1 & 2, respectively, demonstrates, once again, an irrational bias against scripture which I am sure you do not bring to your consideration of documents in which you have no special theory to defend. Paul wrote Galatians, so the information in it obviously comes from a knowledgable source. Luke wrote Acts, from information that he must necessarily have gotten from his inseparable companion Paul—meaning that Acts is based upon the same source as is Galatians. Either Paul suffered from schizophrenia, thinking himself to have lived two contradictory personal histories, or else the two accounts can be harmonized. This is not difficult in the least.

I once had a German pastor, trained in the liberal German Bible schools, come as a student to my school in Oregon. He announced very boldly that the accounts of Paul's early years, as recorded in Acts, could by no means be harmonized with the account in Galatians. He obviously made a fool of himself in this declaration, since all one has to do is approach the material without bigotry, and he can see how Acts passes over without comment most of the early years that Paul describes in Galatians.

No unbiased observer would find this difficult to harmonize. To live as a critical scholar, one must be determined to find fault, a priori, with the biblical records, and be unwilling to apply the same common-sense solutions to superficial difficulties that one would instinctively apply in the study of any other subject. If such prejudice were brought to any other field of academic study, we would soon know nothing about it, because all of the reliable records would be disqualified by silly objections. I am not impressed with either the acumen nor the integrity of those producing these theses.

Your survey of the Galatians material is so irresponsible as to make me wonder about your honesty. You pass over chapter one entirely, and miss the fact that Paul spent two weeks with Peter and James, just three years after his conversion. If I were him, I certainly would have exploited the opportunity to learn everything about Jesus that those men knew during those two weeks (one could recite the entire contents of any of the gospels in only a few hours). You think Paul did not avail himself of this opportunity? Why wouldn't he? Was he not interested in Jesus?

Then you write, about a later visit of Paul to the apostles:

"It sounds as though, after 14 years, Paul was doing more talking than listening with the apostles, more preaching than learning."

If you were to twist your wife's words as cruelly as you twist those of Paul, in Galatians 2, you would be sleeping on the couch for a week! Paul does not give any indication that he "was doing more talking than listening" during his second visit with these men. He only mentions that he reported to them the things he had been preaching. Are you suggesting that this is an exhaustive account of all of their conversations that they had over a protracted visit? Certainly you will wish to salvage your integrity by retracting such irresponsible handling of evidence.

You mention Gal. 1:11-12, where Paul says that he got his message by revelation from Christ, rather than from men, and you interpret this as a claim that he never got any information about Jesus from other people. Again, you are not making a very diligent attempt to understand Paul's meaning. Of course he talked to others about the life of Jesus, but probably not very much prior to his commencing to preach that salvation is by faith in Jesus, who, as Messiah, died for our sins and rose again. He preached this immediately after his conversion.

Beyond these truths (which were revealed to Paul by Christ directly) we do not know how much information about the life of Jesus Paul may have known prior to his talking to the other apostles three years after his conversion. However, he was not isolated from Christians who knew the facts better than he did. He labored, immediately after his conversion, among disciples in Damascas, who already knew much about Jesus. Do you think he stopped his ears every time they spoke in his presence of the wonderful things Jesus had said and done? I doubt it.

His protestation in Galatians 1 is merely that he was not dependant upon human testimony alone, but upon his own personal encounter with Christ, for his knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah upon whom all must believe in order to be justified.

As much as I appreciate your input at this forum, and hope you may continue to dialogue with us, I must say that your research has been much too narrow to justify the confidence of your assertions.

[Guest]

Jackal, your supositions and presupositions are verse out of context and that makes what you say pretext. Commentary in this critique of yours undermines what the scripture is saying. Therefore you are not being biblical with your reffrences here. History was written by the conquerors but in this case the words are Gods. You cant change that. What is your point anyway? sinner.

[Guest]

Jackal,

When you say,

"Paul shows little knowledge of the events of the living Jesus portrayed in the later gospels."

what exactly is your point? I don't mean this in an arrogant way, but am sincerely interested! I mean, IF this is true, what conclusion does this bring you to? It may be true, and I'd have to double check, that Paul writes little of the events found in the gospels, but what does that mean to you? I know, I sound like a broken record, forgive me