Paul's familiarty of the Man Jesus

[_SoaringEagle]

There seemes to be a common thought (birthed from speculation and ignorance of the New Testament) that Paul knew very little of about the human Jesus' life, teachings/words/ and message. This thought is an attempt to discredit the authority of the Scriptures, and to show that the New Testament was written by primitive men, with no inspiration of Yahweh, the God the bible teaches of. The only problem is, this idea is clearly refuted by carefully comparing Paul's teaching with Jesus'. It is so clearly refuted, that one has to wonder if these people have honestly searched the Scriptures with an open mind. Why do I say that? See for yourself. Though Paul's intent is not to lay down history, but to deal with pastoral problems and strengthen believers in their faith, you can see he was aware of some events of the human Jesus he believed in and died for.

Christopher Price notes that:

Gal. 3:16 -- Jesus was born a Jew
Gal. 4:4 -- Jesus lived under Jewish Law
Rom. 1:3 -- Jesus was from the house of David
1 Cor. 9:5 -- Jesus had brothers
1 Cor. 15:7 -- One of his brother was James
1 Cor. 15:7 -- Jesus had twelve disciples
2 Cor. 8:9 -- Jesus was poor
1 Cor. 15:7 -- Some of Jesus' disciples had wives
Phil. 2:5 -- Jesus was a servant who acted with humility
2 Cor. 10:1 -- Jesus acted with meekness and gentleness
Rom. 15:3 -- Jesus didn't act on his own behalf, but was accused by others
Rom. 6:6 -- Jesus was crucified
Rom. 4:25 -- Paul speaks of Jesus' death
1 Thess 2:14-15 -- Jesus crucifixion was brought on by Jewish instigation
1 Cor. 5:7 -- Paul alludes to the Passion week
Rom. 8:34 -- Jesus is at God's right hand
Rom. 6:4, 8:29; Col. 2:12 -- Paul talks about the nature of the resurrection, presuming it's physicality. He compares the resurrection to baptism, thus giving implic testimony to the empty tomb.

From here, we can conclude that Paul was indeed aware of the events of the human Jesus he believed in. Yet this is not all. What about Jesus' teachings and words? Was Paul aware of them, and if so, were his teachings and Jesus in harmony? Let's see:

Glenn Miller notes the following:

(JESUS) Luke 6.27-28: "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you"
(JESUS) Matt 5.24: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(PAUL) Romans 12.14: "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse"

(JESUS) Mark 7:15: "there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
(PAUL) Romans 14:14: " I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself"

(JESUS) Matt 17:20: "if you have faith...you will say to this mountain, 'Move'..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.2: "if I have all faith so as to move mountains..."

(JESUS) Matt 19.21: "If you would be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.3: "if I give away all my possessions..." (contra Rabbinical advice! Cf. b. Ketubot 50a and Mishnah Arakin 8.4)

(JESUS) Matt 24.43: "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
(PAUL) I Thess 5:2,4: "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief;

(JESUS) Mark 9.50: "live at peace with one another" (verb forms are absolutely identical)
(PAUL) I Thess 5.13: "live at peace among yourselves"

(JESUS) Mark 4.22: "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it should come to light.
(PAUL) I Cor 4.5: "who will bring to light the secrets of darkness and will make public the purposes of the heart"
(PAUL) Rom 2.16: "God judges the secrets of people, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ"
(PAUL) I Cor 14.25: "The secrets of his heart are made public"

(JESUS) Mark 14:36: "And He was saying, "Abba! Father" (very uncommon usage)
(PAUL) Gal 4.6: "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!""
(PAUL) Rom 8.15: "you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

(JESUS) Luke 10.21f: ""I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.
(PAUL) I Cor 1-2 (various verses): "hidden things" (2.7), "the wise" (1.19), "the understanding" (1.19), "God has revealed" (2.10), "to infants" (3.1), "God was pleased" (1.21)

(JESUS) ark 14:22-23: "And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
(PAUL) I Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [the whole thing!]

(JESUS) Luke 10.7: "And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
(PAUL) I Cor 9.14: "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. "
(PAUL) I Tim 5.18: "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

(JESUS) Matt 16.16-20: "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
(PAUL) Gal 1.15,16: "But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,

(JESUS) Mark 10.9f: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
(PAUL) I Cor 7.10-11: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away

(JESUS) Matt 22.21: "Then He *said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (reference to taxes and tribute)
(PAUL) Romans 13.7: "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor" [linguistic forms are identical]

(JESUS) Matt 20.26: "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
(PAUL) Romans 15.7: "For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision

(JESUS) Mark 10.44: "and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
(PAUL) I Cor 9.19: "I have made myself a slave to all..."
(PAUL) I Cor 10.33: "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

(JESUS) Matt 5.33f: "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil."
(PAUL) 2 Cor 1.17-18: "Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no."

Overall, there are significant amounts of allusion material in Paul to this synoptic mission discourse, some of which are as follows:

-the sending of the apostles on itinerant mission (Matt 10:2, 5/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:2/10:1; so 1 Cor 9:1, 5, etc.),
-their authority (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.),
-to preach the gospel (Matt 10:7/Luke 9:2; 10:9; so 1 Cor 9:14-16, etc.)
-and to cast out devils and heal (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1/Luke 10:9; so 2 Cor 12:12),
-their mission to Israel (Matt 10:5; so Gal 2:8, 9),
-"you received without payment; give without payment" (Matt 10:8; so 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Cor 9:18, etc.),
-"eating and drinking . . ." (Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.),
-"the laborer deserves to be paid" (Matt 10:10/Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:14, etc.),
-"eat what is set before you" (Luke 10:8; so 1 Cor 10:27),
-"be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16; so Rom 16:19),
-"whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16; so 1 Thes 4:8).

All of this is eyeopening, showing that Paul was in fact, familiar of the teachings and words of Jesus. But this wasn't it. Paul went beyond this, and frequently directed those who would read his letters to the life of Christ as an example to follow.

Rom 15.1ff: "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me."

Philp 2.5: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,"

I Cor 11.1: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

Eph 5.1f: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us"

In Conclusion, Paul was aware of various apects surrounding the earthly Jesus he believed in and taught of.

[_SoaringEagle]

Yet after silencing skeptics ideas thought that Paul was ignorant of things surrounding the human Jesus' life, skeptics then propose another idea, bred from mere speculation. That idea, is that after looking at the evidence from Paul's teaching and seeing his familiarity of various aspects surrounding Paul's life from events, to family and even Christ's words' and teachings, he never attributed them to Jesus. So the main idea is (as Jackal put) "that many of the gospels stories of Jesus may have borrowed from Paul's letters to create the dialogues put into the Jesus character's mouth"

First, would Paul be so arrogant to take credit for Jesus' teaching that He recieved from the Father? Not any more arrogant that James or Peter. Here is what I mean. Just like we find Paul's letters containing close similarities of Jesus' teachings, we also find the same thing in James epistle along with Peter's (1 Peter).



(JAMES) Jas 1.6: "But let him ask in faith without any doubting,
(JESUS) Matt 21.21: …“if you have faith, and do not doubt,

(JAMES) Jas 1:12 “Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life.
(JESUS) Matt. 10:22 “But the one who endures to the end will be saved


(JAMES 1:22) “But be doers of the Word and not hearers who deceive themselves.”
(JESUS) Luke 6:49 “But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without foundation.
(JESUS) Luke 11:28 “But he said, ‘blessed rather are those who hear the word and obey it!’” (See also Luke 8:15)

(JAMES) Jam. 4:6 But he gives all the more grace. Therefore it says, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. …10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you
(JESUS) Matt. 23:12: “All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

(JAMES) Jas. 5:2-3 “Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for yourself for the last days.”
(JESUS) Matt. 6:19-21 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

(JAMES) Jas 5:12: “Above all, my beloved,, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘Yes’ be yes and your ‘No’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
(JESUS) Matt 5:34-37 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes, Yes’ or ’No, No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

So as you review the teaching of James, you’ll find that James demonstrates striking points of contact with the traditions common to both Matthew and Luke, just as Paul does. Yet James never attributes them to Jesus. What about Peter? Let’s look and see if there are any Jesus traditions in 1 Peter. (There are, lol).

PETER 1 Pet. 3:9 “Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse, rather, repay with a blessing.
JESUS Luke 6:28 “Bless those who curse you.”

PETER 1 Pet. 3:14 “But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed.”
JESUS Luke 6:10 “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of man.”
JESUS Luke 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake…”

PETER 1 Pet. 2:12 “Conduct yourselves honorably among the gentiles, so that thought they malign you as though you were evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge.
JESUS Matt. 5:16 “Let your light shine before people in order that they might see your good works and glorify your heavenly Father.

Peter doesn't attribute his teachings to Jesus either. So I guess that Paul, James, and Peter got together and made up the an earthly Jesus and placed them into the gospels stories of Jesus may as they were borrowed from Paul's, James' and Peter's letters to "create the dialogues put into the Jesus character's mouth" But that thought wont fly unless the skeptic wants to change his position on Paul's relationship and communication with James and Peter. After all, according to the skeptic, Paul always done most of the talking, and for them to get together in cohoots would mean they would have balanced conversations.

No one claims that some of the gospel stories were borrowed from the letters of James and to create dialogues and put them in Jesus mouth. So why should we flirt with a very unlikely possiblity that the some dialogues in the gospels came from Paul's letters? It is amazing, because this idea is a response to the answer to a former idea coming from skeptics, which is the claim that Paul was ignorant of many if not every aspect surrounding Jesus life. Then when you show the skeptics that their claim wont fly and is incredibly wrong, they then comprimise their former claim, and imagine up another possiblity, that some of the dialogues of Jesus were borrowed from Paul's letters. But this idea just shows how desperate they are willing to be and go, in order for all their views to stand. It's sad.


What Paul preached was not only the same as the other apostles, but was sanctioned by them because he was with them.

Gal. 2:1-2: “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.” V.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.”

At the church in Antioch, they fasted and prayed “ the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2-3)

On Paul and Barnabas’ missionary journey Acts 13:14 “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” 16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:

He then gives them their own history (similar to what Stephen said in Acts 7, which makes this significant since he was there at stoning when this transpired).

Acts 13:22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.' 23 From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior--Jesus-- 24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, 'Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.' 26 Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28 And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29 Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But God raised Him from the dead. 31 He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. 32 And we declare to you glad tidings--that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' 34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: 'I will give you the sure mercies of David.' 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.' 36 "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40 Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you: 41 "Behold, you despisers, Marvel and perish! For I work a work in your days, A work which you will by no means believe, Though one were to declare it to you.

Before we conclude this I want to point out the similarity of What Peter said to Israel on Pentecost.

Acts 2:22 22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Manattested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him: 'I foresaw the Lord always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." '36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

We see Peter saying that Jesus:
1) was a Man
2) was crucified and put to death
3) was raised up (resurrected)
4) was exalted to the right hand of God, to sit on His throne

We see Paul saying that Jesus:
1) was a man, and that He wore sandals on His feet
2) was crucified (on a tree) and put to death by Pilate
3) was raised from the dead
4) was exalted to the right hand of God, to sit on His throne

On #4, we find that being taught in His letters. (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 1:20, Col. 3:1)

Conclusion, Paul was not ignorant of the various aspects of Jesus (who he believed was human in the same way he was) life. The dialogues of Jesus were not borrowed from Paul's letters. Jesus was already preached by many, and Peter's sermon was before Paul's conversion. This idea is just an idea bred from hyper skepticism and desperation.

[Guest]

You say -- Yet after silencing skeptics ideas thought that Paul was ignorant of things surrounding the human Jesus' life

Basically, what you quoted about Paul's knowledge of Jesus can be derived from the messianic prophecies of the OT. But more to the point, how do those supposed facts indicate Jesus had just lived a generation before, and was not some legendary crucified hero from centuries earlier? How does saying he was a Jew, or of the House of David, or wore sandals show that the Jesus of Paul'sl letters wasn't one who lived and was crucified centuries earlier? Where is one reference in Paul's letters that would put Jesus in the time frame of the Gospels?


You say -- First, would Paul be so arrogant to take credit for Jesus' teaching that He recieved from the Father? Not any more arrogant that James or Peter. Here is what I mean. Just like we find Paul's letters containing close similarities of Jesus' teachings, we also find the same thing in James epistle along with Peter's (1 Peter).

Which only further argues that the gospel writers had the letters or traditions contained in those letters before them, when they put those teachings and philosophies into the dialogue from Jesus's mouth. None of those epistles credit Jesus for their origin. For each and every one of those apostles to have recited and plagarize what would be the word of God, without any one of them giving credit, such as, "as the lord said", is incomprehensable. What it shows is that these were morals or lessons of their own, or of their religious sect, which were then put into the mouth of Jesus when those gospel stories were created.

[Guest]

Which only further argues that the gospel writers had the letters or traditions contained in those letters before them, when they put those teachings and philosophies into the dialogue from Jesus's mouth. None of those epistles credit Jesus for their origin. For each and every one of those apostles to have recited and plagarize what would be the word of God, without any one of them giving credit, such as, "as the lord said", is incomprehensable. What it shows is that these were morals or lessons of their own, or of their religious sect, which were then put into the mouth of Jesus when those gospel stories were created.


Jackel, Your logic is fascinating, on the one hand you say the evidence argues that the Apostles plagarized earlier written material yet then you continue to say it's incomprehensible that they did'nt quote Jesus by saying "as the Lord said." So they did'nt go far enough or they went to far or exactly what are you saying.
Many of the things Paul said could not be known from Messianic prophecies at least as far as i know.
Rom 12.14 "Bless thoses who persecute you"
1 Cor 13.2 "If i have all faith to move mountains"
1 Cor 13.3 "If i give all my possessions"
1 Cor 14.25 "The secrets of the heart are made public"
1 Cor 11.23 is about Christ's body and blood representing the New Covenant (not revealed in the OT re how the NC would come about)
The fact Christ had disciples, that they had wives and brothers, the fact of Christ's physical resurrection and that this would be the firstfruits of others to follow.
These and other things revealed by Paul are not from Messianic prophecies.
Many believe including myself that Peter is the real author of Mark and that it was written very early possibly when Peter stayed with Mark in Acts 12 therefore Peter would have quoted Jesus dozens and dozens of times. The epistles were teachings given to the Apostles by Christ and if their intention was to plagarize they would have emphasized their credibility by making up quotes from Christ but once again they just did what Christ told them to do which was tell the truth about the particular topic given to them. The epistles were not meant to repeat the historical facts already given in the gospels they were for guidence and instruction. Everything about the NT follows a pattern of understatement from all the writers which is what one does when they reverence the truth. To believers the truth is precious and handled conservatively but a plagarist would have no love of the truth and could'nt help but embellish his stories.

[Guest]

You say -- Jackel, Your logic is fascinating, on the one hand you say the evidence argues that the Apostles plagarized earlier written material yet then you continue to say it's incomprehensible that they did'nt quote Jesus by saying "as the Lord said." So they did'nt go far enough or they went to far or exactly what are you saying.

No, I had said the gospel writers, specifically the authors of Matthew and Luke, had plagarized Mark and used the epistles to create dialogue for the Jesus character. But these gospel authors were not any of the apostles. Even if the authors of the epistles of Peter and James were the same apostles, they likewise say nothing to confirm the time and location setting of the later gospels, or confirm any personal sayings or parables from Jesus.



You say -- Many of the things Paul said could not be known from Messianic prophecies at least as far as i know.

But in those verses, Paul was not describing or referring to Jesus. He was simply relating moral, ethical or philosophical principles. Paul's theology has many differences from the judaic scriptures, since he was targeting the gentile audiences. But, generally, when he referenced something about Jesus, such as being from the House of David, that reference had an origin in the OT prophesy.


You say -- Many believe including myself that Peter is the real author of Mark

That's fine, but I have trouble believing that if it were Peter, that he, a native of Galilee, would have made the geographic errors found in GMark.


You say -- that it was written very early possibly when Peter stayed with Mark in Acts 12 therefore Peter would have quoted Jesus dozens and dozens of times.

But even most traditions of the early church hold that the gospel was not written until Peter went to Rome, and it was from there that some Mark wrote it. Irenaeus stated that Mark wrote it after Peter died, which puts it into the late '60s at the earliest.


You say -- The epistles were teachings given to the Apostles by Christ and if their intention was to plagarize they would have emphasized their credibility by making up quotes from Christ but once again they just did what Christ told them to do which was tell the truth about the particular topic given to them.





You say -- The epistles were not meant to repeat the historical facts already given in the gospels they were for guidence and instruction.

You seem to have the cart before the horse. When Paul, and possibly Peter and James, wrote the epistles, there were not yet any written gospels of any alleged facts about a historical Jesus. Not only did those epistles not relate any of the gospel specifics, but they show no awareness of them, either. Their epistles note that Jesus was crucified, but never mention Pilate. The epistles mention that Jesus was betrayed, but never mention Judas. Not once. The epistles mention that Jesus was born, but not of a virgin, nor that his mother's name was Mary. Never. In contrast, later epistle writers in the 2nd century routinely and frequently mention these gosple characters. Almost always when Jesus's crucifixion is mentioned, Pilate is mentioned. Almost always when his betrayal is mentioned, Judas is mentioned. Almost always when his birth is mentioned, the Virgin Mary is mentioned. They were mentioned and emphasized in these later epistles, even though their audience already knew those details. It is strange that the earlier epistle writers did not see the same need for emphasis, if in fact those details were known to them.


You say -- Everything about the NT follows a pattern of understatement from all the writers which is what one does when they reverence the truth.

But when it goes so far as a nonstatement, it shows an ignorance, rather than reverance, of that "truth".



You say -- To believers the truth is precious and handled conservatively but a plagarist would have no love of the truth and could'nt help but embellish his stories.

And isn't that what Matthew and Luke did by embellishing Mark's gospel with sayings and parables and a few other stories.

But what you are doing is speaking for the NT writers as to what were their purposes and intents and what is truth. It is far from certain, and quite dubious, that the gospels were meant to be some sort of historical, factual record. You have failed to consider other plausible motives for why the writers wrote these books, and are simply imposing the motives underlying your religion's dogma upon those writers.

[Guest]

No, I had said the gospel writers, specifically the authors of Matthew and Luke, had plagarized Mark and used the epistles to create dialogue for the Jesus character. But these gospel authors were not any of the apostles. Even if the authors of the epistles of Peter and James were the same apostles, they likewise say nothing to confirm the time and location setting of the later gospels, or confirm any personal sayings or parables from Jesus.



You say -- Many of the things Paul said could not be known from Messianic prophecies at least as far as i know.

But in those verses, Paul was not describing or referring to Jesus. He was simply relating moral, ethical or philosophical principles. Paul's theology has many differences from the judaic scriptures, since he was targeting the gentile audiences. But, generally, when he referenced something about Jesus, such as being from the House of David, that reference had an origin in the OT prophesy

Jackel, Re your first statement i would like to respond but your just giving your opinion. My opinion is that i completely disagree. And again i can only say what's been said before, that the epistles were not written for the purpose of repeating historical details already in the gospels. And i believe Mark was written well before the epistles and therefore Peter knew the info in it and when Paul met Peter in 35AD he was made aware of the historical details of Jesus.
Paul's doctrines were identical with Jesus's and in fact were very jewish, scriptually speaking although not rabbinically speaking. Almost all of Jesus's teachings were found in the Psalms and Proverbs and Torah but not brought to light by rabbinical teaching.

And btw i have and had considered other motives before i became a believer and the more i looked into it the more believable and logical it became.

[Guest]

>>>>”Basically, what you quoted about Paul's knowledge of Jesus can be derived from the messianic prophecies of the OT. But more to the point, how do those supposed facts indicate Jesus had just lived a generation before, and was not some legendary crucified hero from centuries earlier? How does saying he was a Jew, or of the House of David, or wore sandals show that the Jesus of Paul'sl letters wasn't one who lived and was crucified centuries earlier? Where is one reference in Paul's letters that would put Jesus in the time frame of the Gospels?”

You know I remember arguing this point with you last year and you never responded. I will condense my argument. Paul writes in Galations of his meetings with the apostles, who claimed to have walked and have been taught by Jesus. It really is that simple.

Here is the original response, that seems to have been chopped up. I have noticed alot of great posts from many people have been edited?
Jackal,

I believe you missed the intent of my statement there. I was trying to get at least some evidence from captain that the story of Jesus was completely molded from OT prophecies and myths and not from an actual historical person, divine or otherwise. I was looking for an evolution of theology that would show the observer two very distinct belief systems when viewed in a polar mode. What we see in the bible are a few small variances and a good example of role and duty. That is in each book we have a different intent and purpose, as such this provides us with a different but still yet collaborative story. Still I will indulge in your theory.

The intent of the letters from Paul were to serve as reminders of past teachings and even forewarnings of his return to that particular city. They are not to be used as biographies of the life of Christ. So the absence of particular details should not be suprising. Remember Paul was not present at these events, therefore it would be irrelevant to speak of them.
Although I hold to this theory, there are several important passages which would support the attributes given to Christ in the Gospels. In Romans we read that christ was a descendant of David and was declared through the spirit of holiness to be the son of God. In Romans, Paul also makes note of his fulfillment of OT prophecy. In fact this is all declared in the first sentence.

What Paul and the rest of the gospels reveal is that Paul's ministry began shortly after the death of Christ. First is Acts we hear about Paul meeting the apostles. If the apostles were still alive for Paul to meet them we have to conclude that Saul's conversion and ministry could not have taken place much longer after the death of Jesus. Then in Galations Paul himself goes on to tell about his meetings with some of the apostles and James. By this evidence we could conclude that paul wrote his letters at the date held and also that the death and resurrection of Christ could not have happened that much earlier. Paul also uses OT prophecies when speaking about Christ.

[_SoaringEagle]

Jackal

how do those supposed facts indicate Jesus had just lived a generation before, and was not some legendary crucified hero from centuries earlier? How does saying he was a Jew, or of the House of David, or wore sandals show that the Jesus of Paul's letters wasn't one who lived and was crucified centuries earlier? Where is one reference in Paul's letters that would put Jesus in the time frame of the Gospels?

In Acts 13, we read of Paul going to Pisidian Antioch, where Paul gives a speech similar to that of Steven's. Then Paul continues, and mentions of John the baptist and mentions how John had said he was not the messiah, but there was one coming after him whose sandals he was unworthy to loosen. Then Paul goes on and mentions Pilate, Jesus death, the empty tomb, and the resurrection followed by the exaltation of God putting Jesus to His right hand. This tells us a few things.

One, it shows how Jesus was indeed a real person according to Paul's understanding (a man and not just a spirit being) because it talks of John and how he claimed to be unworthy to untie Jesus sandals. But also, it is abundantly clear from just the Pauline epistles that he believed that the earthly Jesus was indeed a Man in the same way he was a man!

Two, it shows that Paul understood Jesus to be a person living during the time of John the Baptist, and having died during the reign of Pilate. This places Jesus to be alive and living in the first three decades A.D. So this clearly shows that Paul did not believe Jesus existed centuries before his life. But we also have one specific account from one Epistle of Paul that put's Jesus in the generation before him. 1 Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. So what is this talking about? Well if turn to the gospels, we read of this. John 18:33 Then Pilate entered the governor's headquarters again, called Jesus, and said to Him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" 34 Jesus answered him, "Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?" 35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the cheif priests have delivered You to me. What have you done? 36 Jesus answered "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." SO, we see that Paul was aware that Jesus lived and that Pilate had Him crucified.


Third, since the event of John the baptist' encounter with Jesus and him not being worthy to untie the sandals of Jesus' is recorded in all of the gospels, then this mean the gospel had been spreading by then whether by letter or oral tradition. So the gospels had already been established by this time that Paul was in Pisidian Antioch. (47 to 48 AD) So Paul either had gathered the details of Jesus life (we know this by his familiarty of John the baptist and Jesus baptism) by letter which would place the date of one or more gospels before 48 AD, or Paul had gathered this information through his stay with Peter James and John, if not Barnabas. These are things to think on. Regardless of the actual date of each of the four gospels, we can know that the gospel message was spreading no later than 48 AD so the gospels could not have been "made up" in the late 1st century.

Also, there may be extra biblical evidence to Jesus crucifixion. There was a second century satarist, Lucian of Samosata, who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." -

-The Passing Peregrinus