n8sense

I'm new to this discussion, so if this has been previously discussed, I ask your indulgence.

I am curious about why, if Paul's mission was to bring the gospel to the gentiles, would he not begin at the begining of the Jesus story? Why does he not mention the story of the virgin birth? And why does he not describe the history of JC's trial, death and ressurection?

It's curious to me, to say the least, that neither Paul's epistles, nor Mark's gospel - the earliest extant writings we have about the life of Jesus, mention either of these crucial events in any detail.

It seems almost elementary to me that if one is going to introduce such a story to neophites in the faith, that these would be the KEY elements one would use as "proof" that JC was indeed god incarnate. I would think that Paul and or Mark would include these as background material to lay the foundation to demonstrate that JC was not just your average, run-of-the-mill itenerant street preacher.

It seems odd that the nativity story doesn't appear until the (much) later gospel accounts. I guess one could argue that these "facts" were taken for granted at the time Paul was writing, but I've not seen anything that would support that view.

I just can't imagine someone with Paul's mission leaving out such crucial material. Did he assume that his audience already knew the story of the virgin birth and ressurection, and he was just "filling in" the rest of the story? It seems to me that most writers would provide this information as foundational material to support everything else that followed regarding JC's divinity and deity.

Could it be that Paul and Mark had no knowledge of the "facts" surrounding JC's history because it was not commonly accepted as fact at the time and place they wrote? Could it be the case that these "facts" were added years after JC had left the scene? It really does seem like Paul was totally unfamiliar with any information regarding the nativity and passion of JC. Why would he fail to mention of such important information if it was so crucial to showing that JC was indeed the messiah?

And why are there such differences in the later gospels regarding the details of the birth and death of JC.

I'd really like to see anyone answer the questions raised in the Easter Quiz, (Borrowed from: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/EasterQuiz.htm)
to wit:

1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
a. one woman (John 20:1)
b. two women (Matt. 28:1)
c. three women (Mark 16:1)
d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)

2. She (they) came
a. while it was still dark (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
b. after the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)

3. The woman (women) came to the tomb
a. to anoint the body of Jesus with spices (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1)
b. just to look at it (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)

4. The women had obtained the spices
a. on Friday before sunset (Luke 23:54-56; 24:1)
a. after sunset on Saturday (Mark 16:1)

5. The first visitor(s) was/were greeted by
a. an angel (Matt. 28:2-5)
b. a young man (Mark 16:5)
c. two men (Luke 24:4)
d. no one (John 20:1-2)

6. The greeter(s)
a. was sitting on the stone outside the tomb (Matt 28:2)
b. was sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)
c. were standing inside the tomb (Luke 24:3-4)

7. After finding the tomb empty, the woman/women
a. ran to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2)
b. ran away and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:

8. The risen Jesus first appeared to
a. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:14; Mark 16:9)
b. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:13,15,1
c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1,9)
d. Cephas (Peter) alone (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Luke 24:34)

9. Jesus first appeared
a. somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:8-9)
b. Just outside the tomb (John 20:11-14)
c. in Galilee - some 80 miles (130 Km) north of Jerusalem (Mark 16:6-7)
d. on the road to Emmaus - Miles (11 Km) west of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-15)
e. we are not told where (Mark 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:4-5)

10. The disciples were to see Jesus first
a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16)
b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)

11. the disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee
a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus
himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7)
b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)

12. The risen Jesus
a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27)
b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17)
c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)

13. Jesus ascended to Heaven
a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19;
Luke 24:13,28-36,50-51)
b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20;
John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:

14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit
a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)

15. The risen Jesus
a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10)
b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37;
John 20:14-15)

16. The risen Jesus
a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27)
b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37;
John 20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-

17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples
a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17)
b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14;
Luke 24:13-15,33,36-51)
c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14)
d. many times (Acts 1:3)

18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples
a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36)
b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5)

If the gospels can't provide a consistent accounting of the most important aspect of the JC story, how can anyone be expected to believe the rest?

james-2-24

Either of these events? The trial, death, empty tomb and an anticipated appearance are all in Marks gospel. The resurrection is throughout Pauls' epistles. The betrayal is likely referred to in 1 Corinthians.

n8sense

I was thinking only of Paul's writings. Mark of course does discuss the passion of JC.

The resurrection Paul speaks of refers to a "Savior Messiah" that was revealed to him in a vision - a long-hidden "mystery" disclosed to him. He was not referring to an actual person named Jesus Christ, but the Messiah residing in the spiritual realm.

But why no reference to the nativity? Isn't this a crucial "proof" of JC's divinity? If Paul was charged with bringing the gospel to the gentiles, wouldn't it seem natural that he would begin at the beginning? And since most scholars agree that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke depend on and borrow from Mark's gospel, why does the nativity story appear in theirs, but not Mark's?

Very curious to me.

Toto

You are assuming that the gospel that Paul brought to the gentiles is essentially what we see in the later Christian church. This is dubious. I suspect that Paul imparted a very hands-on, religious experience that didn't depend on any historical facts about Jesus.

Patriot7

n8sense - welcome.

He doesn't specifically write about it in any of his epistles, but he alludes to it in his letter to the Galatians. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal 4:4)
A more indepth answer can be found here...
http://www.themoorings.org/apologeti...irth/evid.html

I understand that challenge was first raised by Dan Barker.
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

Mr. Barker is very clear about the requirements of the challenge. Under those requirements his challenge was answered by Jason Gastrich. You can find his answer here:
http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm

We've also been discussing it here:http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=162631&page=16

So far the only tack used to critique Gastrich's answer is to change the requirements of Barker's challenge. Something even Barker himself demanded we not do with the Gospels accounts!!

Your thoughts?

Toto

Yes, we have been discussing the Barker challenge in the thread "Ongoing debate with my ex-pastor." Patriot7 has not convinced anyone else that Jason Gastrich has met Barker's challenge. The discussion starts at post #324. Judge for yourself.

Steven Carr

The churches in Corinth and Thessalonika thought the dead were lost. They had converted to Christianity and did not believe in a general resurrection.

Paul has to tell them that the dead are not lost?

What had they been told? What did Paul say to them that left them free to not believe in a resurrection of the dead.

james-2-24

Steven, the context of "resurrection" in my response was not the general resurrection, but the resurrection of Jesus.

But yes, there was much confusion over the general resurrection. The confusion was likely to come from competing apostles bringing competing gospels, rather than from Paul changing his mind, IMHO.

james-2-24

OK, but this isn't what you stated originally, that's what I was pointing out.

Yes, this is a possible interpretation of his writings. Gal 1:19 & 4:4 to me suggests otherwise.
There is no "law" that says a vigin birth is a requirement for divinity, it is not even remotely suggested in the OT, therefore no requirement for Paul to think so.

TomboyMom

I think what the OP is saying and it makes sense to me, is that if you wanted to teach a lot of people about Jesus, you would start with explaining how he was conceived, because that's the beginning of how we know he is divine. So it's odd that he left out this important piece of information, if it existed at the time.

As for Patriot7, read the thread. We could take a poll--I don't think he's convinced anyone. I don't think any part of Barker's challenge was changed, and it's hard to see why Patriot7 thinks it was.