rlogan

Your "approval" or no carries zero interest to me.

Your "answer" there is merely a circularity. Paul is not discussed in the gospels because he is not discussed.

You continually refuse to address, and have thereby conceded (as if it were necessary) that it is pretty ridiculous to be arguing no story can have any references whatsoever to any moment after the last line.


Seems pretty clear to me it is pointless to exchange with someone playing coy little games instead of discussing.

So g'bye.

rlogan

And there's the circularity yet again masquerading as an "explanation". All you are doing is re-stating the question as if it were an answer.

A boatload of characters are discussed in the gospels. You have to explain why they are in there and Paul is not - particularly in view of an acknowledgement of when each was written.


See how you need to slip that straw man in there instead of addressing the OP? Paul is not mentioned even in the most tangential way. Pretending the question is why there is no extensive detail is not addressing the question at all.

Do we expect a biography of Julius Casear to mention Augustus Caesar?

Here's the very first short biography that appeared in a google search:

http://www.answers.com/topic/julius-caesar

Augustus Casesar is mentioned in the second paragraph. There are a total of ten references to Augustus.

So now your very example becomes the proof that yes - we should well expect anything actually anchored in real history have references providing the continuity for both before and after. It is nearly impossible not to do so since people in the frame of the story live on and events unfold that are important repercussions from the story itself.

So you have to contend with the fact that none of the actors in the gospels have references that anchor them to any post-gospel time, not just that Paul has no reference in the gospels.

Additionally "Paul" does not inform us when he meets Christ. Apologists assume whatever is necessary to make a just-so story. But it really strains creduility that if Paul was writing of a historical Jesus this information would be pretty importat - if and how long after the crucifixion of a physical Jesus occurred.



heh. Classic strategy of working with some "revised" version of the texts instead of what is actually written.

Instead of Jesus doing miracles and being known by the very highest authorities - indeed even a threat to the power structure - we substitute some alternate version to explain away the obvious problems.

So what you are doing is "explaining" why Paul is not written of in some gospel that has never actually been written. Unfortunately, that is not the OP.

It is ironic indeed that you then use the celebrated Paul of Acts as proof he is "mentioned" whereas the Paul in the gospels is just some invisible nobody, and there is no reason to mention him.

You can't have it both ways. It is anomalous and just does not fit into some rational development of a Historical Jesus followed by Apostles and a continuous development from there.

It does, however, fit into a scenario of a harmonization attempt bridging differing factions with opposing theology.

Clivedurdle

Is the order of the books in the New Testament also an editorial decision?

We have the life of Jesus, followed by Acts of the Apostles, then Paul and other epistles, concluding with the big finish in Revelation.

John Kesler

Actually both Luke, at 24:51, and Mark, at 16:19, mention the ascension, though it should be pointed out that Mark's account is part of the disputed "long ending" (vv 9-20) and the latter part of Luke 24:51 is missing from some ancient manuscripts.

hatsoff

I'm not really sure exactly how the NT book order was developed. The early church seemed to believe the Gospels were written in the order they appear in today's Bibles: First Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John. The Epistles seem to have been arranged by author (or, at least, supposed author). I do know that whatever methods were employed to organize the various works, the order we have today was not the product of a single decision, but the gradual development of tradition.

TedM

You are requiring an explanation that fulfills your own pre-conceived notions about what such writers would be expected to write. If one doesn't do that, and simply looks at the most straightforward interpretation of what the gospels are about--the sayings and doings of a man named Jesus--then Paul has no place in the stories since he wasn't involved. It's a simple answer. And, legitimate. Paul's involvement in history after these events and before the gospels were written, is not necessarily a factor, though you seem to require it to be. IF that were true, why not also include a discussion of James, John and Peter's rise to become pillars of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem, or the travels of Apollos and Cephas to the Corinthians, or the continuation of the John the Baptist Cult? The answer I have given with regard to Paul--ie, they don't fit the time frame or intention of the story--is equally appropriate. What you sarcastically refer to as an 'explanation' is, in fact, a reasonable explanation.


That's ridiculous. You are expanding the definition of the 'story' from that of the life of Jesus to the history of Christianity! There is no reason to make such a leap, unless you want to add Acts to the gospel group. And, of course, when you do so, you find Apollos, James, Peter, John, and Paul, who are all mentioned in the espistles of Paul.


Well, I can see why one might expect an anchor, but there is an explanation perhaps you haven't thought of for why there isn't one: The gospels were written to tell people about a man whom they didn't know much about. If the community was well aware of the post-gospel actors, such anchors were really unnecessary. Anyway, Matthew seems to have an anchor when it says Peter will be the rock upon with the Church will be built. And GJohn seems to have an anchor in Ch 21 when it refers to Peter's eventual martyrdom and John's long life. Of course, there are many smaller semi-anchors which explain various Christian traditions that existed during Paul's time--persecution of the early Christians, the inclusion of baptism, the fish symbol (perhaps), and the Eucharist..

ted

Clivedurdle

Let us look carefully at what is recorded in the NT. It is the story of the salvation of mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the beginnings of the church and some contemplation in Hebrews and Revelation of the end of days and "holy stuff".

It is not a lot of writing.

I would argue that disparate stuff has been woven together to create a complete picture. Is it possible to work out who did it? Eusebius or someone earlier?

spamandham

I have seen others claim Marcion did it.

rlogan

This is just empty rhetoric. What do you mean "pre-conceived"?

The answer to why Paul is not mentioned cannot be "because he didn't feel like mentioning him" or some similar circularity.

It is also not that the "story ends before Paul" because that is factually untue according to canon. Becuase that canon insists Jesus appeared to Paul. That appearance is about Jesus and therefore you are simply stating falsehoods.

Would you mind addressint Jesus' appearance to Paul? Is that about Jesus or isn't it?

There is also the little matter of exact lineages given all the way from David to Jesus. Such labored precision. And then nothing. Absolutely zero anchors to history beyond for the people around Jesus.


You refuse to acknowledge that Jesus appeared to Paul. That is what is simple. Until you do that then you are simply deluding yourself in thinking that you have a legitimate explanation.

Claim: Story ends with Matters pertaining to Jesus.

Fact: Jesus appears to Paul and this is not in the gospels.

Disproved by contradiction. Q.E.D.


It is circular, and that's that.

Address the appearance to Paul.


There are zero anchors. None.

From that observation you wish to pretend I am needing an infinity of them.

Just give me one.



That isn't a reason. There is no reasoning at all.

Find me examples of historical works where these kinds of anchors are omitted. It is basically impossible to do so and still retain coherency in the story because people live after the frame of events and do things on their own. That is how we remember things. By what came before and after. Within a context. You can't argue we need to exclude context.


Well, that's just rank bullshit. Fnd any historical tract that does this. Just one. In all history. You have thousands of years to work with, so this ought to be easy.


OK. So making coherent arguments is not of interest to you.

First, you insist there should be no such references, and now you claim they exist. So which is it?

It looks to me that the passage I believe you are referring to (16:18) refers to faith in Jesus as the Christ being the foundation of the church - not that Peter is the first Pope.


Cite what you are talking about specifically. Exact citation.


Well now you're desperate to find pseudo-anchors after sneering at the notion there should be any. So let's again remind ourselves what we are looking for.

The OP asks about Paul. The most famous of all Apostles, having the most celebrated encounter with Jesus Christ. Why is he not mentioned.

Why is there zero specific information about ANY of the apostles that would anchor them that would provide historical continuity between the past and the present.

The contradictory lineages from David all the way to Jesus really strain the argument that the "story" in the gospels is restricted to Jesus' life.

There is all manner of discussion in the gospels about the future, as a matter of fact. One of the pseudo-prophecies about no stone being left standing in the temple is used to date the gospels to the post-destruction period.

What we do not have though is any specific people associated with Jesus doing anything anchoring them in subsequent history.

Because they are all ficticious.

hatsoff

Something came up in RLogan's post I feel like addressing: If the Gospels are about Jesus, and Jesus appeared to Paul, why was that appearance not recorded?

Well, first of all you must keep in mind that Jesus did not *actually* appear to Paul. That was a story Luke heard and incorporated into his second volume. He apparently chose not to mention it in his Gospel, probably because it was simply outside of the time frame of the events therein. There is no evidence the other three evangelists knew of the tradition, but if by some chance they had they may have omitted it for the same reason as Luke. John even explains that he knowingly left out relevant material due to the fact he could not hope to include every last scrap of it.

In fact, Luke is really the proof of the pudding, so to speak, for the scope of relevancy hypothesis most seem to accept: He obviously knew all about Paul and other missionaries of the post-late-30s generation, but he made a conscious decision to leave all of it out of the Gospel. His work serves as a model for the other three Gospel writers, which clearly demonstrates they could have known Paul despite not mentioning him.