Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 12
But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.

Paul, of course, never dreams of comparing his preaching to that of Jesus, explaining how Jesus was a much superior preacher to him.

Nor does Paul denigrate these ‘super-apostles’ by comparing their preaching to that of Jesus.

The standard of preaching of a Jesus was just not something that was used as a comparison by members of the Jesus fan club.

You might think Paul would attack these 'super-apostles' by explaining that Jesus preached much better than they did, by preaching in a manner and way that Paul also used, which however they did not use - perhaps by their substituting empty eloquence for Jesus's parables or pithy sayings.

Why would Paul never do that?

2 Corinthians 13
On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me.

All those 'words of the Lord' - that was Christ speaking through Paul.

Juststeve

As far as we can tell from the Bible Paul never heard Jesus preach. Its therefore natural that he wouldn’t comment on his preaching style.

As to what that style was it really depends on which of the Gospels if any you trust. The Gospel of John for example quotes nothing of parables or pithy sayings.

Steve

Steven Carr

Paul never saw Jesus crucified. Its therefore natural that he wouldn't comment on the crucifixion.

Didn't Jesus have any reputation as a preacher?

aa5874

It is NOT necessary to trust the Gospels to show the contents. The teachings in gJohn about Jesus matches closely the teachings of the Pauline writers who claimed they got their gospel from Jesus who was raised from the dead.

In gJohn and the Pauline writings it is taught that Jesus was EQUAL to God and was the Creator of heaven and earth. There are NO such teachings in the Synoptics and this tends to indicate that Synoptic teachings about Jesus PREDATED gJohn and the Pauline writings.

show_no_mercy

:thumbs:

Juststeve

Steven Carr:

Did Jesus have a reputation as a preacher? I suspect so, at least among those who heard him preach. What was that reputation? Don't really know. By the time accounts of his preaching were written down in surviving documents there was ample time for embellishment which almost certainly occurred.

Did Paul know Jesus’ reputation. From his silence I glean that he didn’t know his reputation, or that he knew it and chose not to incorporate it into his arguments. That Paul did not speak much about the historical Jesus is well known and is some evidence to support the position of the Jesus deniers, but not much. There are too may plausible explanations for Paul’s silence to leap to the conclusion that if Paul didn’t say more about Jesus of Nazareth then he is purely fictional.

As to your comment about the crucifixion I have no problem that one can know some things about a person and not others. Is that mystifying to you?

Steve

yin_sage

Regardless of what conclusion we draw from it, Paul knew nothing of Jesus as a mere person.

Was he an awesome preacher? Was he any good at poker? Did he have to fight the babes off with a broom?

Paul doesn't know.

show_no_mercy

This is the point though. Paul didn't need a wandering charismatic preacher to start being zealous about Jesus. If Paul didn't need it, why did any other Christian need it? The wandering charismatic preacher Jesus is unecessary for Christian origins.

yin_sage

That's like saying: "I know someone who puts the milk in their cup before the hot water. Putting the milk in last is not necessary to make a cup of coffee."

Well, no; strictly speaking, it isn't. But you cannot infer from this what other people do when making coffee.

show_no_mercy

Exactly. The analogy works both ways; we can't infer that there was a wandering preaching Jesus based on what later gospel writers wrote.

People posit a wandering preaching Jesus to make sense for why Christianity started and claim that this is the only position that makes sense. Paul obviously did not need a wandering preaching Jesus to become a Christian. Therefore, the initial claim that a wandering preaching Jesus is the only position that makes sense is falsified by Paul's (and other 1st century epistle writers') zeal.

The real uncontested assumption here is that Paul's Jesus is the same Jesus as the one depicted in the later written gospel narratives. Especially because we don't know who those authors are, where they got there information from, and when/where they wrote.