Chunk

A lot is made of the fact that Paul doesnt mention, in his epistles, a number of things that are detailed in the gospels.

The Christian defence of this seems to be that Paul was writing to converts, so the context in which he wrote his epistles, means he wouldnt have written a biography of Jesus' life or mentioned certain things that we see in the gospels.

I hope that makes sense.

My basic question for discussion is, given the context Paul is writing in, on what occasions is it realistic to think Paul should mention something about Jesus (that is described in the gospels).

An example might make this a bit clearer:

Jesus was born of a virgin. A biography of Jesus should mention this. Paul isnt writing a biography, so he doesnt have to mention it. However Paul does make reference to Jesus' birth, but never mentions it being a virgin birth. Something so huge could surely not be overlooked, given that Paul is mentioning the birth:

1 Cor 11:12
for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Galatians 4:23
But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.

Galatians 4:29
But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

Philippians 2:7 (Show me Philippians 2)
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,[1] being born in the likeness of men.

Steven Carr

So why did these 'converts' in 1 Corinthians 15 deny a bodily resurrection, and why did Paul not bother to give any of the stories of Jesus being touched, and eating fish?

The Bishop

Even in non-devotional scholarship, Paul wrote twenty or more years before Matthew and Luke, the evangelists who describe the virgin birth. Paul's silence on a matter which is less likely to have been brought into the story until later on anyway, isn't really significant.

This is Internet Infidels, isn't it? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove - that because Paul doesn't mention it proves that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin? Well, no shit, Sherlock!

Why is it necessary for Paul to have known all the stories later transmitted through the written Gospels?

QRUEL

was that called for ?

Toto

Doherty gives many instances of times when Paul would have been expected to mention something about Jesus' life, but does not. I don't think that the virgin birth is one of those unexplained silences.

e.g. from here Your virgin birth example is not one of the unexpected silences. Most liberal scholars assume that the virgin birth story was added at a later point, and would not expect Paul to know about it; and it is not central to any of Paul's theological points.

TedM

Is it not more accurate to say that some of them were denying that believer's body's would be raised in bodily form? Isn't that different than denying that Jesus had a body or that he had been raised in the appearance of a body?

In any case, here's my response to a number of the most common silences by Paul and others.

ted

Steven Carr

No.

They denied any reward for the dead, refusing to take part in baptisms for the dead.

They denied resurrection.

Why would Paul not mention the stories of Jesus being touched and eating fish?

Because nobody had heard of those stories at that time?

TedM

I can't find this, though I see where Paul argues that praying for the dead would be of no value if there is no resurrection.

You may be right but all I see is that Paul says in 15:12 "if Christ if preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Paul doesn't say "some of you say that Christ was not raised from the dead", which is what he says they believed (15:3 "I delivered to you...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day" and 15:11 "so we preach, and so you believed".

What do you think that they originally believed if not in the resurrection in Christ?


At first glance it seems to me very reasonable to expect a mention given the context had he known of those accounts. Some arguments against this are

1. Paul is not a detail kind of guy. Notice, he refers to Jesus as "the last Adam", "the second man", "the man of heaven", without even using his name!

2. It may also be that if the doubters amongst his previous converts didn't believe or no longer believed the story about the appearances to Peter, the twelve, James, the 500, the apostles, and Paul, (resurrection regardless of bodily or spiritual only) they wouldn't believe some story about being touched and eating fish. So, rather than provide details for the bigger skeptics, he attempted to 'reason' with them--seeds die to bring life, different bodies for different states of being, the first man 'became' a living being, etc...

ted

Gamera

I think the answer to your question is, who's the audience. The issue of Jesus' messiahood was presumably important to first century Jews that made up the audience of the gospels. It had no meaning to the gentiles. Indeed, Paul rarely discusses the OT, which was pretty incohernet to a non-Jew. Paul focusses on the gospel message, which is Christ cruxified and resurrected as a sign of the profundity of God's love.

So, to deal with your example, the issue of a virgin birth was significant to messianic Jews. It was pretty bizarre for a gentile, and had not real resonance. So Paul doesn't bother to bring it up, since it would distract from the gospel message.

By the way, I think it distracts from the gospel message today, and many churches promote doctrines which may have been relevant to an audience of 1st century Jews, but have no relevance today. They should be abandoned and we should focus on the gospel message

Amaleq13

What is the evidence for this claim?