Why Did Paul Get Precedence Above the Disciples

[Thief]

Why is there a crazy notion that the disciples were only sent to the Jews; when Jesus said go forth spreading the good news and Paul was sent to the gentiles? Didn't Thomas go to India?

I have the impression Paul never met Jesus

and the collection of work was decided upon by the Church
what scripture to keep
what to burn

 

[shmogie]

So I think that Paul, having been converted to Christ independently, was focused on teaching the Good News, but not one rooted in a common, standardized Life of Jesus narrative. Paul doesnt speak to most of the "facts" presented in the sometimes conflicting Gospel narratives.

Yet Paul almost immediately upon conversion has contact with the Apostles

Depending on the sense

You could say God is benevolent to all but fatherly to believers.

I see it a little differently. As a father, I love my children, as my children. Yet, they must be responsible and accountable for their choices. If they make disasterous choices, I love them still, am terribly saddened, but the disaster is theirs.

In the same way, all are Gods children, He loves them all, but their choices are theirs, if they choose death, He is terribly saddened, yet they are accountable for their choices.

 

[Jainarayan]

I have the impression Paul never met Jesus

He didn't. Except in a hallucination, or as some like to say, a vision. Even then Jesus only asked Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" Iirc it was at that point Paul experienced his blindness that lasted for a time, until he apparently rethought his persecutions. Then he regained his sight and was converted. I don't recall Jesus telling him to become as zealous as he became. It seems Paul was overcompensating in his zealousness of preaching Christianity for his zealousness in persecuting it.

 

[Thief]

He didn't. Except in a hallucination, or as some like to say, a vision. Even then Jesus only asked Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" Iirc it was at that point Paul experienced his blindness that lasted for a time, until he apparently rethought his persecutions. Then he regained his sight and was converted. I don't recall Jesus telling him to become as zealous as he became. It seems Paul was overcompensating in his zealousness of preaching Christianity for his zealousness in persecuting it.

I suspect.....a stroke
the event has all the earmarks

bright light is seen
a fall
days of recovery

the blindness was unusual as he recovered that much altogether......apparently

but his radical change of person.....from Saul to Paul
would be outstanding

the only clue to spiritual intervention.....
the Voice heard speaking to Saul.....was heard by others nearby

 

[sealchan]

shmogie said: ↑
How would you know ? You haven a clue as to what Christianity even is.

I agree with one's comments and would like to add.
I notice that Jesus and his mother Mary were Jews and none of them was ever a Christian. It is Paul who is the inventor/founder of modern Christianity. Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings.
Right, please?

Paul is seen by scholars as the earliest author in the New Testament so his is the "closest" thoughts to the time when Jesus/Yeshua was said to live.

The Gospels were written later. Although they purport to give the words of Jesus directly, they were not written by eyewitnesses and those "sayings" may or may not be the teachings of an historical Jesus.

I would say so far as Christianity is concerned, Paul has "first dibs" but the Gospel authors give us actual words from Jesus although their historicity is debatable.

 

[sealchan]

Yet Paul almost immediately upon conversion has contact with the Apostles

I see it a little differently. As a father, I love my children, as my children. Yet, they must be responsible and accountable for their choices. If they make disasterous choices, I love them still, am terribly saddened, but the disaster is theirs.

In the same way, all are Gods children, He loves them all, but their choices are theirs, if they choose death, He is terribly saddened, yet they are accountable for their choices.

If we take the realistic approach that the apostles were likely not the authors of the Gospels then we might conclude that the apostles were not aware of the contents of those Gospels as facts worth communicating to Paul, if facts they were to begin with, given that Paul makes no mention of most of them.

 

[Jainarayan]

I suspect.....a stroke
the event has all the earmarks

bright light is seen
a fall
days of recovery

the blindness was unusual as he recovered that much altogether......apparently

but his radical change of person.....from Saul to Paul
would be outstanding

the only clue to spiritual intervention.....
the Voice heard speaking to Saul.....was heard by others nearby

I've also heard of the stroke theory. Another one is a seizure. But they can mimic each other. The voice issue is odd in light of other rational explanations.

 

[shmogie]

If we take the realistic approach that the apostles were likely not the authors of the Gospels then we might conclude that the apostles were not aware of the contents of those Gospels as facts worth communicating to Paul, if facts they were to begin with, given that Paul makes no mention of most of them.

Your so called realistic approach simply ignores the the great amount of evidence that supports the Apostles as authors of the Gospels.

Paul supplemented the Gospels, most of his letters were to this end. If those who received these letters were not familiar with the Gospels, the letters would not make much sense.

 

[sealchan]

Your so called realistic approach simply ignores the the great amount of evidence that supports the Apostles as authors of the Gospels.

Paul supplemented the Gospels, most of his letters were to this end. If those who received these letters were not familiar with the Gospels, the letters would not make much sense.

We have quite a deep disagreement here I think. I would cite the contradictions between the gospels, the dating consensus of Biblical scholars, the nearly identical similarities of the gospels (common written source material), the likely lack of writing skills and knowledge of other cultures of the apostles, the influence of Buddhism and other traditions, the claim of at least one Gospel author (Luke)...all these things point to non-eyewitnesses using written or creatively inspired material to compose the stories.

Paul, at least, had a personal revelation and he clearly was capable of creating convincing explanations and elegant metaphors which showed his educated imaginative ability to make an argument.

 

[shmogie]

We have quite a deep disagreement here I think. I would cite the contradictions between the gospels, the dating consensus of Biblical scholars, the nearly identical similarities of the gospels (common written source material), the likely lack of writing skills and knowledge of other cultures of the apostles, the influence of Buddhism and other traditions, the claim of at least one Gospel author (Luke)...all these things point to non-eyewitnesses using written or creatively inspired material to compose the stories.

Paul, at least, had a personal revelation and he clearly was capable of creating convincing explanations and elegant metaphors which showed his educated imaginative ability to make an argument.

Yes, we certainly disagree. The dating by scholars is that the Gospels were written by one hundred AD.

People who observe and hear the same thing will generally report the same thing.

I spent much of my working life as a criminal investigator. Interviewing eyewitnesses and evaluating their statements was a significant part of my job.

The Gospels have all the hallmarks of genuine eyewitness accounts, as opposed to statements as a result of a combined conspiracy.

The knowledge of other religions or cultures is totally irrelevant as far as the Apostles are concerned. Christianity is a projection and next step of Judaism, what others believe/d then or now is not of importance to Christianity .

 

[sealchan]

Yes, we certainly disagree. The dating by scholars is that the Gospels were written by one hundred AD.

People who observe and hear the same thing will generally report the same thing.

I spent much of my working life as a criminal investigator. Interviewing eyewitnesses and evaluating their statements was a significant part of my job.

The Gospels have all the hallmarks of genuine eyewitness accounts, as opposed to statements as a result of a combined conspiracy.

The knowledge of other religions or cultures is totally irrelevant as far as the Apostles are concerned. Christianity is a projection and next step of Judaism, what others believe/d then or now is not of importance to Christianity .

There are more than two choices with respect to either eyewitness or a "conspiracy"...there is a the shared written source...each gospel author may have had their predecessor's gospels as source material. They then intentionally altered the accounts based on their own research/understanding. In dating the gospels the date indicates when that gospel was likely first written. Writing down events that took place decades ago can't be seen as reliable I would think in a criminal investigation.

Matthew's unique content evidences a familiarity with and a desire to compare and contrast a Christian belief with not only Judaism but other religions. The story of Jesus going into the wilderness, facing three temptation and then proceeding on to teach mirrors that of the Buddha. It may be that the Sermon on the Mount itself is also modeled after the first teachings at the deer park in Sarnath. While this was used implicitly, Matthew explicitly added unique material regarding the Magi who followed the star and through their more ambitious following of God's sign (pointedly so when compared directly to leadership in Jerusalem) were able to witness a special moment in the development of this new religion. Indeed Matthew pointedly contrasts "city" Judaism to that of John the Baptist as far as how people came from far and wide to get their spiritual needs met where a much closer synagogue might have sufficed.

The temptation scenes...Matthew didn't witness so they would have been made know to him via Jesus and it was likely other apostles...yet none of the other apostles mention this as important accepting Luke who confuses the order of the temptations. John even seems to drop the whole scene in his narrative...maybe he forget in the very old age he must have been before he chose to write down his account.

Then again I expect that witnesses, while they may describe the same event, don't describe it "word for word" identically. I would expect that this would be a sign that a witness was tampered with.

 

[Spartan]

If we take the realistic approach that the apostles were likely not the authors of the Gospels .

The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

 

[sealchan]

The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

How does this explain the precise similarities and also great discrepancies and the fact that Luke says he was not an eyewitness himself?

 

[Spartan]

How does this explain the precise similarities and also great discrepancies...

Give me your best ONE (1 - just your best ONE) example of a "great discrepancy" in the Gospels. Cite the scripture(s) and explain why it's a great discrepancy.

and the fact that Luke says he was not an eyewitness himself?

He wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus. But he did interview the eyewitnesses and wrote some of their accounts.

From Luke chapter 1:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

 

[sealchan]

Give me your best ONE (1 - just your best ONE) example of a "great discrepancy" in the Gospels. Cite the scripture(s) and explain why it's a great discrepancy.



He wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus. But he did interview the eyewitnesses and wrote some of their accounts.

From Luke chapter 1:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is unique and contains important teachings. Why do none of the other gospels record a similar event with similar teaching content? After all the disciples were supposedly all present.

 

[Spartan]

Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is unique and contains important teachings. Why do none of the other gospels record a similar event with similar teaching content? After all the disciples were supposedly all present.

Luke has some similar teachings.

Gospels comparison - Sermon on the Mount

 

[Spartan]

There are more than two choices with respect to either eyewitness or a "conspiracy"...there is a the shared written source...each gospel author may have had their predecessor's gospels as source material. They then intentionally altered the accounts based on their own research/understanding. In dating the gospels the date indicates when that gospel was likely first written. Writing down events that took place decades ago can't be seen as reliable I would think in a criminal investigation.

Matthew's unique content evidences a familiarity with and a desire to compare and contrast a Christian belief with not only Judaism but other religions. The story of Jesus going into the wilderness, facing three temptation and then proceeding on to teach mirrors that of the Buddha. It may be that the Sermon on the Mount itself is also modeled after the first teachings at the deer park in Sarnath. While this was used implicitly, Matthew explicitly added unique material regarding the Magi who followed the star and through their more ambitious following of God's sign (pointedly so when compared directly to leadership in Jerusalem) were able to witness a special moment in the development of this new religion. Indeed Matthew pointedly contrasts "city" Judaism to that of John the Baptist as far as how people came from far and wide to get their spiritual needs met where a much closer synagogue might have sufficed.

The temptation scenes...Matthew didn't witness so they would have been made know to him via Jesus and it was likely other apostles...yet none of the other apostles mention this as important accepting Luke who confuses the order of the temptations. John even seems to drop the whole scene in his narrative...maybe he forget in the very old age he must have been before he chose to write down his account.

Then again I expect that witnesses, while they may describe the same event, don't describe it "word for word" identically. I would expect that this would be a sign that a witness was tampered with.

All four Gospels confirm the resurrection, as do various epistles. So when they all concur, do you still disbelieve them?

 

[sealchan]

Luke has some similar teachings.

Gospels comparison - Sermon on the Mount

Luke's Sermon on the Plain? I skimmed through the comparison...how do explain the fact that text is so precisely similar in some places and so different in others? How do you explain that one sermon is clearly on a mountain, the other in the plain?

I suppose we could understand that Jesus went around to different places giving a similar but ever-evolving sermon. Maybe he would forget a bit in one place and not another? That's reasonable I suppose for a human who is subject to remembering and forgetting.

Or maybe Luke took similar source source material and sculpted it his own liking. Adding stuff, turns of phrase he liked or leaving out what Matthew or their shared source had that he didn't like.

Word for word after decades...not likely memory. No human beings remember as their minds and personalities allow. The precision speaks to writing and the stylistic differences to personal taste.

 

[sealchan]

All four Gospels confirm the resurrection, as do various epistles. So when they all concur, do you still disbelieve them?

And Paul agrees there was a resurrection...this is, of course, one of the central elements of the story.

Interesting how in the earliest gospel, witnesses to the resurrection only occur in a final passage tacked on to end which is stylistically much different than all the rest of Mark?

Did you ever wonder why the "writing apostles" never got together to set the record straight?

 

[Spartan]

And Paul agrees there was a resurrection...this is, of course, one of the central elements of the story.

Interesting how in the earliest gospel, witnesses to the resurrection only occur in a final passage tacked on to end which is stylistically much different than all the rest of Mark?

Did you ever wonder why the "writing apostles" never got together to set the record straight?

I think you're grasping at straws.