Why Paul didn`t mention teachings of Jesus?

[micheal_gabriel]

Galatians 1

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.​

I saw none of the other apostles–only James, the Lord’s brother.​

I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.​

he met apostles but only mentioning

Corinthians 11

when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”​

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”​

Thessalonians 4
15. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
18. Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Jewish scripture was the main source for Paul.
Paul should have known much about Jesus`s life and teachings. He didn’t. Paul and the other epistle writers (including Peter) don’t seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus’ life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don’t mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha. They also don’t mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his baptism, his moral teachings, his trial, the empty tomb, or even his disciples.

Did he truly believe that Jesus is son of God?

 

[fhansen]

Galatians 1

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.​

I saw none of the other apostles–only James, the Lord’s brother.​

I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.​

he met apostles but only mentioning

Corinthians 11

when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”​

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”​

Thessalonians 4
15. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
18. Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Jewish scripture was the main source for Paul.
Paul should have known much about Jesus`s life and teachings. He didn’t. Paul and the other epistle writers (including Peter) don’t seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus’ life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don’t mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha. They also don’t mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his baptism, his moral teachings, his trial, the empty tomb, or even his disciples.

Did he truly believe that Jesus is son of God?

They wern’t writing new gospels-they were expounding on the meaning of the faith and how to live it, especially Paul.

 

[mcrow]

You really need to pay attention to context.

The Gospels were meant to chronicle Jesus and his teachings.

The epistles are letter specifically addressing certain people (Thessalonians, Romans…ect). Most of the time they were written to address poor behavior of those people or to address questions distputes.

I wouldn’t expect someone to mention the history of Jesus in a document about law.

 

[Gethsemane]

We have to remember that Paul met and taught the teachings of Christ to many of these in person which is the oral Tradtion passed on by the Church. These letters are the follow up of this and continue our written Tradition. We have to remember that these are actually letters and not accounts like Acts or the Gospels.

 

[cornbread_r2]

You really need to pay attention to context.

The Gospels were meant to chronicle Jesus and his teachings.

The epistles are letter specifically addressing certain people (Thessalonians, Romans…ect). Most of the time they were written to address poor behavior of those people or to address questions distputes.

I wouldn’t expect someone to mention the history of Jesus in a document about law.

I wouldn’t expect him to recount the entire biography of Jesus in each and every epistle, but I would expect him to refer back to the words and biographical details of Jesus if they were pertinent to the questions and disputes of these communities.

For instance, Paul has quite a bit to say about marriage, yet he never once refers to Jesus’s marital status. He has much more to say about the dietary, circumcision, sabbath and other laws and yet, again, never refers to Jesus’s discourses with the Pharisees on these matters.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Paul should have known much about Jesus`s life and teachings. He didn’t.

Paul reiterated Jesus’ teaching very precisely. I can’t imagine why you’d think he didn’t know them. Especially as Jesus personally evangelized Paul.

 

[LilyM]

I wouldn’t expect him to recount the entire biography of Jesus in each and every epistle, but I would expect him to refer back to the words and biographical details of Jesus if they were pertinent to the questions and disputes of these communities.

For instance, Paul has quite a bit to say about marriage, yet he never once refers to Jesus’s marital status. He has much more to say about the dietary, circumcision, sabbath and other laws and yet, again, never refers to Jesus’s discourses with the Pharisees on these matters.

But they all already knew much about Jesus. having been taught. Not being Jews for the moat part, most of them didn’t know about the Jewish law, and so were confused by various members among them who were still Judaizers, insisting that they needed to keep it.

I don’t need a priest to forever be reminding me that Jesus was unmarried, born in Nazareth, taught in Galilee and died in jerusalem. I know that well enough that it need not be said!

 

[cornbread_r2]

But they all already knew much about Jesus. having been taught. Not being Jews for the moat part, most of them didn’t know about the Jewish law, and so were confused by various members among them who were still Judaizers, insisting that they needed to keep it.

So in that major dispute Paul had absolutely no need whatsoever to ever reference the authority of the words of Jesus to those Christians who insisted on following the Jewish law? Does that really seem a reasonable explanation?

I don’t need a priest to forever be reminding me that Jesus was unmarried, born in Nazareth, taught in Galilee and died in jerusalem. I know that well enough that it need not be said!

Nevertheless your priests do continue to remind you of all of those things – as they have for 2,000 years. Tell me you won’t be disappointed in a couple of weeks if your priest doesn’t tell you about the star and the Magi and the shepherds and the angels singing on high.

 

[Speedypizza]

Well then let me ask you a question, if Paul knew nothing about Jesus as you say, then might I ask what you think he was preaching to people about when he started these groups?

Let us travel back in time 2000 years, I am a pagan standing in a town buying some food and here comes Paul, who I have never met before…

Paul: Have you heard the great news about Jesus?

Me: Who is this Jesus, what great news?

Paul: Well there was this guy named Jesus, and he was like really important and stuff…

Me: Great for him, what does this have to do with me?

Paul: I want you do become a student of Christ! If you join you get to be hunted by the Romans and suffer and die for his name!

Me: Can you tell me something about this guy, and why I should follow him. I mean this is my life you are asking me to give up.

Paul: Um, well, he was important and stuff, and you should follow him because I told you to follow him.

Me: Wow, that sounds like a great idea, I want to tell all my friends the good news that some guy named Jesus once lived and stuff…

If he knew NOTHING of the life of Jesus or his teachings or his sayings, this is about how things would have went for him. I don’t think he would have been getting a lot of converts that way.

Pax

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The letters included in the New Testament were written by leaders of the Church to members of the Church, who had already been taught personally by one or more of the Apostles. Most of the letters respond to problems that arose in various local Churches founded by St. Paul. He did not need to repeat everything he had personally taught his converts. The Gospels were written later to preserve the memory of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ and His teachings. Acts (written as Luke/Acts) is the first history of the newborn Church. Revelation was written to a suffering Church undergoing the severe persectutions of Roman Emperor Domitian. Much of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles was handed on orally and is known as Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Not everything the Apostles taught was written down, canonized, and designated as Scripture; oral Tradition was preserved in other ways. The NT is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. There was no Bible per se until the end of the fourth century. The NT is a collection of 27 of the Church’s own writings.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book – He left us the Church as our teacher. The Church produced the book (Bible means book) under the guidance of the Spirit, joining 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint (which she named the Old Testament) to 27 of her own writings (which she named the New Testament).

 

[mcrow]

I wouldn’t expect him to recount the entire biography of Jesus in each and every epistle, but I would expect him to refer back to the words and biographical details of Jesus if they were pertinent to the questions and disputes of these communities.

For instance, Paul has quite a bit to say about marriage, yet he never once refers to Jesus’s marital status. He has much more to say about the dietary, circumcision, sabbath and other laws and yet, again, never refers to Jesus’s discourses with the Pharisees on these matters.

OK, so after every thing he talks about he should have compared it to Jesus?

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

He quotes teachings of Jesus.

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature** of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. **

 

[cornbread_r2]

[snip]

He did not need to repeat everything he had personally taught his converts.

[snip]

I’m not questioning why he didn’t repeat “everything”. I’m questioning why he never quoted any of Jesus’s earthly teachings, especially the ones that were extremely pertinent to the disputes he was arbitrating.

I’m aware of many of the explanations for this apparent anomaly. I just don’t find them convincing. That’s really all I have to say on the subject.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not questioning why he didn’t repeat “everything”. I’m questioning why he never quoted any of Jesus’s earthly teachings, especially the ones that were extremely pertinent to the disputes he was arbitrating.

I’m aware of many of the explanations for this apparent anomaly. I just don’t find them convincing. That’s really all I have to say on the subject.

Well, He DID repeat Christ’s teaching on the Eucharist, in fact His very words and sayings at the Last Supper, when it was pertinent.

He repeated other unrecorded sayings of Jesus such as ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’. And teachings revealed directly to him by Christ, such as when he is struggling with a ‘thorn in the flesh’ and is told directly by Christ that He has His own purpose behind allowing Paul to struggle.

Besides which, all the early Christian leaders knew each other well, he almost certainly knew that multiple written accounts of Our Lord’s life and teachings were in the process of being, or had been, written, and by those who, unlike Paul, knew Jesus intimately during life.

But he simplest answer is that Paul deals on one of two levels - the deep theological level (ie the nature of Christ, the nature of love and so on), about which Christ wasn’t so explicit that Gospel quotes would be helpful, or about utterly mundane or local administrative matters - and again he would hardly need to quote Christ to tell people that incest is bad, that Apollos is not to be trusted or to take up collections on Sunday!

Why then would Paul reinvent the wheel and write another - inferior - rehash of the same topic?

 

[steve53]

Those are very fair questions, especially when the Church places so much importance on Paul. The letters that we have were saved by the recipient churches. Who knows what written material Paul had with him that was destroyed by Romans during the persecutions? And if Luke was with him, and died at the same time, it is extraordinary that Luke/Acts survived at all.
Probably a great story there.
Remember that Paul started out as Saul of Tarsus, a promising young Second Temple priest in training who was probably brilliant, but, being half Greek, did not have the right pedigree for advancement. He found his place in the sun by becoming a thug and ringleader against the Christians, under the encouragement and orders of Jonathan, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, who had Jesus crucified a year earlier.
Paul probably played a larger role than he admits to in the execution of Stephen and the deaths of the early Jerusalem Nazarenes. And, as a young priest, he was a part of the picture when Jesus was arrested and crucified, yet doesn’t mention anything about it.Jesus was interrogated by Pilate, Herod Antipas, Caiaphas, and Ananus on his last day, so being ignorant of Jesus is tough to justify. Jesus was a high-profile figure.
So Paul doesn’t just not mention much about Jesus’ teachings, but anything about Jesus himself.
Did Paul play a role in the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus- so heinous that he never admits to it?
Certainly Paul was abrasive and irritating, making enemies everywhere he went and getting stoned and lashed and chased around in the process. Is it a coincidence that Nero started his persecutions of the Christians only three years after Paul settled in Rome?

Regarding his teachings, as a Second Temple priest, he was well-schooled in Pharisaical law, and would have put a Christian spin on it whenever appropriate.

 

[stevekehl]

Study of Paul’s letters does give us some insight into his knowledge of Christ. In Galatians he warns the church there not to stray from the true Gospel.
Galatians 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
So then Paul must have talked a lot about Jesus when starting the Galatian church, otherwise the people there would not have a clear idea what the gospel of Christ was.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’m not questioning why he didn’t repeat “everything”. I’m questioning why he never quoted any of Jesus’s earthly teachings, especially the ones that were extremely pertinent to the disputes he was arbitrating.

I’m aware of many of the explanations for this apparent anomaly. I just don’t find them convincing. That’s really all I have to say on the subject.

Paul wasn’t writing for a general audience. He had no idea his letters would be deemed Scripture by the Church. None of the sacred writers of the NT had a clue there would ever be a New Testament to complement the Jewish Scriptures. Each of Paul’s letters is written exclusively to a local Church that he founded. He had taught them personally all about Jesus and his teachings. How else could he have convinced them that Jesus was God? Being Christian was a capitol offense! St. Paul and many of his converts went willingly to their deaths for the faith. Paul ordained others (Timothy and Titus, for example) to take his place and sailed on to another destination to evangelize more converts and establish other local Churches. He heard of problems that arose among his converts and wrote to correct them. He was addressing problems, not teaching systematic doctrine.

We can’t know what “disputes he [St. Paul] was arbitrating.” Two of his letters were lost in antiquity. The two we have to the Corinthians are responses to letters from the Corinthians. That Corinthian correspondence was also lost. So we have only one side of the story. It would be good to know what was in those lost letters – both Paul’s and the Corinthians.

It’s perhaps possible that you misunderstand what the NT is, why it was written, and the Church’s role in selecting the contents.

If you ever feel inclined to read the history (or you may have already done so), there is a little book online called Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church, written by a former Presbyterian minister early in the 20th century. It’s also available from Catholic Answers and Amazon.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Peace be with you.

Jim Dandy
Former Baptist, agnostic, atheist

 

[fisherman_carl]

Romans 2:1- “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

• Mt 7:1

God Bless

 

[patrick457]

Why doesn’t St. Paul write more about the life and teachings of Jesus as we would have liked him to? Well for one you need to remember that Paul’s letters are themselves occasional, contingent matter - you can’t really expect Paul giving a little precis of Jesus’ life and teachings because his target audience (who, after all, are Christian churches!) knows the basics, so to speak: there’s no need of repeating something they’ve already heard, perhaps a bajillion times now. Papyrus is, after all, expensive, and Paul has more pressing matters to talk about than yet another retelling of the Jesus story. Hey, he was after all, writing a letter, not a book. Not that recounting the life of Jesus is not important, but because the people whom he is writing to are expected to know it all already - heck, why do these people bother to be Christians and why does Paul bother to speak of ‘Christ Jesus’ without any explanation if they don’t know who Christ is?

And as Jim mentioned, Paul did not get up in the morning one day, thinking to himself, “I’m gonna compose a letter which will be in the Bible someday.” He probably had no idea that folks like you and me here in the 21st century will still read and argue about his letters, which first and foremost was originally intended specifically for the churches he founded. Inspiration IMHO does not include foresight.

What all this teaches us is that we tend to be more familiar with the Gospels than we are with Paul’s letters. The Gospels then set up an expectation of what we’re going to find in the Pauline epistles, so that when we reach the letters and find no mention of the parables and miracles but only bits and hints here and there about Jesus’ life, we end up being disappointed and confused. But in reality, this is the wrong way of looking at these stuff.