Bible Fake: Jesus Stills the Storm

by JosephAlward 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

Paul...learned of Jesus through Peter the eyewitness
One gets the impression that RWC has never read the Pauline letters, for if he had he would know what G.A. Wells, in his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus [pp. 22-23], knows:
The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.
These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)
These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...
Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.
RWC, if it's true--as you claim--that Paul learned about Jesus from Peter, who you believe knew all about the events described above by G. A. Wells, why do we find in Paul's writings not a single solitary mention of any of the extremely important events described by Wells? Since Paul's writings are the earliest Bible writers which described Jesus Christ, rather than telling us virtually nothing about the life of Jesus, don't you think that he would have told his readers everything he knew? Don't you think the fact that he was virtually silent is very strong evidence that he knew about none of those events, and since he would have known if they had actually happened, we should assume they didn't happen? If not, why not?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

In a nuthsell, tou answer your questions, no. Acts describes that after his conversion Paul went to live with Peter for sometime. Clearly he would have been told about Jesus' life during that time. He does mention some of these things in his letters ( Jesus as a descendant of David, in Romans, the sequence of events in the last supper, First Corinthians, for examples.)
You and Wells are making an assumption that is the basis of your position that is unfounded. You are assuming that Paul wrote his letters to tell people of the daily activites of Jesus. That was the purpose of the Gospels. Paul was writing to particular churches that had already been established (so they already knew of Jesus and believed he was the Savior). He was writing to address certain problems in the churches and to teach them particular lessons. To do so he did not need to recount what the Gospels did.
Alot of what you are saying Paul did not know are contained in his sermons in Acts. For example see Acts 13:13 et seq.) Both what you have written and waht wells is attempting to convey is an intentioanl misrepresentation.
JosephAlward

RWC writes,
You are assuming that Paul wrote his letters to tell people of the daily activites of Jesus. That was the purpose of the Gospels.
We're not talking about "daily activities"; we're talking about the miracles Jesus was alleged to have worked. We talking about his miraculous birth, his arrest, his crucifixion. You don't consider those "daily activities," I'm sure. Now, since Paul was the first Bible writer to record information about Jesus--decades before the first reports of Jesus' miracles appeared in the gospels, and before the story of his arrest--it is impossible to imagine that Paul would not have told his readers all about the most important events since the dawn of time, especially since no one else at that time had yet put such information in print.
RWC, please explain why you think Paul knew about all of these events but decided to let mankind wait twenty years for Mark to tell the stories about the most remarkable man of all time. Isn't the most likely explanation for this is that Paul didn't know about the miracle stories and the arrest. If not, why not? Finally, if Paul did not know about these stories, they must not have occurred.
RWC claims,
Alot of what you are saying Paul did not know are contained in his sermons in Acts.
Really? Show me where it shows that Paul knew that Jesus was born of a virgin, baptized by John, fed five thousand, then four thousand, cured the blind and the deaf, changed water to wine, expelled the demons into the herd of pigs, walked on water, calmed the seas, was betrayed by Judas, and arrested by the Romans. All of these events are among the most important ever to have occurred in the history of mankind--if they really occurred, so if Paul knew about them he certainly would have mentioned them somewhere in his writings, especially since he was the very first Bible writer to write about Jesus.
RWC, please show us the verses which you think show that Paul knew about the events mentioned above.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

1. Acts 13:26- Brothers,, children of Abraham and you God fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they carried out all that was written about him they took him down from the tree and laid him in the tomb. But God raised him from the dead and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem.
2. Acts 17:2- As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue and on three Sabbath days he resoned with them from the Scriptures, explainng that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ. (If he was reasoning from the Scriptures he must have been telling them how Jesus fulfilled the messanic prophecies which would have included the vergin births among other things)
3. Acts 15:2 - He stayed alon time with the disciples.
4. Acts 19:13 - Paul said John's baptism was a baptism of repentence. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is Jesus.
5. 1 Corinthians 17-26 - Thelord's supper and what Jesus did and said that night.
6. Philippians 2:6-11 Humility of Christ, dying on the cross
7. Galatians 1:18- After three years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquanited with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
All of the letters from Paul are directed to specific churches for specific purposes. They were not sent for all mankind at the time they were sent. He was telling them what they needed to hear for the prpose of the letters. He told them about the most important event in human history : the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
The letters also say that he told these shurches alot orally, that was not written down. You are making the assumption that because not all of the events of Jesus' live are descibed in detail by Paul that he did not know about them and then the leap that if he did not know about them they must not have happened. These are two assumptions that are unwarranted and unsupported.
How can Paul have preached that Jesus was the Messiah to the Jews from Scripture without preaching how his life fullfilled the scriptures?
Joseph, I notice that you fail to answer any of teh questions I give you and instead move on to your next question. Look through the past posts and see all of the questions that you have failed to answer. I will be happy to keep answering your questions, but I think in order to keep this going you should answer some of mine.
JosephAlward

RWC,
None of the references you cited show that Paul was aware of all of the miracles I listed. Evidently, such evidence does not exist, so we should move on to other matters.
You indicated that there are questions you asked that you would like me to answer. In the past, when you overlooked questions I asked, I just asked them again. If you would do the same, and list all of the questions you would like me to answer, I will try to answer them all.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Joseph, are you trying to imply that Paul did nor know that Jesus died on the cross and was than resurrected? Are you trying to imply that Paul did not know he was tried by Pilate?
Again , your assumption that Paul did not know of these miracles that you mention because he did not explain them in detail in the letters cannoized is not supported by logic or the facts. The cites I gave you are merely examples of where Paul obained the information he did from the disciples and of specific of Jesus' life that he did recount such as Pilate, the last supper, the cross and the ressurection. I also pointed out to you where he preached to the Jews that Jesus was the messiah from the scriptures, which means that he would preach to them that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies. These would include the virgin birth, the healings and the other miracles. Why isn't that a logical conclusion from the information presented. And why isn't that a more logical conclusion that he didn't know so they were all made up?
I did go to the other website you gave me and saw the other posts. It seems that you make the same arguments there that you do here. I noticed that the same idea that the calming of the storm was a copy of Jonah was not agreed to there and instead alot of the same arguments I have made were made by others. I will go again. Thank you.
As for the questions, one that I recall was never answered was what is your motivation for all of this? I will look for others.
God Bless
JosephAlward

Joseph, are you trying to imply that Paul did nor know that Jesus died on the cross and was than resurrected? Are you trying to imply that Paul did not know he was tried by Pilate?

No, I only imply that since Paul was the first Bible writer to record his knowledge of Jesus on paper, one would expect that he would have reported to his readers--not just his "hearers"--that Jesus was born of a virgin, had God call him his son, was baptized by John, miraculously fed the five thousand, then the four thousand, cured the blind and the deaf, expelled demons into a herd of pigs, walked on water and calmed the sea, brought up Lazarus from the dead, was betrayed by Judas, and was betrayed by Peter, and abandoned by his disciples. He also would have explained what happened on the day of resurrection, how Mary went to the tomb, found it empty, and heard from one or two angels that Jesus was risen. The list of other vital information that Paul did not put in writing is very long, and I will not attempt to put all of the important omissions down here. It is sufficient to say that one would expect that the very first Bible writer to write about Jesus would go out of his way to put these events down on paper, given that these events were among the most important for mankind since the dawn of time. You agree that they were astonishingly important events, don't you, RWC? Why didn't Paul write them down? Why would he let mankind wait for twenty years to hear these stories from Mark, Matthew, and Luke?
I also pointed out to you where he preached to the Jews that Jesus was the messiah from the scriptures, which means that he would preach to them that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies. These would include the virgin birth, the healings and the other miracles. Why isn't that a logical conclusion from the information presented. And why isn't that a more logical conclusion that he didn't know so they were all made up?
Just because Paul taught that Jesus was the messiah doesn't mean that he also had to have taught that Jesus did all of those other things that Paul didn't put in his writings. He certainly would have told them about the many miracles if he had known about them, and since he didn't put them in writing, we should take this as evidence--not proof--that he may not have known about those miracles, and therefore that they didn't occur.
As for the questions, one that I recall was never answered was what is your motivation for all of this? I will look for others.
I fight Biblical literalism because I think it is wrong for intelligent humans to hold nonsensical beliefs, especially if such beliefs weaken us as a civilization.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Thank you for the answer to your motivation. We can discuss that in another post. For now, I cannot agree that just because Paul didn't include all of these specifics in the letters that were cannoized that means that he did not know of them and thus they did not happen. That line of argument is based upon too many assumptions to be credible. What we do know is that the letters that were cannonized were written to specific churchs for specific reasons. They already believed that Jesus was the Messiah and there would be no reason to include the information to convince them. The Gospels were written to chronicle Jesus' life and thus they include this information. You will note that Paul refers to Jesus as the son of God in many of his letters, so he knew the connection. He also talks of the cross and the resurrection. He does not write specifically about Mary and the tomb, but how does that deny that the ressurrection ever occurred?
You start the argument with two incorrect assumptions. One that Paul was writing his letters for all mankind - he wasn't. They were personally directed to individual churches and in some cases to individuals. The second assumption is that he would have wanted to include all of these important events to get his message across. He was writing for specific purposes and included what he needed to get this message across.
"Just because Paul taught that Jesus was the messiah doesn't mean that he also had to have taught that Jesus did all of those other things that Paul didn't put in his writings. He certainly would have told them about the many miracles if he had known about them, and since he didn't put them in writing, we should take this as evidence--not proof--that he may not have known about those miracles, and therefore that they didn't occur."
I would contend that if he was winning converts from the Jewish people from the Scriptures he would need to tell them of these things to show that he was the messiah they were waiting for. The messianic scriptures include the virign birth (Isaiah 7:14), betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9), crucifixion (Psalm 22; 69:21), perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), Forsaken by disciples (Zechariah 13:7), etc.. Thus the vidence of what is written shows that Paul would had to have preached these things in order for him to win converts among the Jewish people. He could not have ignored the Messianinc prophecies when he preached to them.
JosephAlward

Paul was writing about Jesus twenty or more years before the synoptic authors' gospel stories were written. If Paul knew Jesus
was born of a virgin,
was baptized by John
was called his "son" by the Lord
was transfigured on the mountain
walked on water
stilled storms
converted water to wine
fed nine thousand people on handfuls of bread
cured the deaf and blind
drove demons into a herd of pigs
raised a man from the dead
was betrayed by Judas
was denied by Peter
was abandoned by his disciples
left an empty tomb behind for Mary to find
then why in the world would Paul not have written down this information somewhere, if not in his letters to the churches and certain individuals? Are these events not among the most astonishing for mankind since the beginning of time? If you agree that they are, then how do you explain why wouldn’t Paul have made a permanent record of them, if he really knew about them?
RWC, you say that we should forgive Paul for not describing these events in his letters to "individual churches and in some cases to individuals," because we should assume that they already knew about them. Well, let’s pretend that’s true for now.
But, what about the rest of the world, RWC? What about those people in Israel who had not yet heard the about the many wondrous events I've listed above? Rather than rely on the propagation of what you believe are the oral stories of the many events described above, don't you think that Paul would have written other letters, or even his own "gospels", for those people , and for you and me, if he had really known about these events, if indeed they had even occurred? Don't you think he would want to put down in more permanent form--on paper--a record of the most remarkable events since the dawn of time? Why would he let mankind wait twenty years for Mark, Matthew, and Luke to do this?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Joseph we can go round and round on this but let me respond to your latest. One, you are changing the reason for Paul's letters in your argument without any foundation for the assumption.
Second, let me give you some more examples of where Paul does mention some of the things you list:
1. baptized by John - Acts 13:23-25
2. Tried by Pilate -Acts 13:28
3. Was called the Son of God - Romans 8:3
4. left an empty tomb behind - Acts 13:30 and the many references from Paul that Jesus was raised from the dead.
5. taught that Jesus fulfilled the old testament scriptures for the messiah - Acts 13:32; Romans 1:1-6
6. virgin birth - Romans 1:4 ( by implication)
The bottom line is that the assumption you make is absolutly unsupportable and is no evidence that the teachings of the Gospels are false and made up.

Bible Fake: Jesus Stills the Storm

Share this