Was was Paul's letters devoid of any details from Jesus' earthly life?

Question

“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.”--G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (pp. 22-23).

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/What_Did_Paul_Know.htm

Answer 1

Paul was well aware of Jesus and his life. He talked to the disciples after all. I find this whole exercise, perhaps spawned by Earl Doherty, to be kindergarten chatter.

Paul speaking:

Acts 13: 26 "Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27 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. 28 Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people."

Answer 2

The Holy Spirit did not inspire Paul to write another biographical account of Jesus. There are 4 biographical accounts of Jesus out of the 27 New Testament books.

However, Jesus is constantly mentioned in the epistles of Paul. And Paul doe mention the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of Christ as well as the Lord's supper and the sinless life of Christ.

The epistles of Paul teach much about practical Christian living and deals with issues relevant to the church as a group.

By the way, Luke traveled with Paul and Luke wrote the gospel of Luke.

Answer 3

The answer is simple: Paul never met any historical Jesus, and he was a consummate MYTHMAKER.  He fashioned a god after the dozens of dying and resurrected Saviours that he knew from previous mythologies.  To validate his claim, he concocted a 'miraculous' conversion that put him in touch with the RESURRECTED JESUS CHRIST.....and every thing he wrote, subsequently he claimed to have received in VISIONS of that CHRIST...except, of course, for his own 'sexually charged' craziness.    

The entire Damasacus scenario is so filled with holes as to be laughable to anyone with a knowlege of history and of what is supposed to be Paul's life.  The claim that he was going to Damascus at the behest of the High Priest to capture and kill "Christians" is spurious...for the simple reason that NO High Priest had ANY jurisdiction in Damascus.  

There are also two glaring contradictions concerning this alleged 'conversion'...one which claims the companions saw a light but heard no voice, the other claiming they heard a voice but so no light.  Obviously there were no eye witnesses to this spurious miraculous conversion.

The only reason Peter was mentioned at all, was so that  Paul could put him down, and claim superiority over him by having his 'revelations'  literally dictated to him by the risen Christ.

Paul was a phony, and he created a phony Messiah/God.  

Answer 4

Tuberoot, why would you give a star to kindergarten chatter?  And why are you quoting Luke when the question is about Paul?  

The answer is that Paul was unconcerned with the birth, life, or ministry of Jesus Christ.  His death and resurrection - the purely Hellenized pagan attributes of the story - were important to a man whose mission was to.....hm. The Hellenized pagans.

Answer 5

Paul was not hanging out with the 12 while Jesus was among them. He didn't get converted until later, and missed out on all of Christ's earthly life. All he got was the doctrine. Those who wrote the Gospels were eye witnesses.

Answer 6

Paul was starting new congregations in Asia Minor.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had the "Jesus' Life Story" part covered.  There was no need to go into it any longer since many of those he visited and wrote to HAD been with Jesus or had at least heard/read the other accounts.  

Answer 7

Paul had no first hand witness of Jesus's earthly life....Paul's mission was to the Gentiles and included the basics of salvation by faith without the works of the law...Paul could have emphasized many others things , but he stuck to the foundational doctrines of the faith...that which he recieved directly by revelation from Jesus...he stuck with what he knew best....and taught only what Jesus wanted him to teach....

Answer 8

A good idea except that the Gospel of Luke is considered Paul's gospel and is the most in depth for historical study. Luke was Paul's secretary and went and independently confirmed the events of his Gospel and Acts but both are originating from the mind of Paul.