Some "Jesus mysteries" that always fascinate me

[O'Darby]

I really don't think anything I say here is "unorthodox," but I'm posting here so as not to upset those to whom any sort of "thinking out loud" is disturbing if not blasphemous.

Those scholars who posit a completely mythical (invented) Jesus who never existed at all have an uphill battle. (Richard C. Carrier and Robert M. Price are two of the leading "Jesus myth" scholars.) There is enough history and historical references to make this untenable to most scholars, even those who are firmly non-Christian.

However, there are some genuine mysteries that I find fascinating:

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus? Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings. Scholars agree that precursors to the Gospels were circulating in oral tradition, and even as written collections of Jesus' sayings (such as the famous Q), at any early date. Yet Paul seems completely unaware of Jesus' virgin birth, parables, sayings or deeds. He makes no use of them or references to them at all – only the Resurrection. Rather odd, eh?

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus? Sure, He was an obscure figure before His ministry began, but then we're told He attracted vast crowds, performed startling miracles, became of great concern to the Jewish authorities and stirred a considerable controversy by His Resurrection. Yet He is all but invisible in Jewish and Roman historical documents. Rather odd, eh?

For that matter, why did Jesus not appear more openly after His Resurrection? OK, sending disciples into all the world may have been the divine plan, but surely for the Resurrected Jesus to appear openly to the Jewish and Roman authorities would have jump-started things. Rather odd, eh?

What was the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus? Were they in any sense "in cahoots"? We're told that John immediately recognized Jesus as the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, but later John sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the one they were to expect or if another would be coming. What's that all about?

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry? If the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke are true, wouldn't His family have been expecting great things as soon as He could talk? Why were they puzzled when He went missing and they found Him in the temple at age 12? Why did they think He had "gone out of His mind" when His ministry commenced? Something doesn't add up, does it?

Why did anyone take Jesus seriously? Israel is small – the whole country is smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona. By the time Jesus began His ministry at age 30, at least a fair number of people surely would have known Him as just a local guy – a carpenter or stone mason or whatever you think He was. Moreover, Messiah claimants were common shortly before and at the same time as Jesus – Josephus identifies at least a dozen. Miracle-workers, bogus or otherwise, were not uncommon. Why did anyone take Jesus seriously?

And, of course, what about those Missing Years? Do we seriously think Jesus just emerged from a cocoon at age 30 with the sort of wisdom He showed? He'd been undercover as a mere carpenter or stone mason and one day just took off the mask and became the Son of God? Any number of scholars have noted the similarity between Jesus' teachings and sayings and those of the Eastern religions, to the extent of suggesting He must have had some training. See, for example, Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism by Professor John M. Newman, who was with Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency and is certainly not a nutcase. This may seem far-fetched, but the notion that Jesus may have been part of an esoteric community like the Essenes rather than a mere carpenter is not so far-fetched. Anyway, the complete silence of the NT (and, as far as I know, the early Church Fathers) about Jesus' Missing Years is certainly a puzzle.

Just some things to think about, if you're so inclined.

 

[O'Darby]

Odd - no one is troubled or even intrigued by such issues? Well, I guess it must be nice to be "that" sort of believer. To me, these are pretty large and obvious clues that "something was going on" that we don't grasp. In a way, the fact that these (to me) screaming mysteries are mostly right there in the NT is a mystery in its own right. Oh, well, YMMV.

 

[Behold]

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus? Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings. Scholars agree that precursors to the Gospels were circulating in oral tradition, and even as written collections of Jesus' sayings (such as the famous Q), at any early date. Yet Paul seems completely unaware of Jesus' virgin birth, parables, sayings or deeds. He makes no use of them or references to them at all – only the Resurrection.

Paul is a "chosen vessel" who is not an original Apostle.
So, His Mission, His Ministry, is completely different then what you find with the other 11 remaining original Jewish Apostles who were called in the OT, not the NT.
PAUL WAS called in the NT, under the NEW Covenant .
The only one who is similar, regarding how they Teach the Truth regarding the Blood Atonement, is Jude.
Peter, has a few things to say that He learned from Paul, regarding the Blood of Jesus as the eternal BLOOD atonement.

Paul is singular......He is not sent to teach the Old Testament.
He was Chosen by Jesus, after Jesus was back in Heaven, ascended, for a Specific purpose.

Paul is the "Apostle to the Gentiles' to whom Jesus personally delivered 2 "Teachings."

1.).. "i have many things to say to you, but you are not now able to bear it"...Christ told the 11. And Paul was called to deliver all that to the "body of Christ, as Church Doctrine.

2.) Jesus personally taught Paul this....>"THE Gospel of the Grace of God"....... and that is why Paul refers to it 3x in the NT as "my Gospel".

3.) Paul is the only apostle or NT Christian who told you.....>"Be a follower of ME... as I follow Christ".

Paul is the greatest Christian who ever lived and He is our "blueprint" regarding how a True Believer is to understand and perform CHRISTianity.

 

[O'Darby]

Paul is a "chosen vessel" who is not an original Apostle.
So, His Mission, His Ministry, is completely different then what you find with the other remaining Jewish Apostles.
The only one who is similar, regarding how they Teach the Truth regarding the Blood Atonement, is Jude.
Peter, has a few things to say that He learned from Paul, regarding the Blood of Jesus as the eternal atonement.

Paul is singular......He is not sent to teach the Old Testament.
He was Chosen by Jesus, after Jesus was back in Heaven, ascended, for a Specific purpose.

Paul is the "Apostle to the Gentiles' to whom Jesus personally delivered 2 "Teachings.

1.).. "i have many things to say to you, but you are not now able to bear it"...Christ told the 11. And Paul was called to deliver all that to the "body of Christ, as Church Doctrine.

2.) Jesus personally taught Paul this....>"THE Gospel of the Grace of God"....... and that is why Paul refers to it 3x in the NT as "my Gospel".

3.) Paul is the only apostle or NT Christian who told you.....>"Be a follower of ME... as I follow Christ".

Paul is the greatest Christian who ever lived and He is our "blueprint" regarding how a True Believer is to understand and perform CHRISTianity.

Well, OK, and I appreciate that someone weighed in.

But my puzzlement is not over who Paul was or what his role as an Apostle was. My puzzlement is, "How does the earliest and primary Christian teacher and apologist, writing some of his epistles a mere decade or so after Jesus and all of them before any of the Gospels, seem to have no awareness of the historical Jesus and no inclination to rely upon Jesus' teachings, parables, miracles or anything else in his writings?"

Isn't that sort of .... WEIRD?

I didn't even think about this until it was brought to my attention a few years ago. Because the NT is arranged with Gospels and Acts before Paul's epistles, I don't think the weirdness leaps out at us.

 

[Behold]

But my puzzlement is not over who Paul was or what his role as an Apostle was. My puzzlement is, "How does the earliest and primary Christian teacher and apologist, writing some of his epistles a mere decade or so after Jesus and all of them before any of the Gospels, seem to have no awareness of the historical Jesus

Paul, before He was born again, was a Leading Pharisee.
He was a TORAH Scholar.
He was chosen by Jesus to deliver Church Doctrine.... = the Doctrine for the Body of Christ.

So, what you are reading, when you read Paul's 13 Epistles, are the Letters that Paul wrote as instruction to the Local Churches, of which many were started by Him.
This means that He is teaching the New Converts..... and so, there is no need to teach then the History of the Torah, or the story of the Manger.
Paul was certainly more affiliated with Christ and His History, then we will ever be, as He knew Jesus personally, in person.
However, He was not called to reiterate the story of the Nativity.
He was called to be "the apostle to the Gentiles" "in the time of the Gentiles".
So, His letters, His Epistles, are only about that....... which is the idea. Its what he was called to Do.
Its his "MINISTRY">

That's not strange or odd.
Thats as it should be.

 

[O'Darby]

Paul, before He was born again, was a Leading Pharisee.
He was a TORAH Scholar.
He was chosen by Jesus to deliver Church Doctrine.... = the Doctrine for the Body of Christ.

So, what you are reading, when you read Paul's 13 Epistles, are the Letters that Paul wrote as instruction to the Local Churches, of which many were started by Him.
This means that He is teaching the New Converts..... and so, there is no need to teach then the History of the Torah, or the story of the Manger.
Paul was certainly more affiliated with Christ and His History, then we will ever be, as He knew Jesus personally, in person.
However, He was not called to reiterate the story of the Nativity.
He was called to be "the apostle to the Gentiles" "in the time of the Gentiles".
So, His letters, His Epistles, are only about that....... which is the idea. Its what he was called to Do.
Its his "MINISTRY">

That's not strange or odd.
Thats as it should be.

OK, fair enough, if that makes sense to you.

I just realized you capitalize He and Him when referring to Paul. Wow, you do have a high opinion of him!

I still find it exceedingly mysterious that someone writing to first century churches managed to do so over a period of decades with no reference to the historical Jesus.

 

[Behold]

I just realized you capitalize He and Him when referring to Paul. Wow, you do have a high opinion of him!

Yes, its called "respect".

Paul wrote most of the NT, (epistles)... and was given Divine Understanding that is not given to anyone else, until they study Him.

You dont know this yet, @O'Darby .

You'll learn what the means one day, when your opinion is no longer your final answer.

 

[ElieG12]

Jesus was a spiritual teacher. Although some details of his life before baptism are touched on in the Scriptures, about his life, the three years after baptism until his death and resurrection, are the most important to our faith... and for that reason God made these accounts of his teachings reach us today.

Still, there is enough historicity about Jesus in biblical Christian writings, as secular details about the time of Jesus and the apostles abound throughout the NT. Check for example Luke 3:1,2 or all the publicly known names of places and people mentioned throughout the NT (like Roman governors, kings, etc, in the book of Acts).

Christian writings were not inspired for secular analysis and criticism. This attitude is typical of people who do not trust in God, much less that He is the intellectual author of the Bible.

 

[amadeus]

Odd - no one is troubled or even intrigued by such issues? Well, I guess it must be nice to be "that" sort of believer. To me, these are pretty large and obvious clues that "something was going on" that we don't grasp. In a way, the fact that these (to me) screaming mysteries are mostly right there in the NT is a mystery in its own right. Oh, well, YMMV.

Trouble, no, and not even really intrigued. Was something going on that we cannot grasp? Paul writes that our vision is as "through a glass darkly" [I Cor 13:12]. Solomon wrote that "where there is no vision the people perish" [Prov 29:18].

Are we not now supposed to be approaching the "then face to face" {I Cor 13:12] vision? Is this a different vision than the one David was told to seek?

Ps 27:8

When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek

I think not!

How important is this "historical" Jesus you speak of to those who really love Him and are seeking His face? It is not, I believe, the carnal flesh and blood and bone face of the man Jesus which David was seeking nor is it the vision of which Solomon and Paul wrote. Would it not rather be directly related to what Matthew wrote here?

Mt 6:33

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you

 

[O'Darby]

How important is this "historical" Jesus you speak of to those who really love Him and are seeking His face?

Well, but we would know nothing about Jesus if we didn't have the historical accounts. I would have to say that the historical Jesus is VITALLY important to every believer. No modern preacher or apologist can get through a 30-minute spiel without some reference to Jesus' life, parables, sayings or miracles. I just find it very odd that Paul wrote all his epistles with essentially no reference to the historical Jesus.

Oh, I forgot a mystery:

What about the 500 witnesses to Jesus' Resurrection? 1st Corinthians is believed to have been written circa 51-53 AD, earlier than any of the Gospels. Paul says many of the 500 witnesses were still alive, which supports an early date. Yet this fabulous evidence didn't make it into ANY of the Gospels. Where did Paul get this information? Since all the Gospels, and certainly the Synoptics, were circulating in oral form at an early date, why do they seem ignorant of the appearance to the 500? Again: weird.

 

[ElieG12]

Everyone knows that Christianity extends its roots back to the very first century in which Jesus lived. Christian congregations did not appear a century after Jesus died, but were already created just a few months after his death. By the end of the first century there was already an international community of Christians who based their beliefs fundamentally on the gospels and the letters of Paul that the older Christians already had.

Since then on, what is today called "Christianity" was built, apostate, transformed, recovered, etc. There has never been a day since the first century to the present day when someone somewhere on earth was not studying the life and teachings of Jesus and his first century followers.

The enemies of the Bible think they can erase history.

 

[amadeus]

Well, but we would know nothing about Jesus if we didn't have the historical accounts. I would have to say that the historical Jesus is VITALLY important to every believer.

"Vitally" important, means, according to one online dictionary, "absolutely essential or necessary". Is God so limited as that? What historical accounts did early believers have before there were any written NT scriptures? What did they have even after the first hundred years following the Resurrection of Jesus when few had access to such writings and very many indeed were illiterate? Was not the Holy Spirit active indeed among believers, leading them... even as the Holy Spirit is active, leading people today?

Joh 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Is not the Holy Spirit similarly teaching us and bringing to our remembrance the good things of God we have heard or read or experienced? Let us not limit God to moving only through the carnal perceptions of men.

No modern preacher or apologist can get through a 30-minute spiel without some reference to Jesus' life, parables, sayings or miracles. I just find it very odd that Paul wrote all his epistles with essentially no reference to the historical Jesus.

You are mixing up the things of the flesh with those of the Spirit. What is important?

2co 3:5	Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2co 3:6	Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Oh, I forgot a mystery:

What about the 500 witnesses to Jesus' Resurrection? 1st Corinthians is believed to have been written circa 51-53 AD, earlier than any of the Gospels. Paul says many of the 500 witnesses were still alive, which supports an early date. Yet this fabulous evidence didn't make it into ANY of the Gospels. Where did Paul get this information? Since all the Gospels, and certainly the Synoptics, were circulating in oral form at an early date, why do they seem ignorant of the appearance to the 500? Again: weird.

Is our personal testimony worth nothing because we were not there to personally witness with our carnal eyes the man Jesus walking on planet Earth about 2,000 years ago? Without the truth of my personal testimony, the witness of those 500, who died physically centuries before I was born to my natural mother, would be meaningless to me.

 

[ElieG12]

Bible skeptics are looking for something they want to call "historical Jesus," which they can't seem to find in biblical Christian writings.

What would be that "historical Jesus" that you want to have? One that doesn't work miracles? ... more credible to unbelievers? to whom the entities of the world are willing to accept and recognize even if they were basically atheistic institutions?

The kingdom of Jesus is opposite to human kingdoms, so there is no Jesus for this unbelieving system of things ruled by Satan. Jesus is for individuals who sacrifice today to inherit the promises of the future Kingdom of Christ.

Matt. 6:10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.

 

[Taken]

I really don't think anything I say here is "unorthodox," but I'm posting here so as not to upset those to whom any sort of "thinking out loud" is disturbing if not blasphemous.

Those scholars who posit a completely mythical (invented) Jesus who never existed at all have an uphill battle. (Richard C. Carrier and Robert M. Price are two of the leading "Jesus myth" scholars.) There is enough history and historical references to make this untenable to most scholars, even those who are firmly non-Christian.

However, there are some genuine mysteries that I find fascinating:

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?

Saul was a Pharisee well schooled in Mosaic Law and like most Jews would have been very familiar and looking forward to the appearance of the Jewish Messiah…

Saul, like the rest of the Pharisees didn’t believe JESUS was the Messiah.

When JESUS began capturing the attention of the Jews, drawing crowds to hear Him speak, the Pharisee’s and (most) of the Sanhedrin’s became alarmed, including Paul.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[O'Darby]

Saul was a Pharisee well schooled in Mosaic Law and like most Jews would have been very familiar and looking forward to the appearance of the Jewish Messiah…

Saul, like the rest of the Pharisees didn’t believe JESUS was the Messiah.

When JESUS began capturing the attention of the Jews, drawing crowds to hear Him speak, the Pharisee’s and (most) of the Sanhedrin’s became alarmed, including Paul.

Glory to God,
Taken

I forgot about this thread! I'm surprised it didn't generate more responses. Pretty much everyone who responded focused on the Paul issue.

I'm not quite following your response. What I'm talking about is that Paul's epistles, written after his conversion experience, make no reference to the historical Jesus - the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the parables or sayings. The oral tradition that led to the Gospels was well in place by the time Paul was writing, but the historical Jesus seems unimportant to him. Many scholars have noted this mystery, so it's not as though I'm out in left field.

 

[Behold]

The oral tradition that led to the Gospels was well in place by the time Paul was writing, but the historical Jesus seems unimportant to him.

Paul was not a Historian, He was the "apostle to the gentiles".

Jesus chose this Pharisee of Pharisees, to teach 2 things.

1.) The Gospel of the Grace of God

2.) Church doctrine.

Paul's Epistles are written to churches that He Planted or to disciples whom He converted., except for one.

So, He was not sent by Christ to write Gospel #5.

He wasn't a Pastor, so, He didnt specialize in sermons on King David, Jesus's Manger, Noah's Ark, or The 3 wise Men..

Paul was a Church planter and a builder of ministers and teachers.

He was a advanced type of Mystical Missionary Teacher who was also a master Soul winner.

 

[Lambano]

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus? Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings. Scholars agree that precursors to the Gospels were circulating in oral tradition, and even as written collections of Jesus' sayings (such as the famous Q), at any early date. Yet Paul seems completely unaware of Jesus' virgin birth, parables, sayings or deeds. He makes no use of them or references to them at all – only the Resurrection. Rather odd, eh?

NT Wright has an interesting theory about this one. Having encountered the risen Christ, Paul is not interested in Jesus's earthly ministry (though I suspect he gave his good friend Dr. Luke the assignment to research it). Paul is a "Big-Picture" guy. He's more interested in the big questions like, "What does a crucified Messiah mean in the overall story of God's people?" Referring to Deuteronomy 27-30, "Even though the Babylonian exile ended 500 years ago, Israel is still under foreign domination. When will God lift the Deuteronomic curse?"

It's an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[O'Darby]

NT Wright has an interesting theory about this one. Having encountered the risen Christ, Paul is not interested in Jesus's earthly ministry (though I suspect he gave his good friend Dr. Luke the assignment to research it). Paul is a "Big-Picture" guy. He's more interested in the big questions like, "What does a crucified Messiah mean in the overall story of God's people?" Referring to Deuteronomy 27-30, "Even though the Babylonian exile ended 500 years ago, Israel is still under foreign domination. When will God lift the Deuteronomic curse?"

It's an interesting way of looking at it.

Yes, even Bart Ehrman (boo! hiss!) says much the same thing. Paul was interested in his vision of the risen Christ and not particularly interested or knowledgeable about the historical Jesus. He pretty much took his vision and ran with it, which is why some insist Paul is actually the inventor of Christianity. The 2023 documentary I've mentioned elsewhere, Searching for the Historical Jesus, goes into some detail about how different Paul's Jesus is from the historical Jesus. One can certainly believe that this was under divine inspiration and was what God intended.

I was just struck a few years ago when someone pointed out how "absent" the historical Jesus is from Paul's epistles. It had never occurred to me. Partly this is because of the way the NT is arranged - we go from the Gospels and Acts to Paul's epistles, whereas the epistles are actually the earlier documents.

 

[O'Darby]

So, He was not sent by Christ to write Gospel #5.

Hello? Isn't that pretty much EXACTLY what you say on every thread that Paul did?

We don't need those "Jesus talking to the Jews" Gospels because we have the "Paul talking to the Gentiles" Gospel.

 

[Lambano]

Yes, even Bart Ehrman (boo! hiss!) says much the same thing. Paul was interested in his vision of the risen Christ and not particularly interested or knowledgeable about the historical Jesus.

It was Wright's "Big Picture" that I found fascinating. The "Narrative" of the Jewish people (and some of the "New Perspective" studies of the past half-century) were not things that were brought up in my previous Bible studies of Romans and Galatians.