[awareness]

Such a gracious post this blind squirrel of biblical proportion genius is shy to crack your nut. But :

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good question Harold. I believe the answer is that these writings did not reflect, much less match, the oral record that was passed down from the earliest days of the church.

Since the gospel of Thomas is just sayings of Jesus some leading scholars surmise that the GoT may have been the closest to the oral period. And John Dominic Crossan believes the Gospel of Peter was written before the synoptic's, and came out of the oral stories being passed around.

He calls the Gospel of Peter the cross gospel, because it has a walking talking cross in it. From the gospel :

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'

When I first read the gospel of Peter I cracked up over the walking talking cross. I thought : How ridiculous. No wonder the book is not in the NT canon.

But then upon further reflection I realized the symbolic meaning in the story ; that was simply spoken, or spoken simply, in what was common story telling methods back then (common enough to also be used in the stories in the canonical gospels (technically, spoken using mythological terms, imagery, and methods)) :

The meaning being that, the death and resurrection of Jesus was very important to God, and that message was even proclaimed to the dead.

I don't know why they just couldn't say it in plain English, so to speak. I guess they enjoyed mind games back then -- what else did they have for entertainment?

So in the end, I cut the silly Gospel of Peter some slack.

Originally Posted by Untohim

As you know, the life and times and teachings of Jesus were passed down orally, not in writing, until the Gospels were put to pen and paper (or papyrus as it were). The wise men who put together the cannon undoubtedly had knowledge of the oral record, and would accept or reject any writings based upon this oral record.

But I don't know if I can cut the "wise men" that selected the canon the same slack. They didn't act like true followers of Jesus as far as I'm concerned.

And doggone-it Untohim, there is no oral record. I sure wish there was. We only have written records. YouTube would have been nice.

But alas, more "miracles" have been discovered since back then.

Originally Posted by Untohim

Great post! Sometimes I wonder about you Harold. I never can figure out if you're just a blind squirrel finding the world's largest nut, or if you are a genius of biblical proportions. Maybe it's a little of both.

Thanks. I think. What's "genius of biblical proportions?" If it's divine genius, I'm down with that. But not if it means "stable genius."

Originally Posted by Untohim

In any event, your point about Paul is well taken. Remember, Paul had no knowledge or access to the earliest oral tradition...he was too busy killing Christians to listen to the stories they were telling.

Paul hung with the authoritative originators of the oral stories, Peter, James and John ... and prolly -- we don't know -- maybe even with Mary Magdalene -- maybe The Gospel of Mary tells, but it's missing pages.

So Paul was clearly closer to the oral stories than the authors of the gospels. But now that you bring it up, when was Saul "killing Christians?"

First. There weren't any Christians at that point. And the timeline? He had to be killing somewhere between Jesus leaving his brother and the disciples behind, and Paul becoming buddies with them?

Jesus died circa 30ad. Paul was writing his epistles in the 50s and 60s, to established communities (churches) of Jesus followers. Stories of Jesus had to be flying around everywhere. Paul was prolly spreading them in his oral speakings to the communities.

The timeline? Was Paul a kid when Jesus died? or was he being trained as a Pharisee? He seemed to be an equal to Peter and James. Did he only kill Christians for a week or two? And why Damascus? Why not kill the disciples? Wouldn't killing the head of the snake make more sense, and be more effective at eliminating the new Jesus cult? The timeline is troubling. It is indeed like I'm blind. Where's the world's biggest nut?

But something just don't add up about Paul. I find it odd that he hung with Peter, James, and John, and other of the earliest followers of Jesus, and he doesn't have gospel like stories about Jesus in his epistles. I also find it odd that the gospels don't speak of Paul. Not once! Not one time is Paul mentioned in any of the gospels, including the one attributed to Luke.

Originally Posted by Untohim

By the time Saul became Paul he was more concerned with the resurrected Jesus that appeared to him, and with "the Spirit of Him who raised Christ Jesus from the dead". And since the Gospels had not yet been written (and Paul being a Rabbi and a scholar would have been somewhat dismissive of oral tradition over written scripture) he probably relied upon his own revelations and visions (coupled with his vast knowledge of scripture) more than the Gospel stories and history.

Well he undeniably stated that he got his gospel right from direct revelation of Christ.

Thanks for you gracious reply bro Untohim.