The argument is made that Paul never mentioned Mary, Joseph, Calvary, Pilate, Bethlehem, the virgin birth, the tomb, etc. because these gospel stories had not yet developed.  His Christ was a celestial being of a Platonic formula and not a literal historical Jesus figure.  How would you answer that?

Sincerely,
Don’t Drop The Details

Dear Don’t Drop The Details,

It is important to note that any time someone makes a claim that is contrary to what the majority of historians teach, the responsibility is on the person making the claim to prove their case.  That would be the first answer we would give to the argument.  You can’t just say that Paul taught Jesus as a celestial being and not a legitimate historical figure – you have to prove it.  In fact, history teaches Jesus was a real person.  Even the secular writers Josephus and Tacitus mentioned Jesus as a real, flesh-and-blood person.

Secondly, we would point out that Paul does mention some of the things on that list.  In Rom 6:1-4, Paul mentions Jesus’ death and resurrection from the tomb.  In 1 Tim 6:13, Paul notes that Jesus stood before Pilate.  Php 2:8 (amongst many others such as Col 1:20-24, Eph 2:16, Gal 6:14, 1 Cor 1:18) clearly states that Jesus was crucified (which implies the location of Calvary and Golgotha).  Paul was aware of the story of Christ’s life and mentioned those details when appropriate.  In fact, one of the writers of the four Gospels was Luke – Paul’s traveling companion.

Is it the case that the ideas of the Christ and salvation were not taught exclusively by Paul since he himself said that he only wanted to preach in places that had not yet heard the Gospel?  Plus, there were others such as Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, etc.  He also said that there were those who taught another Jesus or gospel, others who relied on other people such as Cephas, and even those who believed only in Christ without any preachers.  Or was it the case that he was the leader of the entire movement because he was the one who claimed a revelation… whereas others had received traditions?

And is this the reason he never mentions Gospel stories or even mentions Mary, Pilate, Calvary, Golgotha, or Herod?  And when he mentions the apostles who knew Jesus in person, why does he not express any special reverence or awe for them at all?

Sincerely,
Passionate About Paul

Dear Passionate About Paul,

Paul was only one of thirteen different apostles teaching Christianity and only one of countless preachers and teachers.  You are right that Paul taught in new territories that others hadn’t reached (Rom 15:20), and the Lord chose to use Paul’s letters for a large portion of the New Testament canon, but that doesn’t make Paul the primary preacher of Christianity.  In fact, the first sermon was preached by Peter (Acts 2:14), and Paul didn’t even begin to preach until several years later.  Paul was originally opposed to Christianity (Acts 26:10) and wasn’t converted until the Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-5).  Paul’s letters don’t contain every detail of Christ’s law because Paul didn’t write all of Christ’s law!  Paul’s letters were written to already established congregations that were aware of the story of Christ’s life and didn’t need him to reiterate every detail.  As far as Paul’s lack of reverence for the other apostles – the other apostles didn’t want reverence; as Peter said, “I, myself, am also a man.” (Acts 10:26).

(This post is a follow-up to “Blood In Both Directions”)

Does this mean, according to Paul, the justification and reconciliation could be attained despite the fact that the matter of faith in the Christ remained a secret until the first century when it became revealed to Paul and his associates?  Was the conscious faith not necessary until then for some reason?

Sincerely,
Just Wondering Jew

Dear Just Wondering Jew,

People who lived before Christ were still saved by faith in God.  The whole point of faith is that it is a matter of trusting whatever God has told you (Rom 10:17).  Faith assumes that there are pieces of the puzzle that aren’t revealed to you yet... but that the person (or in this case Deity) that you are putting your faith in is trustworthy (Heb 11:1).  The Old Testament saints had faith in Christ because they trusted in the Messiah that was to come.  The New Testament saints have faith in Christ as they trust the words of the Messiah who walked this earth many years ago… both groups have faith in Christ.  Each group had different instructions and different information that God had given them to follow, but they both had faith in the same God (1 Cor 10:1-4).  Each group had a conscious faith in God – just different rules to follow.

Hello.  I am a religious Jew but am interested in understanding other religions.  My question is: how did Paul explain how Jews (or Gentiles) were able to be justified (righteous) with or without the Law if the salvation of the Christ was a secret until it was revealed to him and his colleagues in the first century?  How did David and Abraham acquire righteousness if they (or anyone else) did not know about the role of the Christ?  Thanks.

Sincerely,
Just Wondering Jew

Dear Just Wondering Jew,

The New Testament teaches that the sacrifices that cleansed the Jewish people from sin never truly removed the sin (Heb 10:1-4).  The Jewish nation (along with all faithful people) needed God’s blood to permanently remove sin and make them righteous.  When Jesus died on the cross, His blood paid the price for those who had gone before and those who were to come after… one sacrifice for all sins (Heb 10:12).

All mankind is saved by faith in God, including those found in the Old Testament.  Abraham lived by faith and is considered the father of the faithful (Rom 4:11-12).  Abraham didn’t understand the mystery of what God would do in Christ, but he did live knowing that God would send salvation (Jhn 8:56).  Moses placed his faith in God (which includes Jesus because Jesus is Deity – Jhn 1:1-3) and was rewarded for it (Heb 11:24-26).  All the faithful who lived before Christ did so in expectation of better things through God (Heb 11:13).  Though they didn’t understand the details, all the faithful of the Old Testament anxiously anticipated the coming of the Messiah (1 Pet 1:10-12).  Jesus’ blood covered the sins of those who looked forward to the coming of the Messiah… as well as the sins of those who rejoice that He already came.

If God is love, and He is (1 Jn 4:8)… then would it be safe to say that love is God?

Sincerely,
Lovestruck

Dear Lovestruck,

God is love (1 Jn 4:8), but love isn’t God.  There is a logic flaw in switching those two statements around.  It doesn’t work both ways.  Consider these examples:

1. A cedar is a tree, but not every tree is a cedar.
2. A tuna is a fish, but not every fish is a tuna.
3. The man is fast, but that doesn’t mean every fast thing is a man.

God is the perfect example of love.  He loved mankind so much that He gave His own Son for us (Jhn 3:16).  He loved us while we were still His enemies (Rom 5:10).  Nobody is better at showing love than God, and we ought to imitate His love, but that doesn’t mean that every act of love is God.  That is a misunderstanding of what the Bible is teaching.