Why did Jesus preach an incomplete message?

Jesus came to preach his gospel, yet died before he could say everything he needed to say. Proof of this is in all of Paul's epistles. Why would Jesus not teach Paul's message while on Earth, and why would he choose one of his persecutors to finish his message?

Also, if Paul's message is really Jesus', then how do you explain most, if not all of it being absent from the gospels?

John 15
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Peter was present when Jesus was saying this, so that means that Peter learned everything Jesus had to say while traveling with him. Why then, is Paul's message not in the gospels when the Gospel of Mark was a recounting of Peter's memory?

Why would Peter neglect to mention anything in Paul's message when it is considered to be some of the most important information in the bible?

Remember, Jesus told his apostles EVERYTHING he learned from his Father, so I find it strange that Paul was even needed and why the message Paul taught isn't seen until his epistles.

So, why did Jesus supposedly need Paul when he already told Peter everything he knew? And why is Paul's doctrine nowhere to be found in Mark, which is based on Peter's own words?

Didn't Jesus come to preach the good news to the Jews? Didn't He give the great commission to the apostles upon His death? Wouldn't it follow that Paul, a self-professed apostle of Christ just continued in that commission to preach to the gentiles?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

"Why would Jesus not teach Paul's message while on Earth"
I think you got that backwards it should be - Why would Paul not teach Jesus' message while on Earth?

Many people think paul was not what he appeared to be, I have not made up my mind on this yet. Paul does seem to contradict Jesus a few times in his teaching

reply to post by micmerci


Both Paul and Peter's works were put into the bible. If they were meant for separate audiences, why did god end up putting them together as a cohesive message in the end?

Matthew 28
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Mark 16
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Luke 24
47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Jesus tells the apostles (which included Peter) to preach the gospel to ALL nations, not just Jews.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I do not believe that Jesus taught Peter everything. If He had then there would not of been the revelation that Peter had that all things had been made clean. At that time Jews were not to have anything to do with non Jews, Jesus had said He came for the house of Israel first. So there was further revelations that Christ had not taught the Apostles. Why did God choose Paul? I tend to believe that it was His way of showing grace to those who did not deserve it which what grace is unmerited favor.

reply to post by guitarplayer


According to Jesus in John 15:15, he taught his apostles everything his Father had taught him, so yes he did teach Peter everything.

reply to post by retropekim


Well, I was kind of implying this when I made the thread. Paul didn't teach Jesus' message because Jesus didn't teach Paul's.

Well now that is an interesting question. Reminds me of those philosophical Omnipotence paradox

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it


Either Jesus did teach everything to Peter and Peter did not divulge it, or he didn't and what would be the reason after the statements that he did. Or and what I am still trying to figure out is if Paul was a fraud.

Perhaps we can compare the New Testament to the Beatles where you really should just to listen to the Fab Four, Paul really is dead, replaced by a false Paul who left took the music and though he is still singing (preaching as it were) it sounds good and you want to believe it is like the original, its just not the same...

I plan on keeping an eye on this thread to see where it goes...

well if they would have learned all they were taught we would not be in this situation unless 2 conflicting doctrines of love were being taught.

I think is amazing so many people can't see that Paul was a fraud...

Christianity is based more around Pauls books then the ones Jesus' words were actually recorded in...

Isn't that a hint?

The man wanted a following... and got what he wanted by the use of Jesus' name... and that's pretty much all he used from Jesus...

reply to post by abeverage

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it

that isn't a paradox.... the answer is yes...

It would be by his own will that he himself could not lift said rock

reply to post by Akragon


It's painfully obvious what Paul really was.

Luke 21
8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

The only reason people follow Paul is because his words were put alongside Jesus' long before they were born. "If it's in the bible, it must be true."

About the rock, could god will himself to lift it? If so, he could lift it all along, if not, he is not omnipotent.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

About the rock, could god will himself to lift it? If so, he could lift it all along, if not, he is not omnipotent.

Of course he could... but again by his own will he would also not be able to... if that was his will...

With God all things are possible right?

Perhaps God himself can not defy his own will?

reply to post by Akragon


I'd have to say that if he cannot defy his own will, he is not omnipotent. If he doesn't have the power to defy his will, he is not all-powerful and that would imply he does not have free-will.

This is off-topic though. Everyone has their own opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Like I said at the time that Christ was on earth He taught them all of what pertained to the house of Israel. After the asention Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit that lead you into the truth. Peter did not have the revelation of the gentiles being brought into the body of Christ when Jesus was upon the earth. John the beloved of Christ had not been given the total revelation ot the book of revelation of Christ while Jesus was on the earth. So there was revelation given after Christ left. That is why Paul was chosen to go to the gentiles because of his years of seperation in the desert praying and fasting after he met Jesus on the road to Damacus and the revelation he was given to go to the gentiles.

reply to post by guitarplayer


What you're implying here is that Jesus did not know everything his Father knew. If Jesus did not know everything, how can you be so sure he was God in the flesh?

All you're doing is pointing out a contradiction in scripture, one among many. Jesus said he taught them --everything-- he knew, so if he didn't know Paul's message yet, he could not have been God, because God knows everything.

Or are you saying Jesus lied about telling them everything?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


maybe Pauls message wasn't from God?

unless one considers Paul to be the Christ...

Some seem to... Paulis Christ

:shk:

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus came to preach his gospel, yet died before he could say everything he needed to say.

John 16:13-15

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Why would Peter neglect to mention anything in Paul's message when it is considered to be some of the most important information in the bible?

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

reply to post by Akragon


It seems that way doesn't it?

Paul performed miracles just like Jesus and even possibly rose from the dead after being stoned. Those together with him having a more complete message than what Jesus had while here would seem to point toward him usurping Jesus as God in the flesh.

I don't believe that for one second. I'll take his word as not being God's, but a forgery.

reply to post by Klassified


Thanks for pointing this out.

I don't see why Jesus would tell them he told them everything and then turn around and say he didn't.

Add that one to the list.

Also, 2 Peter was most likely pseudographical.

reply to post by Klassified


interesting coincidence here....

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Perhaps that was Pauls MO... He took on the roll of the spirit of truth... and even went so far as to call himself "your father" in his letters...