http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/03/04/wants/

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2015-03-04.png

In fact, Paul never mentions the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the 3 Wise Men, Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan and a host of other christian keystone incidences. Paul never refers to Jesus as the 'Son of Man', one of Jesus's favourite ways of describing himself. 1 Timothy 6:13 mentions Pilate, but 1 Timothy is not by Paul.

So if these aspects were so central to the oral tradition, all of them touted in the gospels, then how is it Paul makes no mention, not one, of these fundamental details so central to the Christian narrative?

During Jesus's time, this oral tradition apparently builds up, miracle by miracle, incident by incident, story by story, added into the 'oral tradition' collection. Jesus dies. This 'oral tradition' continues to build. Twenty years later Paul is on the scene, persecuting Christians remorselessly, and in the midst of a massive epileptic fit with associated religious episode [a very common occurrence that we now scientifically/medically know can present as a feature of epilepsy], then becomes a christian as a result of this epileptic episode. In all his writings he makes not one mention of any of these core and pivotal features of Jesus life. Not one. A complete void. No mention whatsoever of the central themes of the oral tradition. A couple of decades later the 'oral tradition' comes pouring out, in spades. The four gospels spill out a profusion of stories, sayings, etc that are claimed to be founded on the 'oral tradition'. The great irony here is that, like Paul, none of the gospel writers ever met Jesus either. Indeed we don't even know who wrote the Gospels. There has been much speculative pontification by apologists but the overwhelming majority of gospel scholars and intellectuals acknowledge that not one of the Gospels were written by those whose names are allotted to them. And of course we also know that half of the purported letters in the NT attributed to Paul, are not Paul's.

I put it that any right-thinking, half-sensible skeptical person would consider the Christian narrative as simply too much a stretch beyond all reason, logic and common sense to be adjudged factually historical. And that is what we are pretty much experiencing as a society/community as more and more people turn away from theology as an explanatory paradigm about us, humanity, the environment, the world, the universe. It simply does not add up to a cogent, credible and authoritative explicative model, based as it is on ineffability, unexplainable mystery, magic, prophecy, supernatural intentionality and cosmic agency.

... "allegedly" is the operative word. And Paul never met the man.

The quote is "allegedly" by Gregory because it apparently can only be traced back to Nietzsche or Lea, about 1200 years after Gregory lived.

I agree the word "allegedly" can be applied to the Resurrection but that is an event reported in writing maybe 30 years after it allegedly happened by Paul and then later by others.

Can you provide evidence that Gregory said what you claim he said?

Apparently Jesus was said to have been dead for three days, only to have reputedly revivified to full physical health and reputedly to have levitated into the sky where he is now reputedly living in blissful and unabashed comfort.

Yes, I take your point about the operative word, "reputedly".

"You say it best, when you say nothing at all"

"Reputedly" is the operative word.

They are pleasures many enjoy on earth but they are, as you say, hellish pleasures, temporary, unsatisfying, diminishing oneself, bitter. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

Reputedly from Pope Gregory 1:

"The bliss of the elect in heaven would not be perfect unless they were able to look across the abyss and enjoy the angonies of their brethren in eternal fire."