Skip to content
PLPauline Letters
English
Enter the story →

Teaching and the routes of tradition

Paul and the teaching of Jesus

Paul's explicit attributions should guide comparison with Jesus traditions while the mode of transmission remains a separate question. The letters report teaching, revelation, and contact without identifying a complete chain for every tradition or proving that Paul read a finished Gospel.

Created and edited by Thomas Diong · Updated

Reader question

What does Paul say about teaching he associates with Jesus?

Explicit attributions in the letters

Paul's letters provide direct evidence that he knew teaching associated with Jesus. The clearest starting point is what he explicitly attributes to the Lord, rather than a count of similarities with later Gospel narratives. Such an attribution tells readers how Paul presents an instruction's authority. A parallel noticed by a reader is a different observation whose explanation still requires argument. Keeping those categories distinct makes comparison more useful: a shared subject can be significant without proving that Paul read a particular finished Gospel, and the absence of a Gospel title cannot erase the teaching that his letters actually attribute to Jesus.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the letters' explicit teaching attributions to the Lord, distinct from a reader's inference of written-Gospel dependence.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

What this does not establish: Explicit attribution and inferred literary dependence are different claims.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 9:14
  • Mark 10:2–12

Marriage and support

Marriage and support show why context matters. In 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, Paul associates an instruction against marital separation with the Lord. He then considers a believer with an unbelieving spouse and marks that instruction as his own. Verse 25 introduces judgment where he has no specific command from the Lord. These distinctions do not automatically make his counsel optional; they identify how he frames different cases. In chapter 9, Paul attributes the support of gospel proclaimers to the Lord, while explaining his decision not to exercise that right in Corinth. An attributed principle and its particular application belong together.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the stated marriage-case distinctions and the attributed right to support; the authority and application of counsel require their own interpretation.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

What this does not establish: Distinct attribution does not by itself settle all theological questions about the authority or application of counsel.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–16
  • 1 Corinthians 7:25–35
  • 1 Corinthians 9:13–18

The meal tradition

The meal tradition supplies another explicit connection. In 1 Corinthians 11:23–26, Paul presents Jesus' actions and teaching over bread and a cup as received material that he transmitted. He brings it into a discussion of division, unequal eating, and the treatment of fellow worshipers. It is therefore part of an argument about the community's conduct, not an isolated antiquarian notice. Readers differ about whether receipt from the Lord indicates direct revelation or inherited tradition whose ultimate source is Jesus. The paragraph does not identify every intermediary or occasion, so a complete account of delivery cannot simply be read out of that expression.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the received-and-transmitted meal account and its communal setting; the mode and complete chain of receipt remain interpretive questions.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Debated

What this does not establish: The account identifies authority and transmission without narrating the complete process of receipt.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:17–34

Received proclamation and appearance reports

First Corinthians 15:3–8 presents received proclamation and reported appearances within one resurrection argument. Paul recounts the message about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, names recipients of appearances, and places his own experience at the end of the sequence. The letter is evidence of these claims, but it is not a separate surviving statement from each person mentioned. Historical assessment must consider the report's character, proximity, and transmission. Pauline Letters openly affirms Jesus' bodily resurrection as a Christian conviction; that confession should not be confused with a statement that every historian shares the same judgment or that no further argument is needed.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that 1 Corinthians reports received proclamation and appearances; historical assessment remains distinct, and bodily resurrection is identified as the site's Christian conviction.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

What this does not establish: A report and the historical judgment that its narrated event occurred remain distinguishable.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 15:1–12

Revelation, contacts and transmission

Galatians adds a claim of revelation and a report of later contact. In 1:11–19, Paul defends the origin of his gospel while recounting a Jerusalem visit, fifteen days with Peter, and seeing James, whom the letter identifies as the Lord's brother. The account does not disclose their conversations. Its later mention of Cephas in 2:9 supports comparison of name forms within the letter's leadership setting, rather than an explicit alias formula. Neither contact nor revelation should become a universal explanation for every tradition: a meeting does not supply a teaching syllabus, and a claim about the gospel's origin does not describe everything Paul ever learned.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in Galatians' revelation claim, reported contacts and distinct Peter/Cephas forms, without supplying conversations or merging unbound literary subjects.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

What this does not establish: Reported contacts do not establish their full conversational content or a particular transmission chain.

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • Galatians 2:7–9

Parallels without a proved written-Gospel dependence

Comparison with the Gospels should preserve these distinctions. Mark 10:2–12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 both oppose the breaking of marriage, but they do so within different literary settings. Shared teaching can be transmitted orally and need not demonstrate use of the completed Gospel of Mark. Nor do Paul's later contacts with Christian figures establish that he met Jesus before the crucifixion. A careful comparison starts with each passage's subject, speaker, and attribution, then asks what explanation best accounts for the resemblance. Where sources do not identify a teacher, conversation, or document, the explanation should leave that step open.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the shared marriage subject and the insufficiency of these parallels or contacts to establish written-Gospel dependence or a pre-crucifixion meeting.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

What this does not establish: The cited parallels do not establish written-Gospel dependence or a pre-crucifixion meeting.

Supporting references

  • Mark 10:2–12
  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–11
  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8

Questions

Did Paul know teaching associated with Jesus?

Yes. Paul explicitly associates instruction about marriage and the support of proclaimers with the Lord, and he transmits a meal tradition centered on Jesus. These are stronger starting points than a search for verbal similarities alone. They establish that his letters present Jesus-related teaching, while leaving particular routes of transmission and dependence on written Gospels to further argument.

What this does not establish: Explicit attribution does not establish that Paul consulted a completed Gospel.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that the cited letters explicitly attribute marriage and support instruction to the Lord and transmit a Jesus-related meal tradition; their routes of transmission remain separate questions.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 9:14
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

Where does Paul explicitly distinguish a command of the Lord from his own instruction?

In 1 Corinthians 7:10–12, Paul attributes an instruction about married people to the Lord, then introduces another situation under his own instruction. Verse 25 makes a related distinction when he offers judgment without a specific command from the Lord. These distinctions concern the attribution and application of instruction; they do not automatically make his own counsel optional.

What this does not establish: The distinction does not by itself establish different degrees of inspiration or authority.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in Paul's stated distinction between an attributed command and his own instruction in these marriage cases, without deciding inspiration or universal application.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 7:25

What marriage issue is being addressed in 1 Corinthians 7?

Paul addresses separation and the obligations of married people, before considering a marriage in which one partner does not believe. In 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 he connects the instruction against separation with the Lord. Reading the following cases separately matters: he is applying teaching to particular relationships rather than offering an uninterrupted account of his own marriage.

What this does not establish: These instructions should not be turned into missing biographical information about Paul.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the separation and mixed-marriage cases described in 1 Corinthians 7, not in any reconstruction of Paul's own marriage.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–16

How does the marriage case in 1 Corinthians 7:12 differ from the case in 7:10–11?

Verse 12 explicitly considers a believer married to an unbelieving spouse who is willing to remain in the relationship. The preceding verses give an instruction to married people with an attribution to the Lord. Paul marks the new case as his own instruction, which helps distinguish an application to this situation from an expressly attributed command.

What this does not establish: The passage identifies a different case without identifying every couple in the preceding case as Christian.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that verse 12 explicitly introduces a believer with an unbelieving spouse; the preceding case does not label every couple's religious identity.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–16

How should Paul's own instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 be understood alongside commands he attributes to the Lord?

They should be read as deliberate pastoral judgments that Paul distinguishes from a specifically attributed command of the Lord. The distinction tells readers something about how he frames the instruction, not that he considers his advice worthless or merely casual. Its authority and application must be assessed within the letter's argument rather than decided by that contrast alone.

What this does not establish: Absence of a specifically attributed saying does not automatically make the instruction optional.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the attribution distinction; theological conclusions about inspiration require a further interpretive argument.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 7:25
  • 1 Corinthians 7:40

How does 1 Corinthians 7:25 qualify the instruction that follows?

Paul says that he lacks a specific command from the Lord for the situation he now addresses and offers his own trustworthy judgment. The following counsel weighs present distress, obligations, and undistracted devotion. This framing helps readers identify pastoral deliberation; it does not authorize treating the paragraph as an unqualified command of Jesus or dismissing it as uninformed opinion.

What this does not establish: The paragraph's own qualifications belong with its advice.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the paragraph's stated lack of a specific command and its qualified pastoral judgment, not in treating every part of that judgment as a direct saying of Jesus.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:25–35

How does Paul's marriage instruction compare with Mark's account?

Both passages oppose the breaking of a marriage, making a substantive comparison possible. Paul addresses separation and reconciliation in a letter to a community; Mark places Jesus' teaching within a dispute about divorce and further instruction to disciples. Their different settings and formulations should be retained, and the resemblance does not establish that Paul read Mark's completed book.

What this does not establish: A parallel in teaching does not determine literary dependence.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the shared subject and distinct literary settings.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–11
  • Mark 10:2–12

Does a parallel with Mark prove that Paul read the finished Gospel of Mark?

No. A shared teaching can arise through oral transmission, related traditions, or other forms of access without one writer reading the other's finished book. 1 Corinthians attributes the marriage instruction to the Lord but does not name Mark as its source. A claim of literary dependence therefore requires evidence beyond the similarity of subject and instruction.

What this does not establish: No chain from the completed Gospel of Mark to this letter is demonstrated.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that the cited parallel alone does not establish use of a written Gospel.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–11
  • Mark 10:2–12

Does the absence of a Gospel book title mean that Paul knew no Jesus tradition?

No. Paul's explicit attributions to the Lord and his presentation of the meal tradition already provide evidence that he knew Jesus-related teaching. A Gospel book title is not required for that observation. Whether a particular item reached him through people, revelation, or a written source is a separate question that must be assessed passage by passage.

What this does not establish: Knowledge of tradition and use of a particular finished book are different claims.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that absence of a book title cannot erase the letters' explicit teaching attributions.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 9:14
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

What teaching about support does Paul associate with the Lord?

Paul associates the support of those who proclaim the gospel with an instruction of the Lord. He places it within an argument about the right to material support, while explaining his own decision not to use that right in Corinth. The passage therefore combines an attributed teaching with a specific choice about its exercise.

What this does not establish: A right to support is not a statement that Paul accepted support in this situation.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that Paul attributes a right to support to the Lord and explains his non-use of that right in this Corinthian situation.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 9:13–18

How do Paul's explicit attributions to the Lord differ from similarities between his letters and the Gospel accounts?

An explicit attribution tells readers that Paul himself connects an instruction with the Lord. A similarity with a Gospel passage is a comparison made by the reader, whose explanation still needs argument. Both can be informative, but they should not be counted as the same kind of evidence or automatically converted into dependence on a written Gospel.

What this does not establish: A reader-detected resemblance does not supply a source attribution absent from the letter.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the distinction between a writer's attribution and a reader's comparative inference.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 9:14
  • Mark 10:2–12

What does Paul say he received and passed on about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11?

Paul presents an account of Jesus' actions and teaching over bread and a cup as something received and transmitted to the Corinthians. He uses that tradition to address division and harmful conduct at their shared meal. The account concerns remembrance and proclamation of Jesus' death; the paragraph does not give a complete history of how every detail reached Paul.

What this does not establish: The reception language does not specify every step or agent in transmission.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that Paul presents the meal account as received and transmitted material within his correction of communal conduct; its complete delivery history is unreported.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:17–34

Does receiving from the Lord necessarily mean a private revelation of every detail?

Not necessarily. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul connects the meal tradition with the Lord and describes receiving and transmitting it. Readers differ over whether this indicates direct revelation or inherited teaching ultimately originating with Jesus. The wording does not describe the complete delivery process, so private revelation of every detail should not be treated as the only established reading.

What this does not establish: The sentence does not independently describe each step of receipt.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the reception wording's underdetermination, without claiming equal proof for every proposed route.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Debated

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

Alternative readings: Direct revelation

The reference to the Lord can be read as identifying a direct revelatory source.

Confidence
Debated
Confidence applies to
Whether this meal tradition was delivered to Paul by direct revelation.
Evidence status
Debated

What this does not establish: Naming the Lord as source does not narrate the delivery process or establish a separate revelation of every detail.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

Alternative readings: Transmitted tradition

The received teaching can be understood as ultimately originating with the Lord while passing through human transmission.

Confidence
Debated
Confidence applies to
Whether this meal tradition reached Paul through human transmission from earlier Jesus tradition.
Evidence status
Debated

What this does not establish: Reception and transmission language do not identify intermediaries or rule out a revelatory element.

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

Can inherited tradition ultimately be described as coming from the Lord?

Yes, as an interpretive possibility. A tradition can be attributed to its ultimate source while also passing through other people. Paul's description of receipt and transmission permits that question to be asked, but it does not identify every intermediary. This reading should remain an explanation of his wording rather than a newly reconstructed conversation or transmission chain.

What this does not establish: The possibility of mediated receipt does not identify actual intermediaries.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that ultimate source and means of transmission are distinguishable; no particular chain is established.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

Why should the source of the meal tradition remain an interpretive question?

Because Paul identifies the tradition's authority more clearly than he describes its entire path to him. The language of reception and transmission can be discussed alongside his claim of revelation, but neither passage names the people or occasions involved in this particular teaching's delivery. The source question therefore requires interpretation rather than an invented account of how he learned it.

What this does not establish: Galatians' claim about the gospel does not narrate the receipt of each meal-tradition detail.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that the two passages do not specify the meal tradition's complete transmission history.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Debated

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
  • Galatians 1:11–19

How does the resurrection discussion distinguish received proclamation from appearance reports?

1 Corinthians 15 presents a proclamation Paul says he received and passed on, concerning Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. The passage then identifies recipients of reported appearances and includes Paul himself. These elements belong together in his argument, but a transmitted proclamation and a person's reported experience are distinguishable kinds of evidence within the account.

What this does not establish: The letter's report does not constitute independent testimony from each person it names.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the chapter's distinction between received proclamation and reported appearances, without counting the letter as separate testimony from every named recipient.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 15:1–11

How does Paul's report of an appearance to himself fit 1 Corinthians 15:3–8?

Paul places his own reported appearance after the other appearances in the sequence he recounts. He then connects it with his unworthiness as a former persecutor and with his present ministry. This is his first-person testimony within the chapter's resurrection argument; it does not provide a detailed description of the experience or its circumstances.

What this does not establish: The passage reports the experience without fully describing what Paul experienced or when it happened.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that Paul reports his own appearance after the others and relates it to persecution and ministry; the experience's detailed circumstances remain unreported.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–11

Does a report of an appearance by itself settle its historical assessment?

No. A report establishes that the writer makes the claim and provides evidence to evaluate; deciding what occurred requires an additional historical assessment. Questions include proximity, transmission, dependence, context, and possible explanations. The site's Christian confession affirms Jesus' bodily resurrection, while distinguishing that conviction from a claim that every historical scholar reaches the same judgment.

What this does not establish: A stated appearance report does not eliminate the need for historical argument.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the report-versus-assessment distinction; the Christian confession is explicitly identified as the site's position.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–11

What does Galatians say about the source of Paul's gospel?

Galatians presents Paul's gospel as originating through revelation of Jesus Christ rather than instruction received from human teachers. He uses this claim in defending his message and calling. The same chapter reports later contact with earlier Christian figures, so the revelation claim should not be expanded into an assertion that he never encountered teaching or information through other people.

What this does not establish: The stated source of his gospel does not describe the provenance of every item he ever learned.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that Galatians claims revelation as the source of Paul's gospel and also reports later contacts; this does not specify the source of everything he learned.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:11–19

What later contacts with Cephas and James does Galatians report?

Galatians 1:18–19 reports a later Jerusalem visit, fifteen days with Peter, and seeing James, identified as the Lord's brother. Cephas appears by that name in Galatians 2:9; comparing those name forms is a contextual identification rather than an explicit alias statement. The reported contacts do not reveal a complete syllabus of teaching or the conversations' contents.

What this does not establish: The report supplies contacts, not their complete conversational content.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the reported contacts and the pinned WEB's separate name forms; their identification remains a contextual comparison.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:18–19
  • Galatians 2:7–9

What does Galatians 1:18–19 disclose about the content of Paul's contacts with Cephas and James?

It identifies whom Paul reports visiting and gives the duration of his stay, but it does not recount the conversations. A discussion of Jesus traditions is historically conceivable, yet a specific list of teachings cannot be extracted from that silence. The passage supports contact with Peter and James more directly than it supports any reconstructed exchange between them.

What this does not establish: A meeting does not disclose all that was said.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that Galatians reports contact and a stay's duration without recounting the conversations or identifying a teaching syllabus.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Attested in the cited text

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:18–19

Does an emphasis on revelation exclude all human transmission?

No. Galatians' emphasis on revelation concerns Paul's gospel and calling within a particular argument; it does not deny every later human contact or every transmitted tradition. 1 Corinthians also speaks of material received and passed on. The passages should be read together without erasing their different purposes or inventing an account of who supplied each teaching.

What this does not establish: Neither an exclusively human nor an exclusively revelatory route is established for every tradition.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that the texts distinguishable by purpose do not warrant a universal denial of human transmission.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8

Can social transmission and revelation be considered separately for different traditions?

Yes. Paul's claim about the origin of his gospel, his reported contacts, and his descriptions of received traditions need not answer an identical source question. Each passage should be assessed for its own subject and wording. Distinguishing ultimate authority from possible transmission allows careful comparison, while leaving unreported intermediaries and conversations unknown.

What this does not establish: A useful analytical distinction does not establish a particular historical chain.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in the need to distinguish the subjects and scope of these statements.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8

What evidence is there that Paul met Jesus before the crucifixion?

The cited passages do not report a meeting between Paul and Jesus before the crucifixion. Paul recounts an appearance to himself in the resurrection discussion and later visits to Christian figures in Galatians. These reports cannot establish an earlier personal acquaintance. Absence of such a report leaves the proposed meeting unproved rather than supplying a detailed alternative biography.

What this does not establish: No exhaustive claim about every conceivable encounter is made.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that these cited passages do not establish a pre-crucifixion meeting.
Claim type
Textual observation
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8
  • Galatians 1:11–19

Why should a pre-crucifixion meeting not be inferred from later Christian contacts?

Because later contact with Jesus' followers does not imply an earlier encounter with Jesus himself. Galatians reports visits to Peter and James after Paul's calling, while 1 Corinthians includes Paul's own appearance report in a resurrection sequence. Moving those contacts backward before the crucifixion would add an event and chronology that the cited texts do not supply.

What this does not establish: Later acquaintance cannot establish an unreported earlier encounter.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence that the proposed earlier meeting does not follow from the reported later contacts.
Claim type
Historical argument
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8

How can readers compare Paul and Jesus without inventing a chain of transmission?

Begin with Paul's explicit attributions, then compare particular passages in their respective settings. Marriage instruction, support, the communal meal, and resurrection proclamation offer different kinds of material. Record similarities and differences before proposing how teaching traveled. A plausible oral route or literary relationship is an argument to assess, not permission to supply missing teachers, conversations, or documents.

What this does not establish: Comparison does not by itself identify a complete transmission chain.

Confidence
High
Confidence applies to
High confidence in this source-sensitive comparison method.
Claim type
Interpretive reading
Evidence status
Supported by a cited source

Supporting references

  • 1 Corinthians 7:10–12
  • 1 Corinthians 9:14
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
  • 1 Corinthians 15:3–8
  • Galatians 1:11–19
  • Mark 10:2–12

Bibliography and sources

  1. Acts 7–28, World English Bible (public domain). View source
  2. Romans through Philemon, World English Bible (public domain). View source

Cite this page

Thomas Diong. “Paul and the teaching of Jesus.” Pauline Letters. Updated 2026-10-24. https://paulineletters.com/explore/articles/paul-and-jesus-teaching

BibTeX
@online{paulineletters-articles-paul-and-jesus-teaching,
  author = {Diong, Thomas},
  title = {Paul and the teaching of Jesus},
  organization = {Pauline Letters},
  date = {2026-10-24},
  url = {https://paulineletters.com/explore/articles/paul-and-jesus-teaching},
  langid = {en}
}
RIS
TY  - ELEC
TI  - Paul and the teaching of Jesus
AU  - Diong, Thomas
T2  - Pauline Letters
DA  - 2026/10/24
UR  - https://paulineletters.com/explore/articles/paul-and-jesus-teaching
LA  - en
ER  -
Canonical URL