Amaleq13

I am not aware of any evidence for such a pre-Christian interpretation. Are you?

I'm also not sure how to differentiate between "Jewish messianists" and the first Christians.

I would say that whomever first proposed this interpretation of the text already believed in a crucified messiah and did not derive it from the text.

aa5874

If Paul appears to know about or believe the crucifixion happened, then he must also appear to know about or believe the resurrection happened, since there are passages in the Epistles about the resurrection.

Romans 1.4, 'And declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead'.

1 Corinth.15.12, " Now if Christ be preached he that rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

So, we see that the authors of the Epistles have the propensity to make references to events that are most likely false, the resurrection. Bearing this in mind, the veracity of the crucifixion story is now questionable.
Did ePaul get his resurrection and crucifixion stories from the same source?

Both the resurrection and the crucifixion cannot be true, ePaul appears to believe both are true. ePaul appears not to be able to tell the difference between belief and actuality.

The Epistles cannot establish the crucifixion of Jesus.

Cege

My assertion is only that Paul wrote that he believed Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and then appeared to Paul in a vision/s of some sort. Those vision/s are what convinced Paul that Jesus died, rose from the dead, etc. Paul had not previously been convinced by similar stories and information that he heard from others about a certain Jesus being the resurrected messiah of the Jews.

Paul does not claim to have been present to witness Jesus crucified, etc He does claim to have received all his information about Jesus directly from "Jesus" years after Jesus was resurrected.

I agree that the epistles cannot historically establish the crucifixion of the Jesus described in the gospels. The gospels can't either. Both categories of writings, whoever the authors were, merely make assertions anc claims.

aa5874

Well, your agreement is reasonable. It cannot be established that Jesus was crucified.

aa5874

I checked all your replies and I have noticed there is nothing pertaiing to the OP. What is your position on the alledged crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate?

Antipope Innocent II

Yes, that's the nature of a digression. That's why I agreed that any further discussion of the topic of the "flat earth" myth should be on a new thread. If you'd like to continue the discussion you could start such a thread or perhaps ask a mod to split the posts on the digression from this one.

I'd say it's one of the things we can say is historical about Yeshua with a good degree of confidence. As Amaleq13 argues earlier in this thread, it's too much of an awkward and embarrassing thing for it to be likely to be an invention. The "scriptures" which were used to "show" that it was a fullfillment of prophecy about the Messiah are strained and contrived (ask any Jew), and are an indication that Yeshua's followers had some difficulty reconciling this unexpected and awkward turn of events with who and what they thought Yeshua was.

aa5874

To base your position on awkwardness and embarrassment is a bit weak. I was expecting a little more. And his method of conception appears to be far more awkward and embarassing. Don't you think?

Amaleq13

So weak that you are unable to offer any credible alternative? That rings quite hollow, amigo.

It is not derived from Hebrew Scripture and is contrary to a desire to obtain converts. Got anything else?

What would be awkward or embarrassing to a 1st century Christian about a magical conception by the Holy Spirit?

driver8

While a crucifixion might be "contrary to a desire to obtain converts" if witnessed at the time it occurred, it would not be if viewed as a somewhat recent historical event, or indeed from a distance of 2,000 years. I think the argument re embarrassment is in no way persuasive of an historical crucifixion. It is the dramatic core that leads to the resurrection. The cross is the symbol of the religion and you want to make it seem ineffective? Interesting argument.

I'm sure nothing, as they seemingly have no problem accepting John the Baptist's magical conception, which seems no different than Jesus' and no more likely.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=49&version=31

Luke 1

Amaleq13

No, Paul makes it very clear that "the cross" was a "stumbling block" to folks (specifically Jews) who had only heard about the crucifixion of Jesus from others. I think you need to do some reading on how that form of execution and its victims were viewed in ancient times. The bare claim, alone, carried a great deal of assumed baggage that was entirely negative. I recommend Martin Hengel's Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Paul makes it very clear that it didn't help his cause when he tells us it was a "stumbling block" to conversion.

Your objection seems to me to be based entirely on inadequate information on the subject including what Paul has to say about it.