GakuseiDon

I think the "embarrassment" scenario is convincing.

Quoting myself from the Challenging Doherty thread: The "embarrassment" scenario is that Christian apologists in 2nd C CE, when building a case for Christianity to pagan Gentiles, would concentrate on broader philosophical ideas than on the life of Jesus, a convicted and crucified criminal.

Given that we have letters from Christians who obviously know about a HJ but don't write about him in some apologetics letters (like Tertullian and Tatian) but do on other occasions, the case for the "embarrassment" scenario is strong.

AFAIK, Doherty hasn't addressed why Tertullian wrote about a HJ in some letters, but in some apologies, doesn't even use the names "Jesus" or "Christ".

NOGO

There are also many inconsistencies between the Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels which show that Paul did not see his saviour as a man who recently had lived on earth. Layman however wont touch these with a ten foot pole.

For example Paul talks about Jesus coming but never his return. Layman calls this Doherty fluff. Convincing argument isn't it?

Paul does not claim that his knowlege comes from an apotolic tradition. He does say that it was revealed through scriptures.

The Gospels have the point of view that Jesus' life was prophesied in the OT. To Paul it was revealed to him personally through scriptures.

Paul's religion starts with the resurrection. The Gospels and particularly GJohn put an emphasis on Jesus' teachings.

GJohn states that it is Jesus teachings (his words) which will save you. Paul says that it is belief in Christ Jesus and belief in the resurrection.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is often quoted as the proof that Jesus is God.
I challenge anyone to demonstrate that "the Word" and the human Jesus is the same entity.

Statements like John 14:10 show that Jesus the man and the entity which often speaks and acts is another.

John 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works.

Dominus Paradoxum

Well that really depends upon how early Christians interpreted the parousia (spelling?). If it can be shown that Doherty's views on ek dueteroku (spelling?) are impossible, then there's a good chance that Paul did believe in a second coming. But perhaps not even that much is necessary. All that really needs to be established is that Paul believes Jesus had been on earth before (which Layman has argued) and any reference to his coming at the end time automatically becomes a reference to the second coming.

And after all, Paul does say that Jesus was buried, which I think is the single most problematic reference for Doherty's theory. Is there dirt in the lowest celestial sphere? Or a tomb? Who would have buried him? The demons? I'm sure he didn't get up and bury himself! I think Doherty's only real chance here is to claim that the "and that he was buried" is an interpolation. But that would be pretty ad hoc, since the only reason to believe it is is to preserve his theory.

Amaleq13

Why should we assume Paul is referring to a literal burial?

He seems to identify the source of this information when Paul says this is "according to Scripture". Where did he find this in Scripture?

He also uses the term "buried" two other times and in both examples he uses the term symbolically:

"we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death"(Rom 6:3, YLT)

"being buried with him in the baptism" (Col 2:12)

The baptism of Christians could be referred to as being "buried" with Christ because it symbolizes his death. That seems to suggest that claiming Christ was "buried" asserts the death of Christ rather than the literal dispensation of a dead body.

Dominus Paradoxum

Here is the passage in question:
He already mentioned that he died. Why repeat it?

Layman

How does "according to the scripture" mean that the SOURCE of the information was from scripture? It's actually a way of saying something has happened that was predicted by scripture.

Amaleq13

Paul makes three assertions and declares all of them are "according to Scripture".

1) Christ died for our sins

2) was buried

3) he rose on the third day

All three refer to the death. The first speaks to the atoning nature of the death while the other two appear to establish that he was really, really dead. If we knew where in Scripture Paul found this stuff, we would have a much better idea what he meant.

Paul is repeating a catechism apparently based on studying Scripture.

edited to add:
According to the footnotes at the Bible Gateway, Paul is referring to Psalm 16:10 which describes not being abandoned to Sheol or "the place of the dead". That suggests Paul is referring to Sheol when he makes the reference to being "buried".

Layman

If Paul is basing all of this on nothing more than his study of scripture, why does he use technical rabbnic language to indicate an oral tradition passed on from teacher to disciple?

And can you defend Doherty's interpretation of "according to the flesh"?

Layman

Since Jews used OT language and themes to refer to actual events instead of mythical events, why should I not think that Paul the Pharisee is not using OT language and references to refer to what he believed were real events?

This is what Josephus did with Vespasian and 1 Maccabees with the battles of Judas.

And can you defend Doherty's interpretation of "according to the flesh"?

Amaleq13

"And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood" (1Cor15:1)

Paul obtained his gospel directly from the Risen Christ and then passed it on to the Corinthians. I don't think Paul would take responsibility for Scriptural observations but would attribute those to the influence of the Risen Christ as well.

One thing he clearly denies is that his gospel came from any man. He also explicitly denies that the "pillars" added anything to his gospel.

"And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man" (Gal 1:11, YLT)

"And from those who were esteemed to be something -- whatever they were then, it maketh no difference to me -- the face of man God accepteth not, for -- to me those esteemed did add nothing" (Gal2:6, YLT)