TedM

Why don't you all stop focusing on your pet theories about my motivations and just deal with whether the speculations are reasonable or not?

Toto, I believe I already answerd you how it could work, and you didn't reply. Here's what I said:

Toto

Your speculations are not at all reasonable.

This makes no sense at all. You claim that Jesus was a nobody, but suddenly after his death became the savior of the world? You haven't connected these two claims. The only possible connection that I can see is -- a miracle occurred!

TedM

Really? Incredible. I didn't claim he was a nobody. He likely had some kind of reputation prior to his death. It may have been one that really didn't impress Paul if Paul had known of it, and even later on if he hadn't. I've given you reasons above why despite not being impressed by the human Jesus Paul may STILL have believed in his resurrection.

It might help you to put yourself in Paul's shoes; A very creative man, very learned in scripture, very passionate/emotional, very attracted to unique concepts (persecution is the flip side of attraction sometimes), prone to mystical experiences possibly, and surely looking for the kingdom of God and all that entails with Messianic expectations.

No miracle was necessary at all.

Toto

Is this what you refer to? These are not reasons. These are ad hoc speculations that there is some way of making sense of all this.

spin

A friend who is a writer has a badge which says "Fiction is more reasonable than reality". The important issue dealing with whether your "speculations are reasonable or not" is that they are just speculations. Where are your arguments based on tangible evidence??

archibald

I'll take Yeshua. :]


As for the rest, I think your (apparent) deduction that any change was more than just a revision of title (if it was a change of title, and we don't know, because we don't know how soon after his 'death' or even if during his life, Jesus was seen as a messiah.) is very speculative. So I am really only querying your apparent degree of confidence.

TedM

And this is you being picky. You asked for me to speculate on how it would work because you are unable to do so yourself in a way that makes any sense. I have done so and all you have in response is this? Why are you wasting both our time if you aren't willing to follow through and interact with the 'reasons' given? What did you expect me to say--did you want some evidence to support the reasons why I thought Paul might believe without being impressed with a human Jesus? Should I get out a psychology book and start quoting? What is it you want Toto?

archibald

Yes. I am prepared to accept this as a possibility, if it is true. And, I think, 'stake' seems a good enough term to be at least entertaining the idea. :]

Especially if the writer says that no other Jewish King had been done away with in such a way. Which I would take to be significant. I presume the Romans executed lots of naughty Jews. If this was an exceptional method, all the more reason to consider whether it could have been memorable, or 'resonated' as they say in literature, which might have increased the chances of it being used as a 'model trauma'. Possibly. :]

Regarding Josephus, I'm not sure I know enough to be able to speculate whether he was trying to avoid giving away a vital precedent. I've never seen Josephus as Christian-friendly enough to think that would matter to him.

If, which I think is one idea often circulated, and with evidence cited from the OT in support, 'crucifixion' had particularly unappealing connotations for Jews, then he may have preferred to avoid mention (or perhaps his sources preferred to avoid mention) of the stake bit and emphasise only the beheading bit?

GakuseiDon

It doesn't make a lot of sense to whom? I think you mean it doesn't make a lot of sense to us modern folk. But isn't the point here that we can't bring our modern perceptions into this? And Paul does give us an insight into his thinking, as per passages below.

I think that it is reasonable to assume at least two strands of earliest Christianity: one centred around a "Galilean tradition", perhaps based on a Q community a la Doherty. Here Jesus was revered as a prophet, but there was no significance to his death. The Ebionites come out of this tradition.

Then there was a "Jerusalem tradition", where visions led to beliefs in resurrection, and great emphasis was laid on the crucifixion and death.

gMark was the merging of those two traditions.

I think Paul repudiates the Galilean tradition here:

"They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5)."

"From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer" (2 Cor. 5:16).

For Paul, Jesus was a man, the descendent of David, but became Son of God in power by the resurrection:

"[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4)

Finally IMHO tells us he doesn't want to know anything about the "Galilean tradition" Christ, the Christ "according to the flesh". He only wants to know about the crucified Christ and what it means:

"For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2)

I also think it explains references to those preaching "another Christ". Add to this the idea that Christ was "perfected" by his sufferings and crucifixion, and you can see that there is then a natural tension between those who preached a proposed Galilean tradition "pre-perfected Christ" (before he underwent suffering) and the Jerusalem tradition "perfected Christ" who through obedience to God -- "even unto death" -- was crucified and then appointed Son of God.

archibald

I have to politely disagree. I don't think it's a glaringly obvious reason, though I do think it's a possible one.

Now, if 'Paul' didn't so often say things that 'seemed' like he was referring to an earthly figure, and/or if he actually said his figure was non-earthly (prior to or during 'death' I mean) then I would be more inclined to change to thinking it was glaringly obvious. :]

Anyhows, can/does either 'side' avoid resorting to attempts at inferring what Paul might or might not have said? I'm not sure.

ETA: George, I'm having trouble getting someone to answer my question. What were the reasons Jesus was crucified, in Paul? It's a genuine question.