GakuseiDon

Sure. And in which case, the part of my argument that relies on 1 Cor 15 would not work. But does my argument work if 1 Cor 15 is not interpolated?

I actually gave that evidence in an earlier post, where I am assuming that "Zion" refers to Jerusalem.

As to sleight of hand: Paul suggests that he came to believe what the churches in Judea believed. Paul arguably believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. If I am right, then it suggests that the churches in Judea believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. I'll agree it isn't a lock, though.

Toto

This is connecting dots that do not connect. Zion obviously has some symbolic meaning here. Jerusalem? Heaven? But to connect the idea that Christ crucified was a "stumbling block to the Jews" with another reference in a different letter which quotes Isaiah on the theme of stumbling blocks . . . I'm starting to wonder if this is a serious analysis or if you are just free associating to see if something will stick.

Toto

No, it doesn't.

You are missing a link here - there is no indication that the churches in Judea believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

aa5874

What you think Paul believed is really irrelevant unless you can show within reason that Jesus was actually on earth and was crucified.

It should be obvious that if you are right about anything then you are right and if you are wrong then you are wrong.

The fundamental problem with the letters of the writer called Paul is that so-called history of the writer is found in a book called Acts that is not credible and the writings of the letter writer are all uncorroborated outside of apologetic sources rendering them useless for historical purposes.

GakuseiDon

It's a serious analysis, or at least as serious as an amateur like myself with no training in the field can provide.

It looks good to me, at any rate. I'm working on the assumption that Jesus as the Messiah was a controversial idea in the first few centuries, so people were eager to provide scriptural support for that concept. Thus, Paul uses "stumbling block" in order to tie Jesus into Scriptures.

What is your interpretation of those passages, then?

GakuseiDon

Why not?

I agree, that link is missing. My conjecture is this:
1. Assuming that Paul is preaching an earthly Jesus, crucified in Jerusalem and in his recent past.
2. Assuming that Paul converted to a belief similar to the churches in Judea.
3. Then the churches in Judea have a similar belief with regards to Paul about Jesus being crucified in Jerusalem in Paul's recent past.

If churches in Judea had that belief, then the most likely reason why they believed it is because Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem in the recent past.

It is a hypothesis, based on the available information. I agree it is not a slam-dunk case for historicity.

Toto

What I said before: This assumes that the appearance to James and others happened shortly after Jesus' death. At least one hypothesis has Jesus being a figure from remote history who started appearing to people in the first century.

You keep on assuming things that you are trying to prove.

So first all, you assume that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus crucified recently in Jerusalem. Then you assume that Paul was converted to a similar belief to the "churches in Judea." So you conclude that the churches in Judea had that belief, and it was based on facts (Why?)

This does NOTHING to show that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus crucified in Jerusalem.

I think you are just stringing ideas together.

GakuseiDon

1 Cor 15 certainly sounds like the appearance to James happened shortly after Jesus's death. But I also produced other passages to try to identify the time-period that Paul thought Jesus lived.

Let's try to pin-point that, step-by-step: From the passages I gave earlier, do you think it is reasonable that Paul is suggesting that Jesus was born after Moses, and died sometime before Paul?

We'll see if we can narrow it down from there.

The assumptions are based on passages found in Paul, which I've cited. If you have a different reading which makes more sense, I'd like to read it please.

Toto

It is things like this that make it hard to take you seriously. It looks like you are using a well known sales technique that says you need to get some agreement on some point and work from there.

Otherwise, you just seem to be reading your own suppositions into the text.

GakuseiDon

My hypothesis, based on data provided earlier, is that Paul seems to write (using those letter generally attributed to him) as though Jesus was an earthly being who was crucified in Paul's recent past; and I am testing this by seeing whether other passages provide support or not.

I'd like to test my hypothesis against dog-on's or yours, to see which best explains the data.