dog-on

A good way to off a god, maybe?

Perhaps crucifixion was all the rage in the first and second century Roman empire, or perhaps, partly due to said rage, hung from a tree became a crucifixion.

IIRC, the hung from a tree part is from Deut, right?

Toto

I am distinguishing between two cases: 1 there actually was a historical Jesus as understood by modern Jesus scholars; and 2 there were second century writers who thought that there was a "historical" Jesus as they understood that - a manifestation of god who appeared in the flesh. You keep trying to confuse these two ideas.

Yes, early Christianity was weird. They actually believed in angels and ghosts and demons, and people who rose from the dead. They thought that theological questions that make no sense to use were important - was the Son of the same substance as the Father? This is why calling them historicist makes no sense.

figuer

If the creator's wife displayed a behaviour similar to Wonder Woman's (fighting crime, considering herself gifted with special powers), and her husband believed in these powers, it would be an example of a myth with a historical basis.

ph2ter

The details about his earthly life, not cosmologies. The letters of Paul and all other first century letters do not contain almost anything about his earthly life. If something is mentioned, it is always ambiguous. Rather, they firstly started to proliferate cosmologies about Jesus and then they were acquinted with the historical details.


Of course if that was only a story of religious significance, not reality. According to you there was historical Jesus but nobody knew anything about him before crucifiction, which looks weird to me.

I simply cannot imagine any human not interested in the details about earthly life of person recently resurrected, if resurrection was the reason for mythologization. Paul failed to mention any historical detail about Jesus which would locate him unambiguosly in space and time.

Somebody already noted that Paul according to you then belongs to the second wave of Christians?

But he met people who knew earthly Jesus. Why did he not care about his earthly life? How is possible to invent mythology about some person not knowing anything about its life.

figuer

Paul (or whoever wrote those letters), not mentioning details about Jesus (or whoever gave rise to the Christ legend), does not signify anything else apart from the fact that those letters do not contain references to the life of that character. They do not signify the writer wasn't interested in the life or claimed resurrection of the character, nor do they communicate his ignorance, they only communicate the limits of the content of those letters.

ph2ter

But we should explain why Paul did not mention expected references.
It is unbelievable that Paul would not mention in any of his letters something about earthly life of Jesus if he knew it, at least some accidental detail. It must be his conscious intention or he really did not know anything about Jesus.
If it was intentional, why he did drop all references. God himself walked on Earth and for Paul nothing of Jesus deeds and teachings is not interesting? Why Paul invents teachings about Jesus and never references Jesus own teachings or deeds while he was here on Earth.
It is totally weird to me.

dog-on

Not really weird if Paul only "knows" Jesus through the scriptures.

figuer

Why should they be expected?

Or he didn't see any need within the context?

According to Christian mythology/historiography, Paul never met Jesus. Thus even if he had been told details (if there were details to be retold), it is quite understandable he would still concentrate on his main interests, which were theological and pastoral.

ph2ter

Everyone who thinks that Jesus is historical and is contemporary to Paul should somehow explain the lack of references, because it is not imaginable that Paul would not be interested in details about him if witnesses were in the reach.
It is not conceivable that teachings and deeds of Jesus would not be of interest to Paul.

There are plenty of occasions in Paul's letters where those references would be very helpful to Paul.

I'll again repeat that it is not conceivable that Paul would not be interested in Jesus deeds and teachings. If there were no details to be retold, how someone can hold position that such individual caused start of the cult or religion.
Also if his main interests were pastoral and theological, that does not excuse him for never mentioning anything concrete about Jesus. The things just don't go that way in normal circumstances. Before going to elaborate theology about some recently died person, normal individual would firstly try to find as many as possible details about that person.
If something that big is not mentioned and referenced, then it is most probable that the writer had no knowledge about that thing and that the details were not reachable.

aa5874

And, what is even more bizarre, the writer Paul avoids getting any information about the historical Jesus. He isolates himself from those who were apostles before him and goes to Arabia.

Galations 1:17 - It is inconceiveable that a new convert would avoid being in contact with those who were suppose to personally know the history of Jesus.

Now, if Jesus did exist, he could only have been human.

The writer Paul only saw Jesus in a non-human state.

The writer Paul based his gospel on the non-human state of Jesus.

"Paul" is not normal. He did not want to know about the history of the human Jesus from humans, but from Jesus in a non-human state.