Amaleq13

Paul does perfectly well considering the death and resurrection of Jesus to have been significant without mentioning much about his life or bothering to connect that life with the sacrifice at all so your objection appears to have less to do with what Paul actually wrote than what you think is plausible that Paul might have thought.

What Paul does write is entirely consistent with the idea that he considered the life Jesus lead to have been entirely irrelevant to the significance of his death except that it apparently prevented those who executed him from recognizing who they were killing.

Oh, please, Don't try to play semantic games at this late point in the discussion. You have been quite clearly trying to argue that Paul's gospel was about the "unique life", death, and resurrection of Jesus when you apparently knew just as well as everyone that only the latter two of that trio is actually supported by his letters.

You should have stuck with "Paul's gospel was a narrative" and avoided claiming things you can't support with anything more than your personal beliefs about what is "plausible".

Given that he explicitly states that Jesus took on the form of a servant and apparently specifically did so to avoid recognition by those who were to execute him, your incredulity would seem to be entirely unjustified.

Could you identify the specific verse(s) you have in mind?

Absolutely. According to Paul, Jesus sacrificed whatever made him "equal" to God, took on the form of a servant, and hid his true nature from those who were to kill him. That is entirely compatible with the idea of a rather innocuous life being lead by the incarnated Christ. Only more so when we take into account that Paul makes no mention whatsoever about Jesus displaying magical powers or healing anyone or anything similar.

Paul certainly describes a "unique" existence for Jesus prior to his incarnation as well as after his execution but I simply cannot find anything to support your claim about what Paul thought about what Jesus was doing between those points.

post tenebras lux

Pontius Pilatus? Um, he's this dude in the middle:



Well, actually that's Michael Palin playing him in a film, but 'WTF' back at you. I'll refer you back to my post #389: So, Chris, what parts involving Pilate do you consider central parts of the Jesus story? Do you consider these parts of the story credible, and - if so - why?

gurugeorge

But your taking those references to execution (there's no mention of "life" in the sense of biography), burial, resurrection and appearance to refer to a real human being's life IN PAUL is what's question-begging. On the face of it, in and of themselves, and in conjunction with the tenor of the rest of Paul (e.g. the mystical stuff, the stuff about the "magical" aspects of Christian worship such as prophecy, tongues, etc., the discussion of the spiritual - non-fleshly - nature of resurrection, and the reference to "according to Scripture"), why would those references have to be any more historical than "Tell Persephone, that Bacchus himself has redeemed you" or "the God is saved, and we shall have salvation" (an Orphic inscription, 4th cent. BCE, and a fragment of mystery liturgy from Meyer's book, can't remember which deity)?

You're also equivocating the original meaning of "gospel", meaning the heralding of the good news of the event of Christ's victory over death (which is so obviously Paul's direct meaning, and quite in accord with the original meaning of the term, indeed quite a clever, ironic use of the term, given the traditional military/political Jewish Messiah concept), with the later, extended sense of "gospel" as meaning the "good news" of the whole story of birth-ministry(both, taken together, being "life", and both forming the bulk of the later "gospel" narratives proper)-execution-resurrection. (As I said above, there is in fact no mention of "life" in Paul's clearly and directly-expressed "gospel".)

You're simply taking it for granted that they mean the same thing, but in view of how odd Paul is in relation to much of later Christianity, there's no particular reason why one should. (If you're a Christian and you're placing trust in the tradition, that's fair enough - I'm not saying your position is incoherent, and can't be read into the texts at all - but I'm sure you will forgive non-Christians for being more critical, and not taking so much for granted.)

spamandham

I wouldn't go as far as saying there is no logical reason to hold the HJ position, unless it's held tightly. The idea that there was a real ordinary person who became deified and spawned Christianity is really not an extraordinary claim.

Any conclusions we draw based on what is presently available is a matter of what is perceived parsimonius. I really don't see how positing a historical figure resolves any isues regardling the legendary Biblical figure. IMHO, Ockham's razor does not favor the HJ position.

Chris Weimer

His crucifixion, yes, universal attestation, even by dissidents.

post tenebras lux

Eh? You think Pilate would crucify someone who wasn't breaking roman law?

Seriously?

Next you'll be claiming that Pilate would also allow a crucified man to be taken down off the cross after a day to be buried rather than left there to rot!

Amaleq13

Why do you assume the crucified individual didn't break Roman law?

IIRC, Josephus informs us this was not an unknown practice.

God Fearing Atheist

Wars 4.5.2.

He also talks about getting a couple acquaintances down at Life 76.

post tenebras lux

So 'one side' of this debate gets accused of assuming things and not assuming this. Brilliant. Do you know anything about Chris' claim that his crucifixion has "universal attestation, even by dissidents"?Any chance of a reference to check if it's relevant?

ETA: thanks GFA, I'll look it up. If only the invisible one would deign to be so helpful.

Chris Weimer

I was about to provide the passage when I was beaten to it. Are you done goading me yet?