Amaleq13

How do you establish that they never used OT language and themes to refer to mythical events?

Have I done the research Carrier suggests is required to support his claim? No. I agree with Carrier that this support is needed.

Layman

That Paul's gospel was the same as the one preached by existing Christians is certain. That he learned traditions from them is also very certain. That he also thought his authority as an apostle and mission to the Gospels came from Christ is assured.

Please see "The Pauline Evidence" section of this article:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price4.htm#paul

Layman

What is established is that the Jews used the OT to refer to actual historical events. So too did many Christians. I have yet to see any example of a Jew using the OT to refer to the fulfillment of prophecy in a lower celestial realm:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

You and Doherty are backing some novel new way of Jews using the OT. Do you have any examples of such usage?

I wasn't asking about pagan examples. I do not think Carrier comenting on how problematic is Doherty's approach to "according to the flesh."

Why are there no examples of Paul using this phrase as Doherty insists he must have, and many examples of Paul using this to refer to normal human lineage?

Layman

Where does Paul say this creed came directly from the Lord?

And weren't you just telling me that Paul picked up this gospel by merely studying scripture?

And are you going to defend your rather forced but unexplained understanding of "according to the scripture"?

NOGO

So we can conclude from this that if Paul is aware of human Jesus that his life, what he said and did are of secondary importance.

Yet the Jesus himself in the Gospels speak otherwise. For example Mt13:3 start the parable of the sower.

Here is Jesus explanation of the parable

Mt13
19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
20 "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.
22 "And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.
23 "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."


So the seed is the word of the Kingdom of God.
Is Paul spreading the word of the Kingdom of God as Jesus did?
No, Paul's world starts with the resurrection. Jesus' life is non-existing.

Paul should have said "this is the word of the Kingdom of God as revealed to us by Jesus himself".

I put the "us" in bold for one specific reason. Jesus did not reveal this to Paul only. Yet Paul clearly speaks of a personal revelation.


"and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

This is a strange statment if Jesus lived with these people for several years before his death. The way it appears in the text, this statement simply says that this is the first contact Cephas and the twelve had with Jesus. One would expect that a mention of earlier contacts would be mentioned if for only reason to confirm the resurrection from the dead.

This is particularly strange when later Paul answers some believers who claim that there is no resurrection. Instead of saying that Jesus resurrected and the proof was that Cphas and the twelve had seen Jesus before and after his death, Paul simply explains that if there is no resurrection then Jesus did not resurrect and therefore their faith is vain. But isn't this exactly what you would expect if Jesus had never existed as a man?

Finally Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him but his description of the event does not say that he saw a man as the Gospels speak of Jesus after the resurrection. Paul says that he saw a light and heard a voice. That's all! The Gospels have Jesus eating fish to show that he was not a ghost.

Paul's Jesus is a ghost or spirit like the Holy Ghost. So why does a spirit stay burried three days before resurrecting? Because the Father does not work on the sabbath? In what sense can a ghost be burried?

The Gospels have a human Jesus resurrecting walking along side his disciples, talking to them just like before his death, and later with his wounds still showing and eating fish. Paul has a spirit resurrecting, no body, no walk, no wounds and not eating fish.

I have a problem with believers who want to take literal meaning of words just when it suits them.

NOGO

Galatians 1:11-12
For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not after man, for neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

So much for apostolic tradition.

Whether Jesus died and resurrected on earth or on mars makes no difference to Paul. Anything that Jesus may have done or said during his life was also of no concern since none of it reached Paul's ears.

And after looking at all this Layman wants us to believe that there is no problem here. Everything is as it should be.

Layman

Paul does not mention the 1 Cor. 15 creed here.

Try again.

Gregg

I didn't "attack" you. I just made a statement. You apparently have a persecution complex.

So whaddya know! ANOTHER similarity between Christianity and the "pagan" savior god cults. Thanks to your weird obsession with Doherty, I know something I didn't know before! I am now even MORE convinced of the mythicist case!

Dominus Paradoxum

Both of those examples seem to presuppose a literal burial of Jesus. We are "buried" with Christ, presumably, so that we can share in his resurrection. Without an actual (presumed) burial and resurrection, this makes no sense.


Let me get this straight. "he rose on the third day" (i.e. resurrected) refers to his death? Okaay . It would seem to me that resurrection is sort of the opposite of death. But maybe that's just me. Now, I know you take the reference to his death literally, and the reference to the resurrection literally as well. Why would the "and that he was buried" be symbolic? The other times he mentions burial he is comparing the the believer's "death to sin" to Christ's own burial. What analogy is he supposed to be making with Christ's own?

Amaleq13

No, they presuppose a literal death. The use of "buried" appears to be a reference the concept that the sacrificed Christ descended to Sheol.

Yes, the reference to three days is directly related to his death.

"Most interesting of all is an ancient Jewish document called the Tractate of Mourning (Semahot), which describes the very reasons for the tradition of going to the tomb on the third day (counting inclusively--thus, the second day after burial, by our reckoning): "One should go to the cemetery to check the dead within three days, and not fear that such smacks of pagan practices. There was actually one buried man who was visited after three days and lived for twenty-five more years and had sons, and died afterward" (8.1, translation by Shmuel Safrai, "Home and Family," The Jewish People in the First Century (1976), vol. 2, pp. 784-5). In other words, misdiagnosis was actually common enough that an entire tradition was developed to make sure people were not buried by mistake--the very tradition which probably motivated Mary's visit to the tomb of Jesus in the first place! The Romans also delayed funerals for the very same reason (reported by Ps.-Quintilian, as discussed by D.R. Shackleton Bailey in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 88 (1984), pp. 113-37). Moreover, Celsus, a medical encyclopedist of the 1st century, estimated that even the best doctors erred in misdiagnosing death roughly 1 in 1000 times (De Medicina 1.109-17), a sentiment corroborated by Pliny (NH 2.619-31)."

from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ection/2e.html

1) Christ's death was atoning

2) Christ's death involved descending to Sheol

3) Christ's descent into Sheol lasted three days = really, truly dead

Because Paul is apparently referring to the Psalm talking about a descent to Sheol rather than the actual act of placing a body in a hole.

Apparently, the baptism of Christians was a symbolic descent into Sheol.