Steven Carr

Is that why he stresses so much that Christ was resurrected?

Amaleq13

I think he stresses it as an existing belief that "should" have resulted in the Corinthians believing in resurrection in general. I thought the same thing you did when I first read this. It seems like Paul is addressing people who accepted his gospel but denied resurrection but how can you believe in a Risen Christ (fundamentally central to Paul's theology) without believing in resurrection?

Like I said before, this seems easier to understand within the context of a mythical Jesus since there would be no reason to assume the resurrection of a spiritual Messiah required humans to be resurrected as well. Even within that context, however, I'm not sure that explains what was going on.

Within the context of an historical Jesus, I don't see how any other explanation works except that they denied the concept of the general resurrection despite believing that Christ had risen.

Figuring out what the hell Paul is talking about in his letters is at least half the fun.

I've asked a similar question with regard to his assertion that Christ was "born of a woman" and "born under the Law". Why would he ever have to assert that Christ was human and Jewish?

All of these questions seem to push toward the conclusion of a mythical Jesus because they don't seem to make any sense within the context of a known Jewish preacher who had recently been executed.