vid

How do mythicists explain aforementioned passage? One thing I found is Ribert M. Price's discussion: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Any more ideas / views?

show_no_mercy

Why is this pericope only a problem for mythicists?

vid

Paul here confirms that Christ died, and was raised on 3rd day. Acoording to (some) mythicists, Paul believed in "cosmic" Christ without bodily form.

dog-on

Indeed. I actually see this passage, if it is not an insertion, as a problem for the historicist.

show_no_mercy

I can't see how this is a problem for mythicists without inserting assumptions that are supplied by later gospel narratives.

vid

What would "dying and rising on 3rd day" mean for mythical Christ?

dog-on

What would being chopped into pieces and, subsequently being reconstituted and resurrected, (senza Mr. Winkie) mean for the historical Osiris?

Juststeve

If authentic the passage would mean that Paul believed in the kind of Christ who could die, be buried, be raised from the dead and subsequently appear. That would raise the question of whether Paul believed in an entirely spiritual Christ and if not how he came upon his belief in a Christ who was to some extent physical. Perhaps from Pater and James which would give the mythicists fits.

Steve

Toto

Doherty thinks that Paul thought that these events did not happen on earth. They happened in a higher realm of some sort. The argument is somewhat complicated and based on circumstantial evidence; you can read Richard Carrier's review here.

In any case, there is no indication here that Paul thought that the death and burial were in the recent past or at any point in earthly history. The appearances were in relatively recent history, but these could have been appearances of someone who lived at an earlier time in history.

The historicist must explain why Paul appeared to believe in the kind of Christ who could be raised from the dead and make appearances. Is such a supernatural being necessarily based on a historical entity?

But Paul says that he got his gospel from divine revelation, not from any man. The idea that he learned anything about a historical Jesus from Peter, James, or any other mortal, has no basis in the texts. It is just an imaginative attempt to force Paul to fit the gospel narrative.

Fits of laughter at the lengths the historicists must go to in order to interpret Paul to support a historical Jesus? :Cheeky:

bacht

Is it more plausible that a man walked out his own tomb after being brain dead for over 24 hours?
If Paul worked himself into trances and saw visions this actually conforms better with what we know about physiology.
If he got the good news from Peter and James, who swore they saw and touched a ghost, why believe any of them? Which delusion is the least unpalatable?