BOCK: You are correct to say that Paul never says Jesus of Nazareth. But what does he say? He uses the term Jesus 206 times. He speaks about his crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 1-2, which clearly is a reference to an earthly Jesus.

JACOB: It is incorrect to use the reference to the crucifixion as evidence of historicity. A godess like Inanna was also believed to have been nailed on a tree yet she was not a historical person.
Using the term Jesus 206 times is evidence that the term Jesus has been used 206 times: it is not evidence of historicity. Does the use of the name Robin Hood 206 times prove that Robin Hood was a historical person? I think not. You need historical evidence to prove historicity, not word counts.

BOCK: He notes that he took on humanity in Philippians 2-11, which also is an indication of his life on earth.

JACOB: Phillipians never says he became a human being: it says he assumed human form - humans dont take human forms, now do they, Dr. Bock? Taking human form is a docetic statement that asserts that the entity in question is actually not human. This argues against historicity.

BOCK: He discusses whether he taught on a given topic (the abandonment of a spouse) in 1 Corinthians 7.

JACOB: He does not attribute the teaching to Jesus, but to the lord. Paul uses "the Lord" to mean God.

BOCK: In Galatians 4:4-5 he discusses when he was born.

JACOB: Born where and by who? Dionysus, who was also a saviour figure like Jesus was born by Semele. Does that mean he was a historical person?

BOCK: Your remarks fall into a common category where a topic is viewed as mentioned or not because particular terms are or are not present. There is no doubt Paul is discussing Jesus of Nazareth.

JACOB: You are importing gospel suppositions into Paul's letters, whih were written before the gospels. Assume that we dont have the gospels - assume we are reading Paul's letters in the mid sixties. Paul nowhere mentions that there was a "Jesus of Nazareth" anywhere in his letters. So please lets not introduce extraneous material into his epistles.

BOCK: I have not even mentioned the reports of Paul's vision that Acts presents as from him (which I am sure you would say Luke made up) even though it is a nice corroboration of what Paul says about his experience in Galatians 1.

JACOB: What point would you like to make regarding Paul's vision that would help your case?

BOCK: This Acts event the Acts Seminar (an extension of the Jesus Seminar and hardly a conservative group) rated as a quite likely historical event. When your remark forces a choice between a cosmic figure and a man it ignores the very combination he depicts in Philippians 2 or Galatians 4:4-5.

JACOB: I have addressed both of these passages above. If you have something to say, I would like to read it.

BOCK: Part of what allows a gospel message to come from Paul is that Jesus represents humanity in part because he is a real human person.

JACOB: This is what is at issue. You dont help your case by asserting it without adducing supporting evidence.

BOCK: By the way, none of this nullifies the key point was being made, which was the dating of these ideas from Paul. We are still in the mid-thirties for these thoughts, given Paul's experience of seeing the risen Jesus, an experience that so impacted him that he speaks of Jesus as he now is-- raised and exalted. Thus Paul has many references to Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

JACOB: He may have a billion references. That is not at issue. What is of interest is whether any of those alleged references can be suffficient proof that a historical Jesus existed, or that Paul believed in a flesh-and-blood man as opposed to a cosmic figure. I invite you to present those that can hold up as evidence that a historical Jesus existed.