NICK: I'd just comment that Paul doesn't go into detail concerning the historicity of Jesus because it was already assumed by his audience. Paul was not a historian or an apologist in our modern conception of the term-

JACOB: Who were his audience? Demonstrate that they assumed that Jesus existed. This is an unsupported assumption you are making. Further, explain why Paul never attributes any saying or teaching to Jesus. And at the same, why is it that Paul never quotes Jesus as in "Jesus said..." Do you want us to believe that Paul never found anything Jesus taught on earth to be useful as a source of teaching to his audience? Explain please.

NICK: Oh, and I'd also point out that 90% of Paul's use of the title 'kyrios' (lord) is in reference to Jesus -- it would be special pleading to suggest that Paul could possibly be speaking of 'the Lord God' [the Father] when he mentions the Lord who was crucified. The context of 1Corinthians is far from ambiguous on the referent.

JACOB: I knew kurios/kyrios would come up. Let me offer an explanation I got from someone else, who has a better knowledge of Greek than myself:
The LXX Greek uses an absolute reference kurios to refer to God, but kurios can refer to other figures as well, though not in the absolute. Now, the three different uses of kurios are:

1) as a title, eg the lord Jesus Christ (another example is in the expression "our lord" );
2) use in defining statements such as "Jesus is lord"; and
3) use as a complete reference to an entity, "the lord said..."

No 3 above is always used by the LXX to refer to God.

We find very few examples of Paul's use of #3 that can be guaranteed to refer to Jesus. In two of those cases we find other things to question the originality of the surrounding material, eg we get one of the very few gospel-like pericopes, or we get a phrase like "crucified the Lord of glory" when "glory" is almost exclusively an attribute of the father.
The argument leads to using those few examples where "the Lord" refers to Jesus as indicating later editing. See Robert Price's article on 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation at http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

BOCK: Texts and people have contxts beyond the oiterary remains they leave whcih give contet to what they are saying. This is historical evidence. We know that Paul interacted with Peter and James and other believers. We know what they beleived about Jesus. We know they agreed on these points.

JACOB: We dont know that they (the Jerusalem Pillars) believed in a historical Jesus. We dont know who Kephas (Peter) - a nickname - referred to. And we dont know that James (brother of the Lord) was a disciple of Jesus, or believed in a HJ. You are importing gospel suppositions into the texts again. Assume that you are reading Pauline epistles without the gospels next to you and show us what information about a historical Jesus you can extract from them. What would those names (Cephas et al) mean to you? What Paul says they agreed on is that there was a resurrected Christ. Nothing else. As I have stated, you neednt be a historical person to die and resurrect. gods like Inanna died and rose from the dead. So did Asclepius. That is what devotees believe and historicity is not necessary for that.

BOCK: So the letters of Paul I cited belong to a context of relationships that we know about from Paul's own testimony corroborated by others.

JACOB: Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. What about Judas? Did he not die shortly after Jesus' alleged death? Who were the twelve if Cephas was not one of them? Is that what you call Corroboration?
Paul says that demons(princes of this world) killed Jesus, not Pilate and not the High Priest. Is that Corroboration?
Pauline epistles portray Paul as clashing with enthusiasts and Judaizers (in Galatians and Romans for example) while Luke portrays him in Acts as still a
Pharisee. Is this corroboration? Gunther Bornkamm, in his book, Paul shows several Acts-Paul colissions. The orthodoxy merely tried to appropriate Paul to serve their own theological agenda.

BOCK: It is one thng to say a text is able linguistically to mean something and to cite a parallel, which is essentially what you have done. It is another to place a text in its historical-cultural context and then read it. Paul was Jewish and believed in a deliverer that God would bring to the earth.

JACOB: Hellenistic culture influenced him so we cannot cage his beliefs in a Jewish mindset. Philo, his contemporary, also spoke of the heavenly man, the first Adam. As such, heavenly beings were not alien to Hellenized Jews. The platonic culture entailed envisioning the universe as organized in layers. Hence Paul speaks of the sixth heaven. In any case, as per Jewish beliefs, was the messiah supposed to die? was he supposed to be a cosmic saviour or a political/millitary leader like Joshua? Explain that.

BOCK: Where do we see him appeal directly to such sources in contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures he does appeal to about Jesus?

JACOB: Paul relies on revelations in additions to Hebrew Scriptures as a source of his knowledge. Are you disputing that the lord revealed things to Paul?

BOCK: As for Paul's statement in Philippians 2, it is decidedly not docetic becasue Paul beleives Jesus died a real death (1 Cor 15:3-5). A docetist believes Jesus only appeared to die.

JACOB: Paul supports his belief in the alleged death of Christ using the Old Testament (the scriptures), and not eyewitnesses to the alleged life or death of Jesus. Do the Old Testament scriptures talk about the death of Jesus? No. And we know Paul never witnessed the death of Jesus. Paul also said he died and resurrected with Jesus. Therefore how can you claim that this was a real death?
Please explain.

BOCK: In addition, Jesus' ability to represent humanity in his theology requires Jesus' humanity (Rom 3:20-5:24).

JACOB: Read about structural Homology in Gerd Theissen and Anette Mertz's book. One could act as an analogue or a heavenly counterpart without being on earth.

BOCK: Ephesians 2:15 can be added to this list - nullifying the commandments of the law in his flesh (but some do not connect this letter to Paul as I do).

JACOB: Ephesians is Deutero Pauline. Even mainstream NT scholars dont regard it as authentic. See Gunther Bornkamm's Paul for example.

BOCK: As for Paul's vision, we are looking at his claim he had a direct revelation from Jesus, which led to his conversion. Now he had to know enough about Jesus and the message tied to him to convert

JACOB: It doesnt matter. Even you know about Jesus but that does not make you a source for historical information about Jesus. Whatever Paul knew about Jesus was from scriptures and revelation according to him. At best, he learnt about Jesus from Christians. That does not prove that a historical Jesus existed.