I think it was agreed that the work attributed to Paul occurred in isolation to the author(s) of the other works, I'm not sure there's anything reliable to suggest that it's actually Paul.
I wasn't referring to the documentation, some of which is regarded as Pauline and some not. I was referring to the work he did around the Eastern Med. between about the mid-30s and the mid-40s, before he spent any real time with the original apostles.
This works from an initial assumption that the event happened, which is far from demonstrable. As you say, the Romans of the day performed enough crucifictions, and other means of public execution, as to be reasonable confident that they could determine if someone was dead. The point of public executions is such that a large portion of the general populace would have seen more than a few executions. It's therefore easily conceivable that someone could have invented a crucifiction and merely alleged it was Jesus.
That is an interesting suggestion. Don't think anyone has suggested it before.
As such, it doesn't address the question we were discussing.
Investigations are replete with people convinced they have seen events they could not possibly have attended, and the more emotionally invested they are in the event the more likely to genuinely believe it they are.
Which, in itself, assumes that there were more members of Jesus' party of followers present at the event than those who the Gospels report were.
Not only that, but say that 'Jesus' genuinely was put on a cross, and that event was genuinely attended by a collection of people who might be emotionally invested.
See above
Given the sentiments of the time, the Romans may have - I have no reason to think this, it's purely hypothetical - not wished to risk a riot and taken him down early. The watchers, well aware of why people are normally cut down, presume he's dead and create the sure and certain knowledge of the death scene that never happened.
The implications of this are that the Romans wanted to execute Jesus. Records suggest that they saw no guilt in him, so wouldn't have been worried about the possibility of a riot.
Other groups had been making claims and gaining no traction - that's a motivation for this group to try something different, surely?
If the message of this messiah had been the same as previous ones, maybe.
No. I don't understand does not mean "therefore magic."
I'd agree wholeheartedly. The very fact that you have to resort to the idea of magic points to the pointlessness of its use.
I don't know means just that, I don't know. You appear to be trying to set up a 'methodology' that is essentially a false dichotomy: the God of the Gaps.
No, not a God of the Gaps, but a God of the supra-scientific which means a completely different thing.
Science explains lots of things, but what science doesn't explain is therefore the work of a god.
If you want to believe that, it doesn't bother me. I don't. What I have explained is that there are aspects of life which are, by their very nature, non-scientific. Poetry, for instance.
Even if we never understand something through science, though, that doesn't mean 'therefore gods'. That's not a methodology, that's just an assertion.
I agree, which is why I don't subscribe to that idea.
