Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I should have credited Maryhelena for the post that cited 1 Cor. 15. I see now that it was only addressed to DC Hindley and not written by him.

Not to make this an Eisenman thread, but only to sum up and share my perspective on this issue, I think Paul (or whoever wrote the "authentic Pauline epistles") existed in the first century CE because I think Eisenman makes a good case that this person could be the Spouter of Lies in the D...

Tenorikuma wrote: "Here, we have the firstborn appearing on earth multiple times in history." This sounds like the Adam Kadmon idea (not that I've looked into it deeply; I actually don't care for this type of mystical thinking): http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/761-adam-kadmon An...

This issue seems cut and dried to me. Not only does 1 Cor. 15:35-36 say you have to be dead to be raised, Php. 3:11-14 says: "I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the r...

MrMacSon,

I would add to Peter's response 1 Cor. 15:35-36:

"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies."

Ben, You wrote: "The notion that the name Jesus itself is pregnant with exegetical and apocalyptic meaning, and not just the actual name of a Jewish craftsman-cum-messiah, always reminds me of the Christ hymn in Philippians, in which what seems to me to be the most natural reading makes Jesus t...

Viklund has a good article on the pseudo-Hegesippus TF. https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/the-jesus-passages-in-josephus-%E2%80%93-a-case-study-part-2k-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Dtestimonium-flavianum%E2%80%9D-the-church-fathers%E2%80%99-knowledge-the-latin-translations-pseudo-hegesippus/ It tur...

Andrew, Thanks for reminding me of pseudo-Hegesippus. I'm going to need to look at this more closely, but my initial thoughts upon examining it in the light of the TF issue is that even if it differs somewhat from Eusebius' TF, and even if it is questionable whether or not there was a Latin translat...

Thanks Ben, this is all good stuff. So it looks like the Agapius and Michael versions lead back to Eusebius, just like everyone else's TF. That's settles it for me then (as much as I suppose the TF can be settled), because no one clearly cites it before Eusebius, and everyone else is citing it from ...

Ben,

Thought I'd share a link to an article I found by Viklund that explains the Agapius vs. Michael issue well. I didn't know anything about Michael so I appreciate your bringing him to my attention.

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/cate ... ius/#_edn1