Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And note that the game of Irenaeus (to insist that Archons in Rom 13 is referred to the only Romans ''because the Romans are good rulers'') can be used against historicity in virtue of the same reason: the archontes of 1 Cor 2:6-8 cannot be Romans because the Romans are good rulers.
This is de facto the argument of Earl Doherty to prove that the Archontes of 1 Cor are not Romans.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:33 am Do you mind elaborating on these counterfacutuals?

You know them all. Born a Jew, born of a woman, from Zion, in the flesh, preached, ate bread, killed, hung on a tree, by Jews, rose again etc etc...

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:33 amIsn't Paul's Jesus just a 'resurrected, pre-ascension Jesus'? or a promise of a second (third(?)) coming? or both?

Yes, Jesus appears to have died before Paul wrote.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:42 am And note that the game of Irenaeus (to insist that Archons in Rom 13 is referred to the only Romans ''because the Romans are good rulers'') can be used against historicity in virtue of the same reason: the archontes of 1 Cor 2:6-8 cannot be Romans because the Romans are good rulers.
This is de facto the argument of Earl Doherty to prove that the Archontes of 1 Cor are not Romans.

Not following. Pauline/Hellenistic Christianity is apparently accommodating of Roman rule.

Born a Jew, born of a woman, in the flesh, ate bread, killed, by Jews, died etc etc...

Adonis was a Frygian and was killed by a boar and X [=add ''earthly'' isolated details you like)

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:50 am

Born a Jew, born of a woman, in the flesh, ate bread, killed, by Jews, died etc etc...

Adonis was a Frygian and was killed by a boar and X [=add ''earthly'' isolated details you like)

Hey, I'm not getting into each and every one. I'm just saying there's quite a few.

Of course there are alternatives at every point, but they are not parsimonious.

And there are other factors, such as the absence of any believers in upper realm Jesus, the 180-degree turnaround that would have been necessary not long after, the fact that a non-earthly entity dying in an upper realm would not be a convincing selling point to persuade men that it could happen to them.

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:45 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:42 am And note that the game of Irenaeus (to insist that Archons in Rom 13 is referred to the only Romans ''because the Romans are good rulers'') can be used against historicity in virtue of the same reason: the archontes of 1 Cor 2:6-8 cannot be Romans because the Romans are good rulers.
This is de facto the argument of Earl Doherty to prove that the Archontes of 1 Cor are not Romans.

Not following. Pauline/Hellenistic Christianity is apparently accommodating of Roman rule.

You cannot argue from the epistles that the Pillars are anti-Roman Christians. The only matter of conflict between Pillars and Paul is the Torah's observance.
If Paul was friend of the Romans, so the Pillars were.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:53 am You cannot argue from the epistles that the Pillars are anti-Roman Christians. The only matter of conflict between Pillars and Paul is the Torah's observance.
If Paul was friend of the Romans, so the Pillars were.

I think not. Sort of irrelevant here anyway.

Just out of curiosity, where did the boar supposedly kill Adonis?

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:44 am

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:33 am Do you mind elaborating on these counterfacutuals?

... Born a Jew, born of a woman, from Zion, in the flesh, preached, ate bread, killed, hung on a tree, by Jews, rose again etc etc...

I think they're tropes - ie. literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés; in creative works.

archibald wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:44 am

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:33 amIsn't Paul's Jesus just a 'resurrected, pre-ascension Jesus'? or a promise of a second (third(?)) coming? or both?

Yes, Jesus appears to have died before Paul wrote.

But the point is how Paul portrayed him.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:06 am I think they're tropes - ie. literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés; in creative works.

Could be. But I don't think it's easy to get the epistles to fit a literary fiction genre.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:06 amBut the point is how Paul portrayed him.

Indeed. As a man, born a Jew, born of a woman, from Zion, descended from David, in the flesh, preached, ate bread, was killed, by Jews, hung on a tree, was buried, rose again, supposedly fulfilling prophecies about a Jewish messiah, proof that other men can cheat death too, etc etc.

Or do you prefer to attribute all those to a non-earthly entity?

Also, is there any evidence that anyone or any group of around the time believed such a thing? I mean, you say elsewhere that you find absence of evidence compelling for the case for non-existence of a Jerusalem group of followers, even though unlike for early Jesus mythicists there is evidence for the latter. Is that being consistent?