I will respond to the parts addressed to me.

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:

Are you so sure we know nothing about these folks? Peter writes 1 Peter and James is well known and attested in a variety of wources as having led the church in Jerusalem. For Peter, just try 1 Peter 1:10-12 or 2:21 or 5:1- as a witness of the sufferings of Christ. Looks like a crucified historical Jesus to me without any appeal to the gospels. 2 Peter, whoever wrote it somewhere in the first century, argues that myths are not what is present here (2 Peter 1:16).

I will get to supposed Greco-Roman parallels in a later post on a later point.

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: The Twelve may well include Matthias who was added ot their number shortly after Jesus' death and was a part of Jesus' ministry from the beginning (if it is not merely shorthand for the apostolic group). To see cosmic forces at work does not deny involvement of the Jewish leaders for Paul or a historcial death for Jesus for Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15; so a both-and). Your supposed clash of Paul with Paul in Luke as a Pharisee versus with his distinct opponents in the church ignores that Paul had a different conflict after he became a Christian than before. The issue Bornkamm raises are part of a long debate about Acts studies among NT scholars, with significant holders on both sides, that I have addressed in my newly released commentary on Acts.

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: Paul did think like a Jew in key spots as his Pharisaic background testifies. No one is claiming Paul denies that Jesus was a heavenly figure, It is the either/or that is denied (fallacy of the excluded middle). The gospels are the explanation for the kind of Messiah Christians embraced (but they are not allowed to count as part of the testimony of the community). Cosmic savior or political leader (Either/or again). Jesus claimed to be an eschatological prophet like Moses, which points to a leader-prophet. He also referred to himself as Son of man, a picture of a cosmic-human figure (Both-and again).

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?

Either/or yet again. If he has revelations does that mean he did not talk with anyone else about his views (not according to Galatians 1:18, surely they discussed their shared experience in those two weeks and later exchanged the hands of fellowship as Galatioans 2:9 indicates).

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: Sorry, read on in 1 Corinthians 15, where a list of eyewitnesses of various sorts are named (surely pointing to a historical figure since a physical resurrection is the point of the chapter).

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: Could again does not mean this is necessarily the most likely explanation. This conclusion is not what the evidence from our sources suggests that the early Christians believed. By the way, Theissen and Merz have no doubt Jesus existed. (Pages for their theory, please)

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

Bock:

Authorship of Ephesians: Again a very debated point in NT Studies. Hoehner's commentary on Ephesians has a list of who believes what about authorship and how many (read most!) hold it to be Pauline. But let us assume (for the sake of argument) you are right about non-Pauline authorship. Those who hold this see this as a disciple of Paul (part of a Pauline school influenced by him). So even in that view the teaching is something they received from Paul and thus shows what was believed by the early generations.

[On what Paul must have known to respond to the vision] 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.

Bock: You miss the point. He is responding to a message from the earliest church about a resurrection of an earthly figure (which is what Pharisees- Paul is a believing Pharisees at the time of the vision- believed about resurrection). So he cannot preach about resurrection and believe it without believing it took this form of back to life from an earthly figure! This historical contextual point matters a great deal to understand Paul's view in His personally attested historical context which he reveals to us directly in his writings.