Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[hjalti]

Regarding the subject of peopel with absurd (Christian) views being accepted as pals by "mainstream scholars". Maybe they're ok with them because they don't try to make a scholarly case for it: "I personally believe that Jesus went to heaven, but I won't mention that in my scholarly work." Like a psychologist who personally just believes that evil spirits cause psychological illnesses, but doesn't try to argue for it. Or maybe they just admit that it's not based on any rational ground.

I don't know why any of that should make them more acceptable than mythicists. :l

[stevencarrwork]

But Christians claim the resurrection of Jesus was unique. Even Paul says it was 'the first', which means he did not think there were any parallels.

Paul thought Jesus was a kind of reverse Adam who was the "first fruit" of the imminent mass resurrection, not that he was the first person ever thought to have been raised to Heaven, but the "first" in the specific sequence of a specific eschatological scenario.

Andrew claimed Jesus was believed by early Christians to have been resurrected and then raised to Heaven to sit on the right hand of God.

As far as I understand Christianity, Christians claim this is unique to Jesus and has never happened to anybody else.

They might be wrong about that, but claiming that mythicism can't be true because it is unparalleled, while simultaneously claiming that your story is unparalleled....

[beowulf]

Judaism and Christians say that God is the only one who revives the dead. Parallels mean nothing to them.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Prayer ... vurot.html


Christians alone say Jesus is unique among the resurrected because he is the Triune God and this is known through revelation.

The human origin and development of Christianity is another subject.

[andrewcriddle]

Jewish people believed that God had raised people into heaven, Enoch and Elisha. They believed that God had raised people from the dead in the past and would do so on a large scale at the end of the age (see Daniel 12)
There may be closer parallels in the apocryphal literature.

Andrew Criddle

That should be Enoch and Elijah Sorry.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew claimed Jesus was believed by early Christians to have been resurrected and then raised to Heaven to sit on the right hand of God.

As far as I understand Christianity, Christians claim this is unique to Jesus and has never happened to anybody else.

They might be wrong about that, but claiming that mythicism can't be true because it is unparalleled, while simultaneously claiming that your story is unparalleled....

At the very least many early Christians definitely believed that Jesus had been resurrected after his death on earth and then raised to heaven. Therefore it was a possible idea in the ancient world, (otherwise early Christians would not have come to believe it.)

If any early Christians unambiguously and explicitly taught that Jesus' death had not occurred on earth but in the heaven below the moon, then this would by definition be a possible idea in the ancient world even if there were no non-Christian parallels. In the absence of such unambiguous and explicit teachings by early Christians the probable absence of non-Christian parallels to such an idea becomes more significant.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

But Hartado isn't talking about what Christians believed, he's asserting that Jesus literally did appear in the sky historically.

Can you tell me where he makes this clear, please?

Thanks,
N

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But Hartado isn't talking about what Christians believed, he's asserting that Jesus literally did appear in the sky historically.

Can you tell me where he makes this clear, please?

Thanks,
N

Well, I was responding to DCH's description of this blog post, but actually reading the blog post does not show an explicit claim to personal belief in a literal, historical "glorification," so I guess I'm wrong. Hurtado doesn't say anything uncritical in that post. It was my mistake not to actually read the blog instead of just reacting to someone else's description of it (though to be fair to DCH, I can see why a quick scan of the post might give an impression that Hurtado was talking about personal belief.

As I said before, though, I wasn't really trying to single Hurtado out personally, but just use him as an exemplar of academia's acceptance of supernaturalism in Biblical scholars while writing off mythicists as nutters. Hurtado just turns out not to be that great of an example. A better example of what I'm talking about might be someone like Mike Licona.

[neilgodfrey]

As I said before, though, I wasn't really trying to single Hurtado out personally, but just use him as an exemplar of academia's acceptance of supernaturalism in Biblical scholars while writing off mythicists as nutters.

Hurtado made a bit of a do some months back about being the keynote speaker at a conference in Perth, Western Australia. I once lived for a short while in Perth and had never heard of the establishment that had invited him to speak. It turned out to be one of those tiny fundamentalist colleges -- a total of 6 staff according to their website -- http://www.ttc.wa.edu.au/ I would have expected any real academic to turn down an invitation to fly to the other side of the world to speak at such an institution. (Compare http://cryptotheology.wordpress.com/201 ... istianity/)

So I have no doubt Larry is a fundy himself, at least by my definition of a fundamentalist even though the evidence so far is circumstantial.

[stevencarrwork]

arly Christians definitely believed that Jesus had been resurrected after his death on earth and then raised to heaven. Therefore it was a possible idea in the ancient world, (otherwise early Christians would not have come to believe it.)

If any early Christians unambiguously and explicitly taught that Jesus' death had not occurred on earth but in the heaven below the moon, then this would by definition be a possible idea in the ancient world even if there were no non-Christian parallels. In the absence of such unambiguous and explicit teachings by early Christians the probable absence of non-Christian parallels to such an idea becomes more significant.

Even if there are no such parallels, your own position is that something unparalleled can happen.

Creating new categories of heavenly beings is hardly unparalleled. Different ranks of angels were created, and angels were named. So the idea of named heavenly beings is hardly unparalleled.