Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[stephan happy huller]

Yes this is the problem with what we should call the modern 'the cop out' of 'faith.' Faith is used by contemporary Christians to justify the intellectual shrug of the shoulder that accompanies any questioning of things that Mommy and Daddy told them. I am not sure the ancient worked in the same way. You need two thousand years of established tradition in order to feel confident that 'something must be to this' in order to not answer basic questions about the historical nature of the gospel narrative.

[stevencarrwork]

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, so I can only suggest possible examples that is well documented and undisputed common academic knowledge.

Gaius Julius Ceasar, also known as Divus Julius, who in death rised to the heavens to be reiceived as a coelicola

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

Why is it obvious that Julius was resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was alleged to be resurrected from the dead?

[stevencarrwork]

This has the effect that the claim that early Christians believed that Jesus had not died on earth but only in some heavenly realm can IMO correctly be regarded as fringe. (On the basis, among other grounds, that ancient people didn't think like that.) The claim that early Christians believed that after his crucifixion on earth Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can IMO correctly be regarded as mainstream. Whereas the question as to whether Jesus has really been raised to heaven is in effect something scholars have to agree to differ about.

I see.

So the claim that Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can be regarded as mainstream, because ancient people really did think like that.

While the claim that Jesus had died in some heavenly realm is fringe because ancient people didn't think like that.

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

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

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.

[beowulf]

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, so I can only suggest possible examples that is well documented and undisputed common academic knowledge.

Gaius Julius Ceasar, also known as Divus Julius, who in death rised to the heavens to be reiceived as a coelicola

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

Why is it obvious that Julius was resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was alleged to be resurrected from the dead?

The question we are considering is not whether only one (or many) men were made god, but whether this manufacturing of divine men could easily have transformed the memory of one dead man into a god. And yes, the Romans loved making gods out of humans.
The bodily resurrection was the speciality of the Jews.

How is it obvious that the Greco-Roman society extended this deification honour to include resurrection as a bonus?
Answer: by marring Jewish religious traditions to roman habits.

“ The concept of an afterlife, broadly defined as human existence beyond the grave, is found in both the prose and poetry of ancient Israel. Post-mortem existence is referenced in the Torah, Early Prophets, Later Prophets, and in the Writings. Later beliefs in resurrection could not have emerged spontaneously without significant antecedents.

My assertion of an early resurrection motif within the Hebrew Bible is buttressed with the study of technical terms that provide supporting evidence for occurrence of an early belief in resurrection.”
Page 43

A Journey to Heaven: The Jewish Search for Life Beyond By Leila Leah Bronner
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-Heaven- ... 9655240479

[Thor]

Why is it obvious that Julius was resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was alleged to be resurrected from the dead?

'

I did not say it was obvious that he was resurrected the same way Jesus was. I simply gave you the example you requested.

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

What I remarked as being obvious was the example, as you can see if you read the sentence once more.

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

Why request examples if you had no interest in them?

[stevencarrwork]

Why is it obvious that Julius was resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was alleged to be resurrected from the dead?

'

I did not say it was obvious that he was resurrected the same way Jesus was. I simply gave you the example you requested.

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

What I remarked as being obvious was the example, as you can see if you read the sentence once more.

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

Why request examples if you had no interest in them?

Why request examples of people claimed to be resurrected from the dead if you have no interest in supplying examples of people resurrected from the dead?

[DCHindley]

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.

Don't you mean Jesus' resurrection was the "first fruits" of the resurrections to come?

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. ... Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

This doesn't, in my opinion, preclude the resurrection of others:

Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah
Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha
Man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21) raised by God's Spirit

Men raised upon Jesus' death (Mt 27:51-53) raised by God
Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43) raised by Jesus
Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus
Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) raised by Jesus

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter
Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul

DCH

[Thor]

Why request examples of people claimed to be resurrected from the dead if you have no interest in supplying examples of people resurrected from the dead?

I did provide the example you requested. You can freely choose to approach example as you wish. I have no intention or interest to engage in some pathetic posturing of positions, so I admit defeat and declare you victorious in whatever contest this was imagined to be. I have so many questions, so much to learn, and to continue this discussion offers nothing.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, so I can only suggest possible examples that is well documented and undisputed common academic knowledge.

Gaius Julius Ceasar, also known as Divus Julius, who in death rised to the heavens to be reiceived as a coelicola

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

Why is it obvious that Julius was resurrected from the dead the way Jesus was alleged to be resurrected from the dead?

You're assuming that Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead was the first belief. I would argue that the first Christian belief was that Jesus had been raised to Heaven after the crucifixion, not that he was physically resuscitated on Earth. I think the physical appearances are a rescension of the original narrative invented as a counter to docetism. There are no physical appearances in Paul, nor is there an ascension or similar intervening event between Jesus' appearances to the disciples and to himself. I think it's clear that Paul thinks Jesus just went straight up to Heaven without a walking tour beforehand. I think that was inserted later.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

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.