Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 09-17-2008, 10:07 AM

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rier-oconnell/

Jake O'Connell is a contributor to the Holding Book on Shattering the Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk).

He probably eats babies as well, but we should reserve judgement on the debate until it gets going.

Toto · 09-17-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Jake O'Connell is a theology student at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Assumption College is a Catholic institution. I don't think they eat babies, except possibly through the transubstantiated flesh of their savior, which is a mystery not for our understanding.

O'Connell wrote two chapters in Holding's book:

Chapter 4: Papias' Testimony to the Existence of Jesus by Jake O'Connell. Argues that Papias provides indiputable evidence for the historicity of an earthly Jesus. O'Connell is currently pursuing a B.A. in Theology at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Chapter 25: The Story of Jesus by Jake O'Connell. Argues that the mythicist thesis is rendered implausible by the improbable depiction of Jesus in the NT.

spamandham · 09-19-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Assumption College is a Catholic institution. I don't think they eat babies, except possibly through the transubstantiated flesh of their savior, which is a mystery not for our understanding.

...as a bizarre aside, I've always wondered how atheists got associated with baby eating. But this just made me consider the possibility, that it's a truly ancient slur originating with early Christians, for whom the term 'atheist' (well, the Greek rendition) was invented, and whom may have been accused of being 'baby eaters' due to the story in Josephus' Wars about the mother (named Mary) who ate her baby.

andrewcriddle · 09-20-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...as a bizarre aside, I've always wondered how atheists got associated with baby eating. But this just made me consider the possibility, that it's a truly ancient slur originating with early Christians, for whom the term 'atheist' (well, the Greek rendition) was invented, and whom may have been accused of being 'baby eaters' due to the story in Josephus' Wars about the mother (named Mary) who ate her baby.

See for example Minucius Felix Octavius

Quote:

And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it.

These charges probably arise
a/ from a tendency to believe horrible things about ones opponents.
b/ from misunderstanding of the Christian Eucharist.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 09-20-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...as a bizarre aside, I've always wondered how atheists got associated with baby eating. But this just made me consider the possibility, that it's a truly ancient slur originating with early Christians, for whom the term 'atheist' (well, the Greek rendition) was invented, and whom may have been accused of being 'baby eaters' due to the story in Josephus' Wars about the mother (named Mary) who ate her baby.

See for example Minucius Felix Octavius

And also Tertullian's "Ad nationes".

mountainman · 09-20-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Assumption College is a Catholic institution. I don't think they eat babies, except possibly through the transubstantiated flesh of their savior, which is a mystery not for our understanding.

...as a bizarre aside, I've always wondered how atheists got associated with baby eating. But this just made me consider the possibility, that it's a truly ancient slur originating with early Christians, for whom the term 'atheist' (well, the Greek rendition) was invented, and whom may have been accused of being 'baby eaters' due to the story in Josephus' Wars about the mother (named Mary) who ate her baby.

See the popular knowledge documented by Nestorius and others concerning the charges of Cannibalism against the christians. In addition to this we have the apochryphal acts of Andrew and Matthias amidst the Cannibals. IMO all this was simply popular sedition against the fiction.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 10-09-2008, 12:57 AM

Opening statements have been posted.

MarkA · 10-09-2008, 01:33 AM

Jews in Mediaeval Europe were tarred with the brush of eating christian babies. Was this simply a parody of the christian communion or a continuation of a particular type of slur that had been common for millenia? That is - the tribe over the next hill or those that oppose us or those that are different from us are cannibals.

Amaleq13 · 10-09-2008, 10:29 AM

Carrier writes: "The best explanation of this strange omission is that the body was still in its grave, since then all the Christians' claims could be legally ignored."

Given this conclusion from his examination of Acts, I would be interested in how Richard explains Luke's explicit description of an empty tomb in the Gospels.

He appears to accept these were written by the same author.

Luke simply didn't recognize the implicit contradiction?

Doug

Steven Carr · 10-09-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Carrier writes: "The best explanation of this strange omission is that the body was still in its grave, since then all the Christians' claims could be legally ignored."

Given this conclusion from his examination of Acts, I would be interested in how Richard explains Luke's explicit description of an empty tomb in the Gospels.

He appears to accept these were written by the same author.

Luke simply didn't recognize the implicit contradiction?

Doug

Perhaps the anonymous author of Acts/Luke was spinning the data as much as he could, but could not eliminate all implicit contradictions?

09-17-2008, 10:07 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Another resurrection debate http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rier-oconnell/ Jake O'Connell is a contributor to the Holding Book on Shattering the Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk). He probably eats babies as well, but we should reserve judgement on the debate until it gets going.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2008, 12:57 AM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Opening statements have been posted.

10-09-2008, 01:33 AM	#8
MarkA Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 89	Jews in Mediaeval Europe were tarred with the brush of eating christian babies. Was this simply a parody of the christian communion or a continuation of a particular type of slur that had been common for millenia? That is - the tribe over the next hill or those that oppose us or those that are different from us are cannibals.

10-09-2008, 10:29 AM	#9
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Carrier writes: "The best explanation of this strange omission is that the body was still in its grave, since then all the Christians' claims could be legally ignored." Given this conclusion from his examination of Acts, I would be interested in how Richard explains Luke's explicit description of an empty tomb in the Gospels. He appears to accept these were written by the same author. Luke simply didn't recognize the implicit contradiction? Doug

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.