Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-11-2006, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

(11) First Easter in 2400 B.C.: The date I imagine is approximate, and I think must refer to the dawn of the resurrection cult of Inanna and Tammuz, wherein a resurrection of either or both was celebrated at the Spring Equinox (precisely the same calendar date as Passover and Easter) as an agricultural ritual for the death and resurrection of life in the grain harvest.

Christians often used a 'seed' analogy to refer to their own concept of resurrection.

For example, 1 Clement explictly refers to the harvest of grain as a proof of resurrection.

'The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.'

It is remarkable that Christians themselves linked their resurrection to the yearly resurrection of the grain, when we are told that no such comparisons ever occurred to them.

GakuseiDon · 05-12-2006, 03:52 AM

Thanks for that, Richard.

GakuseiDon · 05-12-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Of course, it is also the prerogative of critics to research and assess things like the entries on his list, and move them from Flemming's list to their own lists of "likely" or "unlikely" influences, and I have no quarrel with anyone doing that, either, especially when they present useful research that would cost the rest of us time and difficulty to have collected on our own. And your review is one such example. Though I don't agree with everything you argue in it, and I think a lot more research is needed on the two "lists" in the movie, I believe your review contains a lot of useful correctives--if only preachers were providing parishioners with this stuff!

I agree. Out of interest, which parts of my review do you not agree with? Section 4 looks at the different variations of the Jesus Myth, so I don't doubt that you disagree with me there. But are there any errors in Sections 1 to 3 that need correcting?

Dina Noun · 05-12-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It is remarkable that Christians themselves linked their resurrection to the yearly resurrection of the grain, when we are told that no such comparisons ever occurred to them.

Jesus knew less about the way seeds work than the dumbest farmer today does ...

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.”
(John 12:24)

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Christians often used a 'seed' analogy to refer to their own concept of resurrection.

For example, 1 Clement explictly refers to the harvest of grain as a proof of resurrection.

'The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.'

It is remarkable that Christians themselves linked their resurrection to the yearly resurrection of the grain, when we are told that no such comparisons ever occurred to them.

It's a metaphor or word picture <Edit>

Like "First Fruits".

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

.....Here is what I sent him:

Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There Researched and Compiled by Richard C. Carrier in 2005.

...(2) Did Jesus Order His Enemies Killed in Luke 19:27? Yes and no. It is not a command, but a promise. Jesus says Zacchaeus (19:8-10) will be saved because he gives his money to the poor and cheats no one, "For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost." Then:

Then one servant who did not earn interest on what he was given is cast into darkness at the king's command, at which the "king" (obviously meaning Jesus) says:

The implication is clearly that when he returns Jesus intends to kill those who reject him.

This is hilarious, the "skeptic" becomes the fundy Literalist! Have you written this canard in any of your books? Or, do you bring this up on the rubber chicken circuit?

Context helps, and this is clearly a parable! (This is frequently quoted by rank amateurs on the internet and always out of context.)

What's next, your Spiritual understanding of the parable? Is Jesus speaking of an eternal death for the enemies of God?

Ahem!

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don't want this man to be our king.’

“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17“ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25“ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

....Here is what I sent him:

Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There Researched and Compiled by Richard C. Carrier in 2005.

(7) "Paul never quotes anything Jesus is supposed to have said": As above, Paul does quote "the Lord" several times (not just in that one case), but, again as noted above, this always appears to be from revelation, not tradition, and what he does quote rarely coincides with what we have in the Gospels, nor does it contain anything distinctive of the supposedly historical discourse of Jesus (for example, Paul never quotes a parable or any statement that refers to anyone by name or definitely contains historical context, etc.) nor any reference to a human tradition by which Paul learned it (e.g. he never says "Peter told me Jesus once said...").

More fun and follies! This post will address many more falsehoods about Paul.

Quote:

Chris Layman has been alledged to have written:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com

<cut and paste removed>

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

....Here is what [foolish follies] I sent him: (

Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There Researched and Compiled by Richard C. Carrier in 2005.....

(10) Sanhedrin Holding Court on Passover Eve:

You get this wrong from the get go. Passover didn't start until sun down the next day.

Quote:

This was definitely illegal and unnecessary.

A mock court, and I'm glad that we agree on this.

Quote:

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.1k says a conviction can only be given a day after the trial in capital cases (also 5.5a), and for this reason it specifically says no trial of a capital case can occur on the eve of a Sabbath or a Festival (because court cannot go back in session on such a day). Likewise, 4.1j explicitly says that capital cases can only be tried during the day (in explicit contrast with property cases which must begin during the day but can end at night). There is no intelligible reason why these procedures would have been violated for Jesus.

The authority for Capital cases and judgment was taken away by Pontius Pilate, and that is why Jesus was handed over to the Romans.

Quote:

(11) First Easter in 2400 B.C.: The date I imagine is approximate, and I think must refer to the dawn of the resurrection cult of Inanna and Tammuz, wherein a resurrection of either or both was celebrated at the Spring Equinox (precisely the same calendar date as Passover and Easter)

This is completely false as the resurrection of Jesus was timed with Passover and not at all Spring Equinox. One is timed with the Moon of Nissan, and the other by the Earth's tilt or the Sun. Pagan fertility rites or celebrations would have depended on the weather, and you could make a better case for May 1 or May Day and dancing around the Maypole in some of the Germanic or Nordic cultures or climes.

I will pass over the rest of your dubious pagan slurs on the Jewish Messiah!

Joseph Klausner, Historian and Professor, Hebrew Univisity]

Jesus of Nazareth...was a product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected by any foreign admixture. There were many Gentiles in Galilee, but Jesus was in no way influenced by them. In his days Galilee was the stronghold of the most enthusiastic Jewish patriotism...In all this Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews...more Jewish even than Hillel. [The Greatest Jewish Rabbi]

(Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925), pp. 363, 374.)

Richbee · 05-13-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

BS! Paul PLAINLY STATES that his information for the Eucharist came directly from the lord (one of his mystic 'visions', no doubt), NOT from any pre-existing apostolic tradition...

Sorry try again!

13. Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper
• 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (see Matt. 26:26-29)

You need to work harder inventing new fictions!

Dina Noun · 05-13-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

I can't afford to engage hours of work for free, though I gave him a lengthy one-shot interview for free, which is a courtesy I extend to all members of the press and professional documentarians.

FYI, I found the lengthy Bonus Feature interviews (yours, Sam Harris', etc.) to be more informative than the movie itself.

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

05-12-2006, 03:52 AM	#12
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Thanks for that, Richard.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.