tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post3579568459233126731..comments2023-11-09T05:50:27.936-08:00Comments on The Facts About Islam: Pagan influences in churches - speak the truth clearlyYahya Snowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-5570395194891704792014-04-23T02:48:58.494-07:002014-04-23T02:48:58.494-07:00Inanna Wasn’t Crucified, She Was Just Nailed Up De...Inanna Wasn’t Crucified, She Was Just Nailed Up Dead<br />Casey only addresses one thing I have ever written relating to mythicism, ever. Seriously. In this entire book, he never mentions a single argument, claim, or passage in Proving History, or in any other book, article, or blog post I’ve ever written, pertaining to the topic of this book. Except one single small passage in Not the Impossible Faith: my discussion of the Innana death-and-resurrection narrative (NIF, pp. 18-19; Casey, 7-5983ff.). This is most strange, because in NIF there are a lot of refutations of assumptions he relies on in his book (such as that Luke is “an outstanding historian by ancient standards,” so true he had to say it twice, verbatim: 3-2619; 3-2683; see NIF, ch. 7, for a gut-check on that; OHJ, ch. 9, for a groin-check). Yet he never responds to those refutations or even seems to be aware of them. Likewise all my preemptive refutations of his arguments in PH, which I’ve noted already.<br />And then the one single thing of mine he does address, he gets wrong in almost every way.<br />First, I never argued in NIF that “Jesus cannot have been crucified” because Inanna was; in fact I there explicitly say I am not saying the crucifixion of Jesus was inspired by that. Yet Casey imputes to me the other argument. That’s worse than a straw man, because it actually misleads his readers, who will now think I made a ridiculous argument, which in fact I didn’t. Indeed, nowhere in NIF do I even argue that Jesus didn’t exist (to the contrary, NIF consistently assumes he did). He even tries to admit this, but characterizes it as “going back” on myself (7-5994), when in fact it was simply my position, not a retreat from some “other” position (which again basically makes him a liar).<br />In the passage in question I am explicitly responding to the argument that “no one would worship a crucified deity, therefore Jesus must have actually risen from the dead.” Casey surely rejects such fundamentalist balderdash as I do, yet he does not tell his readers that this is the only context in which I brought up the Inanna narrative. Inanna is an example of a humiliated, killed and crucified deity, who was nevertheless widely worshipped. I seriously doubt Casey can honestly have a problem with that. Because it being true has no bearing on whether Jesus existed–unless you argue that “no one would worship a crucified deity, therefore Jesus must have actually been crucified.” Fortunately Casey doesn’t appear to make that argument. (Because my argument in that case would be correct.) So why my treatment of Inanna concerns him in this book is hard to discern. And he never explains any of this to his readers, who are thus mislead into thinking I argue that Inanna’s tale is an argument against the historicity of Jesus. It’s not. I think it can bear on the subject, but not like that. And I didn’t even discuss that possibility in NIF.<br />Second, Casey suffers from concrete thinking (see next section), so badly that he thinks Inanna can’t be a crucified deity because she was a vegetation goddess (7-5994). That is a non sequitur. That’s like saying she can’t be a crucified deity because she’s a woman. Or not Jewish. The differences are irrelevant. We unmistakably have a god descending from heaven, into another supernatural realm below (the underworld), being tried, executed, humiliated, and crucified (her naked corpse nailed up), and then rising from the dead three days later and ascending back to heaven (it also has this whole thing being her plan from the start). Scholars therefore cannot claim such narratives did not predate Christianity. They most certainly did. Whether they had any influence on Christianity is a separate question. But it should certainly be relevant that this narrative was part of a major cult in the Middle East still practiced in Christian times and known to the Jews of Judea (as I show in NIF, a fact Casey does not mention).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-22659792278368289502014-04-22T16:55:27.048-07:002014-04-22T16:55:27.048-07:00At state level, Britain has become liberal fundame...At state level, Britain has become liberal fundamentalist – not a ‘Christian’ or ‘plural’ society <br /><br />an excellent analysis by Taji Mustafa of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron wrote an article for the Church Times – perhaps hoping to win support from middle England – that Britain is a ‘Christian country’. He has been publicly rebuked by… Read More ›<br /><br />http://bloggingtheology.org/category/christianity/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com