Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[Vicki Q]

In case that all seemed a bit theoretical, let's develop the point.

So Carrier has a Vietnam hero saviour. Where and when did he operate? Let's say Nha Trang during the Tet offensive. We should have no problems tracking down vets that were there at the time and can comment on what the stories were.

“Ah, but this is a theoretical situation, and maybe a modern conflict wasn't the best choice. Perhaps the Napoleonic War is a better choice”, Carrier replies.

So how did these documents come to our attention? Were they stuffed in a drawer, and have just come to light? That's VERY different to the NT documents, which were a dynamic product of vibrant communities with eyewitnesses around until after many of the documents were written.

“No, the Napoleonic documents were also part of a community”. Tell us about the community. What was their historical footprint? How did the hero saviour events impact on the founders? What were their beliefs?

“They never existed. It's a theoretical exercise”.

Exactly. The documents, the community, the worldview never existed because the events never happened. That's where Carrier's approach, and his theories on the early Xians go all wrong.

The Early Church existed, and the Gospels are there to explain the reasons why. Paul writes to these people about events which he, and they, are convinced actually happened.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "same reasons"...? ...As what?  ...the IDers?... That makes no sense.  

If pagan roman criticisms of crucifixion are a proper application of the criteria of embarassment.. then so, too, are atheist criticisms of id'ers creation claims.  The fact of the matter, ofc, in both cases is that it isn't a proper use of the criterion of embarrassment.  That pagan romans or jews would be embarassed by x (as atheists would be embarrassed by y) does not suggest that christians would be embarrassed.  The only crucifixion narratives the criterion of embarrassment would apply to are christian narratives (the gospels).  Christians, however, unlike roman pagans or jews might have been....do not seem to be embarrassed to worship their god as they see it. 

Lol... I don't think I'm "smart enough" to follow your "logic."

It's not mine, it's yours.  You've misunderstood and misapplied the criterion of embarrassment.  

I might just leave it at Wittgenstein, who said in the context of the question, "How do I know I have hands?" "What we can ask is whether it can make sense to doubt it."  Learning to separate the myth from the historical narrative, the answer that I've arrived at is no.

What is it you think cannot be doubted...specifically?

 When I see reason and evidence for the alternative theories, i.e. that there was no man born of a woman just as there was no god born of a virgin, but simply some other dude(s?) -- or was he/were they made up by made-up dudes of further dudes? -- whom conspired to start a new religion based on this irrelevant character, perhaps I'll be persuaded of the grounds for mythicism.

That isn't the mythicist position..why would it persuade you to it? Why do you think that there's any onus to provide an alternative in the first place?  

Thus far, as it would seem to share with ID some incredible and in my view preposterously unsupportable and improbable suggestions, I'm not.

Perhaps you should elaborate.  So far we've seen that you don't understand the only criteria which you've referred to...and I don't have confidence that you actually know the mythicist position in the first place. It's not, for example..as you opined upon above...the idea that people conspired to create a dude. There was no christianity to conspire upon until there were a body of stories to choose from. The people who "made the religion" did not write these stories or invent the beliefs. They chose, from amongst what was available, what best suited their own beliefs. How else would or should they have chosen? Is that conspiring to make up some dudes by further dudes? I'm wondering, beyond why you think this is the mythicist postion....why you think this is relevant at all?

@Vicki

Exactly. The documents, the community, the worldview never existed because the events never happened. That's where Carrier's approach, and his theories on the early Xians go all wrong.

..............................?

The Early Church existed, and the Gospels are there to explain the reasons why. Paul writes to these people about events which he, and they, are convinced actually happened.

The early church must have, by definition, existed, lol. When, well...that;s a bit stickier. Which church? Which gospels? Which Paul?

[Minimalist]

I've read Carrier's booklet on the rise of early Xianity, and found it totally unconvincing. Carrier has no evidence at all for his claims, contradicts the evidence we have, and fails to answer basic questions about worldview and context.

At least you gave us exactly the same kind of jesus freak horseshit I expected.  Congratulations for being predictable.

BTW, you cannot get good history from bad documents.  What you get is guesswork or religious horseshit.

Carrier's dissection of the gospels and epistles in "On the Historicity of Jesus" was exemplary.  I'm sure you hated every page.

Good.

[Minimalist]

Applying equal methods to all "historical reports" such as Tacitus' account (above) of how the Hellenistic god Serapis told a blind man to approach Vespasian so he could see again, and, as Tacitus reports, how the man did see again, I was wondering if you were going to now worship Serapis because his miracle stories have even better documentary proof than jesus'.  After all, at least we know who Tacitus was.

Your assumption is that applying equal methods would imply that Tacitus' report is factually correct.... er, why?

Ah, so Tacitus' report of miracles is flawed but your anonymous gospel inventors were spot on?  You really think that is going to fly?

[Minimalist]

And, Vicki,   Carrier accurately predicts people like you on page 1.

I have increasingly encountered Christians who accuse me to my face of being a liar, of being wicked, of not wanting to talk to God, of willfully ignoring evidence--because that is the only way they can explain my existence. I cannot be an honest, well-informed pursuer of the truth who came to a fair and reasonable decision after a thorough examination of the evidence, because no such person can exist in the Christian worldview, who does not come to Christ. Therefore, I must be a wicked liar, I must be so deluded by sin that I am all but clinically insane, an irrational madman suffering some evil psychosis. There is nothing I can do for such people. Nothing I ever show or say to them will ever convince them otherwise--it can't, because they start with the assumption that their belief in Christ has to be true, therefore right from the start everything I say or do is always going to be a lie or the product of some delusion.

I'm telling you, the man is psychic!

[Minimalist]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

What exactly are you proposing then?

I'm not proposing anything.  Richard Carrier is kicking your jesus loving butts with his brillance!

[Minimalist]

There is a link above to the whole essay.  Why don't you read it and your question will be answered.

I asked you, for your opinion.

Once again, the link to the essay is posted.  It is too long to reproduce here but it is the section marked A Digression on Method.

Why don't you try reading it?  Are you afraid you might accidentally learn something?

[Vicki Q]

I've read Carrier's booklet on the rise of early Xianity, and found it totally unconvincing. Carrier has no evidence at all for his claims, contradicts the evidence we have, and fails to answer basic questions about worldview and context.

At least you gave us exactly the same kind of jesus freak horseshit I expected. Congratulations for being predictable.

It is customary to challenge weak argument on a discussion forum.
Care to attempt a reasoned, lengthy, detailed rebuttal?

BTW, you cannot get good history from bad documents. What you get is guesswork or religious horseshit.

There's not much to like about Mein Kampf, but it is a useful historical document.
Guesswork is pretty much how historical analysis of all sorts proceeds, regardless of how good the content is.

Carrier's dissection of the gospels and epistles in "On the Historicity of Jesus" was exemplary. I'm sure you hated every page.

I didn't enjoy it much, that is correct, but it's hardly how you suggest.

I remember getting part way through, realising that it was so weak that I was getting nothing from it, but realising that I'd have to finish it if I wanted to talk about it.

I like reading non-Christians that challenge what I believe. Geza Vermes for example; and (as mentioned) Bart Ehrmann make for examples of writers that stimulate good thinking.

Richard Carrier does not.

[Minimalist]

As noted in post #45, Carrier has dismissed people like you who are utterly committed to ridiculous fairy tales.  When you can give some indication that you are capable of RATIONAL discussion feel free to give me a nudge.

You have long since convinced me that you are not interested in truth but in validation for your archaic beliefs.

Do understand that if you'd been born in Saudi Arabia you'd be wearing a beekeeper suit and swearing that allah was hot shit.

[RoadRunner79]

What exactly are you proposing then?

I'm not proposing anything.  Richard Carrier is kicking your jesus loving butts with his brillance!

If you are not saying anything, then that makes it easy....

The little I read seems like the normal Carrier B.S. and why he is not really respected in his field. Essentially I don't believe it, I'll make up some other stuff, with essentially no support for it, and declare it more likely. Not really a highlight of critical thinking. But if you decide, that you would like to say something; I would be happy to discuss.