Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[The Grand Nudger]

The little I read seems like the normal Carrier B.S.  and why he is not really respected in his field.  

ad hom

Essentially I don't believe it,  I'll make up some other stuff, with essentially no support for it, and declare it more likely.

straw

Not really a highlight of critical thinking.

No, it wasn't, was it? Why is this form of rebuttal to carrier so common...in this thread, in your estimation?

[Mudhammam]

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.

It wasn't my claim that the "pagan roman criticisms of crucifixion are a proper application of the criteria of embarassment"; in fact, your awkward phrasing of that point, which, of course, was simply that Roman crucifixion was a humiliating punishment, particularly so for the Jews (per the 'Old Law'), and as Paul and pagan critics explicitly affirm, makes me wonder if it sailed over your head.  But I need wonder no more, as your subsequent non-sequitur all but makes it clear:

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. 

*face palm*
The audience whom any newborn proselytizing religion seeks to convert does not consist of those very religious members (duh).  What motivation would Jewish and Greco-Roman authors have to make their human 'god' publicly humiliated by crucifixion when his entire ministry involved Messianic promises of a kingdom established on earth, and everyone knew that to "preach Christ crucified" was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"?  Well, believe what you want to believe, but as for myself, I'll go with the solution that more or less all fair-minded, educated minds have settled upon, namely, the simplest, most evident explanation.

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

Sorry, I can't claim your brilliant "argument."

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

Cannot be doubted?  Who said that?  Please do try to pay closer attention to the posts you decide to comment on.

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?  

There are many mythicist positions, all of which come to the same thing:  Some Jewish or Greek writers highly influenced by a syncrenism of mostly Jewish and some pagan theological beliefs created an Aramaic-speaking Messiah, born in a town no one had heard of, had him walk around proclaiming a coming kingdom, performing miracles, and gathering a moderate following (claims that are consistent with the general character of ancient and modern charlatans), and then had him killed by the Romans.  Why did this happen?  What was the motivation and the context?  Insert your favorite conspiracy here: __________________

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.

Which beliefs included that he would be one of the sons of a certain Joseph and Mary, would hail from a town called Nazareth, and subsequently die on a cross at the hands of a historical Pontius Pilate?  Where were/are these ideas laid out for "the people" who "chose from what was available," so that I can examine them myself?   What evidence have you that this is what occurred?  In fact, if you had understood the mythicist position or the arguments used in its favor at all, you'd have realized that you have nothing in the way of reason and evidence to support your uninteresting assertions.  Hence, the red herrings that you love to throw out, including your failure (or what comes to the same thing, inability) to provide any coherent framework for your theory that is consistent with the evidence, and by evidence I don't mean your loony imagination or that of those whose views you've been spoon-fed.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't know what would have embarrassed the author.  You're attempting to buttress fiction by way of fiction.

Sure, I do.  No pagan critic of Christianity that I'm aware of failed to point out the absurdity of worshiping a crucified criminal.  It was an embarrassing fact.  Hence, the need for a resurrection.

It wasn't my claim that the "pagan roman criticisms of crucifixion are a proper application of the criteria of embarassment"; in fact, your awkward phrasing of that point, which, of course, was simply that Roman crucifixion was a humiliating punishment, particularly so for the Jews (per the 'Old Law'), and as Paul and pagan critics explicitly affirm, makes me wonder if it sailed over your head.  But I need wonder no more, as your subsequent non-sequitur all but makes it clear:

As we see above, that was -precisely- your claim.  

*face palm*
The audience whom any newborn proselytizing religion seeks to convert does not consist of those very religious members (duh).  What motivation would Jewish and Greco-Roman authors have to make their human 'god' publicly humiliated by crucifixion when his entire ministry involved Messianic promises of a kingdom established on earth, and everyone knew that to "preach Christ crucified" was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"?  Well, believe what you want to believe, but as for myself, I'll go with the solution that more or less all fair-minded, educated minds have settled upon, namely, the simplest, most evident explanation.

Have you never heard the christian narrative?  God wasn;t publicly humiliated by crucifixion - his glorious plan was fulfilled by it.  That's the point.  Vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice.  If they wanted people to accept vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice...why would they leave out the vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice?  It wasn't an uncommon belief, and hardly seems to have been much of a stumbling block. More buttressing of fiction with fiction.

It was what they believed, so that's what they told people.  The simplest, most evident explanation of what?  What's simple, what evidence.  Be specific.  

Sorry, I can't claim your brilliant "argument."

Can't claim you're own either, apparently.  You're losing your shit trying to square this circle.

Cannot be doubted?  Who said that?  Please do try to pay closer attention to the posts you decide to comment on.

Should I quote you again?  I shouldn't have to, you know.......

There are many mythicist positions, all of which come to the same thing:  Some Jewish or Greek writers highly influenced by a syncrenism of mostly Jewish and some pagan theological beliefs created an Aramaic-speaking Messiah, born in a town no one had heard of, had him walk around proclaiming a coming kingdom, performing miracles, and gathering a moderate following (claims that are consistent with the general character of ancient and modern charlatans), and then had him killed by the Romans.  Why did this happen?  What was the motivation and the context?  Insert your favorite conspiracy here: __________________

Perhaps you should argue against mythicism rather than conspiracy theories?  Pitch straw all you like, but I'll call you on it every time.  Do you think that people "conspired" to create hercules?  No?  Neither do I...same with jesus.  In the case of jesus, did people conspire to tell a particular version of the tale?  Sure, but it would be ungenerous to use that word in that context. As I've already said, they picked those stories which confirmed to what they believed. Different stories for different sects..until, eventually, a particular sect came out on top and laid out the narrative as you now know it.

Which beliefs included that he would be one of the sons of a certain Joseph and Mary, would hail from a town called Nazareth, and subsequently die on a cross at the hands of a historical Pontius Pilate?  Where were/are these ideas laid out for "the people" who "chose from what was available," so that I can examine them myself?

You've read the gospels, haven;t you.......?

 What evidence have you that this is what occurred?

It;s no mystery or secret that the gospels were officially considered and determined......

In fact, if you had understood the mythicist position or the arguments used in its favor at all, you'd have realized that you have nothing in the way of reason and evidence to support your uninteresting assertions.  Hence, the red herrings that you love to throw out, including your failure (or what comes to the same thing, inability) to provide any coherent framework for your theory that is consistent with the evidence, and by evidence I don't mean your loony imagination or that of those whose views you've been spoon-fed.

What is my theory? Probably ought to make that clear, what with your record of straw thusfar.

[Mudhammam]

As we see above, that was -precisely- your claim.  

As I said, it clearly sailed over your head, and, as my further clarifications seem to have hit a wall, I'll just let you do the re-reading that is apparently necessary for you to grasp basic statements.

Have you never heard the christian narrative?  

Yep.

God wasn;t publicly humiliated by crucifixion - his glorious plan was fulfilled by it.  That's the point.  

And it makes sense that they would feel the need to spin the narrative that way... if they actually had to deal with the uncomfortable, publicly known fact that their Savior died.  Otherwise, they invented...

Vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice

for... what reason?  Have you ever heard of the Jewish narrative?  A. It already consisted of blood sacrifice, and B. In no case that I'm aware (although maybe you have evidence to the contrary?) was it expected that the Messiah would serve as the slaughtered animal.

 If they wanted people to accept vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice...why would they leave out the vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice?

Are you under the impression that they invented the notion of vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice?  Oh, that's precious.  Please keep at this history-of-religion-business you've discovered to be so fruitful; you have so much to learn.

 It was what they believed, so that's what they told people.  The simplest, most evident explanation of what?  What's simple, what evidence.  Be specific.  

I.e. why it is that the came up with the aforementioned narrative, per the most plausible reconstruction given our knowledge of the world, then and now, and the records that have been preserved from antiquity surrounding the relevant time period.

Can't claim you're own either, apparently.  You're losing your shit trying to square this circle.

Any idea why basic reading comprehension is so difficult for you?  Are you losing it or something?  Case in point:

Should I quote you again?  I shouldn't have to, you know.......

Please do.  Nobody said anything cannot be doubted.

Perhaps you should argue against mythicism rather than conspiracy theories?

I have yet to see anyone, including yourself, offer a clear and vivid distinction between the two; meanwhile, everything you say reflects the mindset of a conspiracy theorist. 

 Pitch straw all you like, but I'll call you on it every time.  Do you think that people "conspired" to create hercules?  No?  Neither do I...same with jesus.  

What's "the same" with Jesus?  Is there an argument here or are you again comparing two dissimilar situations and exposing your laughable ignorance on, not one, but two subjects, viz., the Greek heroes and the rise of Christianity?

the case of jesus, did people conspire to tell a particular version of the tale?  Sure, but it would be ungenrous to use the word in that context.  As I've already said, they picked those stories which confirmed to what they believed.

Ungenerous?  LOL.  Oh, okay... if you say so?  Which stories did they pick from?  I'm still waiting for you to point to those texts which you believe they curated to come up with the "Christian narrative" involving the particular facts I mentioned.  I suspect someone will have disproven the moon-landing to have been real before you can produce these sources which your beliefs merely take for granted, though, unfortunately, you'll then be in the same boat vis-à-vas these original sources as you are in with the New Testament, so I can't see what good it could possibly do for you.

What is my theory?

That some unknown people drew from some unknown sources to create the figure(s) of Jesus (and Paul?), and whom were significant to first-century Greeks and Jews for some unknown reason?  That's the best that I've been able to piece together given the incoherent nonsense that you typically spew on this topic.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I said, it clearly sailed over your head, and, as my further clarifications seem to have hit a wall, I'll just let you do the re-reading that is apparently necessary for you to grasp basic statements.

...............I doubt we'll get much farther here, so, moving on.

And it makes sense that they would feel the need to spin the narrative that way... if they actually had to deal with the uncomfortable, publicly known fact that their Savior died.  Otherwise, they invented...

You mean...some people made some shit up...?

for... what reason?  Have you ever heard of the Jewish narrative?  A. It already consisted of blood sacrifice, and B. In no case that I'm aware (although maybe you have evidence to the contrary?) was it expected that the Messiah would serve as the slaughtered animal.

For what reason do we come up with any religious belief?  A real or perceived need.  What are we talking about here, though?

Are you under the impression that they invented the notion of vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice?  Oh, that's precious.  Please keep at this history-of-religion-business you've discovered to be so fruitful; you have so much to learn.

Is there any relevance to who created it, in our discussion of a historical jesus, or are you looking for something else to quibble about?  You're asking the equivalent of "who came up with the boy-meets-girl literary format". It doesn't matter, it existed by the time people believed in a christ.

I.e. why it is that the came up with the aforementioned narrative, per the most plausible reconstruction given our knowledge of the world, then and now, and the records that have been preserved from antiquity surrounding the relevant time period.

You're still moving forward under the assumption that the people who advanced that narrative came up with it.  They didn't.  They advanced it because they believed it.  The original intent of the story would be something that only the original author could answer...and we don't know who that guy was, or collection of guys, or even what that story -was-...so....?

Please do.  Nobody said anything cannot be doubted.

"Nobody" in the sense that novody blinded cyclops.      I don't care.  I;m sure you'll bable on about reading comprehension vaguely when confronted with you own words...just as you did above.  

I have yet to see anyone, including yourself, offer a clear and vivid distinction between the two; meanwhile, everything you say reflects the mindset of a conspiracy theorist. 

Everything I say, what have I said?  WTF is wrong with you, lol?  What we -have- are myths of a christ, some people believe they are legends of a "jesus".  The existence of myth and legend do not depend upon conspiracy....nor do they depend upon historicity.  The mythicist position is that a mythical religious figure was historicized as legend -as is so often the case- (it's so common there's a term for it - which you've already been made aware of).  If you want to discuss the mythicist position..discuss that.  Not some conspiracy shit of your own devising.  Thx.

What's "the same" with Jesus?  Is there an argument here or are you again comparing two dissimilar situations and exposing your laughable ignorance on, not one, but two subjects, viz., the Greek heroes and the rise of Christianity?

See above.  No one needed to "conspire" to create a hercules, nor did anyone need to "conspire" to create a jesus.  

Ungenerous?  LOL.  Oh, okay... if you say so?  Which stories did they pick from?  I'm still waiting for you to point to those texts which you believe they curated to come up with the "Christian narrative" involving the particular facts I mentioned.  I suspect someone will have disproven the moon-landing to have been real before you can produce these sources which your beliefs merely take for granted, though, unfortunately, you'll then be in the same boat vis-à-vas these original sources as you are in with the New Testament, so I can't see what good it could possibly do for you.

We don't know how many (or the contents) of the stories they chose from except in those cases where they flatly declared something a heresy.  The development of canon, as far as we can tell, took centuries (knocking the whole conspiracy song and dance out of the water...those would be particularly long-lived co-conspirators....don;t you think?).  If you want a specific example you'll have to decide which part of the canon, specifically, you would like to consider.  

That some unknown people drew from some unknown sources to create the figure(s) of Jesus (and Paul?), and whom were significant to first-century Greeks and Jews for some unknown reason?  That's the best that I've been able to piece together given the incoherent nonsense that you typically spew on this topic.

This it's why it's useful to ask before you start slinging mud, numbskull.  My position is that people historicized characters in a collection of myths as legends, ex post facto (as they assumed, anyway)...for a variety of reasons...not the least of which...because they really believed it.  Further, that this myth turned percieved legend..which is all we have and all we have evidence for, is a sufficent explanation for both the narrative and subsequent belief in it;s contents. That no "historical jesus" is in evidence, and is an unnecessary and extraneous assumption. This is, conveniently, the mythicist position.  Now that you know what it is, or at least should know what it is, you can finally begin discussing it.

Or not, you can keep crowing about conspiracies like a loon and calling me names, if you like.

[Vicki Q]

As noted in post #45, Carrier has dismissed people like you who are utterly committed to ridiculous fairy tales.  

I'm not sure that's right, rereading it. He dismisses a particular sort of Xian.

I have said that Carrier's writing is very weak, but that doesn't get a mention in the quoted passage. I have never said that he was a liar, or deluded by sin, dishonest, insane or anything else he talks about in the passage, nor would I, because it would be nonsense.

In fact I used to frequent his Internet Infidels forum, which was great for what I'm aiming to do- challenge my beliefs through informed debate. I could pretty much guarantee that a post like #40 would attract three or four highly intelligent responses, and force me to do some thinking.

(I remember one atheist asking another one to kill him if he ever came to regard Strong's Greek concordance as authoritative. There were some very intelligent thinkers there...)

So I feel a bit of a debt to Carrier. That doesn't extend to giving his writing a bye.

Care to attempt a reasoned, lengthy, detailed rebuttal?

When you can give some indication that you are capable of RATIONAL discussion feel free to give me a nudge.

It's probably best to stick to our strengths, which in your case is pungent one liners.

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

I do like to see if my beliefs are valid, which is best done through debate.

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.

Quite possibly. It doesn't mean I'd be correct to do so. Or that if I followed the evidence trail it wouldn't lead to Xianity.

[Vicki Q]

@Vicki

My apologies. I meant to reply to your post.

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 Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid some elaboration will b required Vick.  No one is proposing that christian communities with christian beliefs did not exist. That is -not- the mythicist position, or mine....... (directly the oppositie...the mythicist position -requires- christian communities with christian beliefs).

Or....continue to pitch straw, your call.

[Simon Moon]

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.

You mean like: the Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians?

Yeah, because no religion, community, worldview ever started up based on things that never happened. Nope, Never happened...

But your religion, the one you special plead until blue in the face, was actually based on real events...

Well, I'm convinced.

[The Grand Nudger]

IKR?  Which way is east...that's how it's done...isn't it?