Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[The Grand Nudger]

This is falling apart, lol.

[Arkilogue]

This is falling apart, lol.

And that is the cause of Hero Savior.

[Minimalist]

By your narrow definition.... very little is magic.

You catch on very slowly.  What part of "nothing is magic" is giving you the most trouble?

[Minimalist]

This is falling apart, lol.

You're right.  Carrier wrote a parody of the jesus bullshit story with a guy writing letters about a guy he never met and how later on 4 other assholes wrote a bunch of shit about him and how no one with a brain would accept that as evidence of Hero Savior of Vietnam but millions of jesus freaks can't get enough of it!

Says much about jesus freaks and their inability to discern fact from fiction.

[Minimalist]

On Page 514 of On The Historicity of Jesus Carrier quotes this:

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . . . It [seems] impossible
to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus. 3

Let's see if we can drag the discussion back to the paucity of evidence for the godboy, shall we?

[RoadRunner79]

On Page 514 of On The Historicity of Jesus Carrier quotes this:

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . . . It [seems] impossible
to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus. 3

Let's see if we can drag the discussion back to the paucity of evidence for the godboy, shall we?

Imagine someone who calls themselves a scholarly historian, and in over 500 pages, this is the highlight that is brought forth from his writing. It's a myth, because Paul didn't report the color of his eyes. Good stuff!

So far, we have two stories from this author, neither of which deals with history, but instead makes up a story and seems to think that is history.... I'm starting to think mythicists is a self description.

[Minimalist]

You could try reading the book but then...you might scare yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

On Page 514 of On The Historicity of Jesus Carrier quotes this:



Let's see if we can drag the discussion back to the paucity of evidence for the godboy, shall we?

Imagine someone who calls themselves a scholarly historian, and in over 500 pages, this is the highlight that is brought forth from his writing.  It's a myth, because Paul didn't report the color of his eyes.

-or anything else.  Jesus is a man with no face, and a man with no mannerisms.

[robvalue]

Adults saying you can't prove there isn't magic again?

Historical Jesus has nothing to do with magic, whatever ludicrous definition you use for it.

The mythicist position has nothing to do with refuting a magical man. Simple everyday scepticism should take care of that before you even start. And it's an opinion, ultimately. An evaluation of evidence, or lack thereof. You can say you disagree with an opinion, and you can say why, but you can't simply say an opinion is wrong. People's opinion are indeed their opinion, regardless of their truth. It's up to each person to make their case, where the actual truth is unknown.

If your opinion is that a HJ is supported in any meaningful way, I'd say I disagree; I wouldn't just say you're wrong. I'd say your opinion is not supported adequately by decent evidence, in my opinion. If you say a magical man is supported by evidence, I'd say you're incapable of applying basic scepticism consistently, but again I wouldn't say you're wrong. What you consider evidence is up to you.

I've already defined the mythicist position, but seeing as it's being strawmanned so painfully I'll repeat it:

Mythicism is the lack of belief that there is sufficient evidence to support a single, distinct historical figure upon which the stories have been based. If you lower the criteria so as to make the available evidence fit, you tend to most likely include hundreds of other people in your net, in my opinion. If there is a true HJ, the evidence does not support it. That's the position, as I see it.

[RoadRunner79]

Imagine someone who calls themselves a scholarly historian, and in over 500 pages, this is the highlight that is brought forth from his writing.  It's a myth, because Paul didn't report the color of his eyes.

-or anything else.  Jesus is a man with no face, and a man with no mannerisms.

And we have how many pages of "discussion" now, and I don't even know the color of the dust jacket on Carrier' supposed book, nor a description of Carrier; they must not exist must not exist!

There are a number of things wrong with this reasoning.... we can discuss them, but I would think there would be better arguments to focus on.