Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[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There's not much to like about Mein Kampf, but it is a useful historical document.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.