Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[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.