Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[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.