Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[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.