Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[The Grand Nudger]

Right.  And the parallels to the rise of Christianity typically center around historical figures.  No need to treat the Christians by a special standard, as, er, Christians do.

What parallels, to what?  Be specific.  There's no need for a historical zeus or odin to explain the rise of greek or norse paganism...so what special standard?  

No, actually, I said it didn't matter.  You're left with the same fundamental unresolved issues whether "Mark" or "Paul" created the narrative or received it from someone else (though they claim to have been in some way connected with the people who knew Jesus)

Why would -that- matter?  Pro-tip, it wouldn't.  We don't know who came up with the narratives.  Knowing who came up with them, however, wouldn't make them any more or less historical.  

Right.  So, following the evidence, given that they all presume to have met people who knew Jesus and details of his biography, including his crucifixion, and the time of composition is relatively early, as in a couple of decades rather than a couple of centuries, I see no reason to grant the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus existed in myth at any point before he became, in your view, "Euheremized."

Again, the canon took centuries, not decades.  Many stories were written and told about jesus, not all agree on the details, hence the classification as heretical accounts by the eventual victors in the christian game...and their exclusion from canon.  That the jesus narrative existed before the final canon was codified isn't something that you have to grant, it doesn't require your permission.  It's a fact.  

I've read some of the mythicist literature, but thanks for the summary.  Unfortunately, the two serious scholars who take your view (Price and Carrier) are unconvincing, and quite frankly, write bunk, to say nothing of style.  I'm sorry to see your attempt to follow that line, but without the knowledge or even an argument.

I doubt you've read any of it, because you all keep babbling about shit that isn't in their work - followed by round dismissals of the authors rather than the positions.  The same is happening here, in thread.  Point in fact - you see this summary, and have nothing to say about it.  Just more to say about carrier, price, and myself.  

Jesus, man.  How ignorant are you about the development of Greek myth and the differences between the history of that people, versus those relevant and influencing factors which pervaded Jewish culture, particularly in the first-century; and the appearance of a spontaneous and relatively quick rise of the strain that became recognized as distinctly Christian thought?  How is anyone supposed to take you seriously...?  Your posts are downright painful.

More of the above.  Please, elaborate.  

What's your point here again?

Just trying to inject some substance into the conversation, and explain to you why the constant bullshitting about conspiracies makes absolutely no sense in the mythicist framework, even though you clearly think that's the mythicist position.  The co-conspiritors would have to have lived for hundreds of years.

Again, we know your position.  "Sufficient explanation" means many different things to different people I suppose, as it does to Christians, or mythicists, or scientifically-minded historians.

-yeah, now you know the mythicist position...and just as we saw above..when you have to confront the mythicist position rather than some straw of your own devising you have absolutely nothing to say.

I snipped out the bits where you bitch and moan about red herrings of your own introduction and call me a liar...because what's the point, right, lol? None of that is going to help us figure out whether or not there was a historical jesus.