My blog

[robvalue]

Who knows? I understand the desire to analyse motives, but really I find assuming something is possibly real because a fake would have been written differently isn't positive evidence. They may have had all kinds of quirky reasons for how they wrote it that are lost to us, and to me it makes it no less fictional.

I see, if you're not going by documents, what are you going by? What other evidence is there? A myth of Christ would have been just as good as a real story as far as people who believed it were concerned, they had no way to tell the difference after his death.

Watchamadoodle: Thanks very much for those passages, I'll check those out. I was wondering if the crucifixion was maybe the easiest to try and pin down. But say it's true, this gives us one event at best. And we have no way of knowing if this was the "same guy" the story was originally based on. Interesting though, I'll look into it cheers. Yeah, if there's a lack of non-christian evidence like for the baptism, I think that's safely ignored as BS. Or rather, there's no good reason to think it happened.

Carrier makes a lot of arguments about how the style of the text is mythical, as in, that was how people wrote myths rather than history.