Amaleq13

A false dichotomy requires that someone claims there are only two possible answers. I have not done that. As I already tried to explain to you, I'm simply pointing out that one does not, contrary to your claim, have to assume the magic is real for the story to make sense.

Yes and I've never made any such assertion so you accusation continues to have no basis in reality. :huh:

Amaleq13

Yes, when one speaks of "naturalistic explanations", those are the primary target because they are the most easily explained in such a way.

Within the context of naturalistic explanations?

I would suggest the following:

1. None were actually dead or the stories are exaggerations from perceived healings

2. Deliberate deception or fabrication

3. Exaggeration or fabrication

I'm just pointing out that it is a possibility and one consistent with naturalistic explanations and one that does not, contrary to the assertion, require radical alteration to the basic story.

Along with not paying attention to what I've already said to you with regard to any deliberate deception, you don't appear to have bothered to read the linked article by Carrier. Afraid to learn something new that might contradict your current thinking?

For the last time, I am not suggesting that anyone was being deliberately deceptive. Please make an effort to wrap your head around that rather simple concept so you can stop wasting time complaining about straw men.

In order to deny the notion that one must assume the miracles were real for the story to make sense, that is clearly not necessary.

Transient

Well I have not heard of that scenario before:
No-one is deliberately deceptive?
So the story writer believed everything he was writing.
"Jesus" was deluded into thinking he was actually performing incredible miracles?
His closest followers also thought he was?
All the people who witnessed the miracles also thought they were real?

Wow - I think it would be easier to believe he was actually god on earth mate.
This is a funny and strange world indeed.
I would find it almost impossible to believe in your scenario.

Amaleq13

Why do you want to suddenly change the topic from the coherency of the story without true miracles to whether the author believed everything he wrote really happened?

How could you get that conclusion from my inclusion of the possibility of completely fictional scenes?

I'm getting the strong impression that you have been trying to have a different discussion with me than I that in which I am actually engaged.

That would certainly help explain your confusion.

Yes, I think some alleged faith healers (even today) genuinely believe in their own abilities and there is no question whether this makes for the most convincing performance and the most devout followers.

Yes, and it is the one in which you live whether you recognize it or not. Still haven't read Carrier's article, eh?

You might also want to avoid reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things (or via: amazon.co.uk) so that you can retain your overestimation of the rationality and underestimation of the credulity of your fellow humans. :banghead:

If I thought you knew anything about the way folks thought at the time or had even a vague awareness of the general credulity of humans, this comment might be meaningful. As it stands, I don't so it isn't.

rahrens

You don't have to make a blatant, open statement to have asserted something, you have argued that my scenario is wrong, therefor, you are asserting that the first two scenarios I listed are what is left, or that is what can be assumed from your posts.

I have not denied that your scenario is not possible, but placed another possible scenario in play here to note that the scenario as suggested by the OP is not logical, and my initial question:

...still requires an answer.

You have noted that your scenario allows the original charge as noted in the original text is still possible, and I didn't deny that, but have simply placed a different scenario into play, that requires an explanation of why Jesus would have been arrested by the Romans at all, much less crucified.

We seem to be talking around each other at this point.

Transient

Didn't really answer my questions and so you still refuse to state exactly what you think happened making it impossible to consider the OP's queries.
Dodging and weaving gets tiring to watch.

Amaleq13

I've argued against the notion that the story makes no sense unless the magic was real. If that is your "scenario", then your scenario is wrong on that point and I've shown why.

This is a non sequitur rather than a "therefor". Simple recognition of the flaw in the above "scenario" requires no other scenario to be accepted.

By "different scenario" do you mean removing even the appearance of performing miracles? I think I've made it clear that his fame is central to the story. Only if you remove every basis for the fame, can you remove the resulting basis for the execution. We've got at least one line in the Gospels indicating that the "doctrine" Jesus taught was becoming popular so I would think you'll need to remove the teaching as well.

No popular doctrine and no apparent miracles? No popularity and no threat and no need for a conspiracy so no execution.

Please note that none of the above requires a specific opposing position nor implies a particular position must be assumed.

Amaleq13

As far as I can see, I addressed all of your questions.

Which answer don't you understand?

I "still refuse"? That's simply bullshit. After trying to obtain comprehension of my point, I tried to be as simple as possible in describing "my scenario" here and you responded with nothing but an argument from personal ignorance. I have suggested you are insufficiently informed on the subject of ancient credulity but you apparently prefer to continue asking confused questions rather than make some effort to learn something. :banghead:

The scenario I offered to counter the flawed notion about the necessity of real miracles is not "what [I] think happened" nor have I ever suggested that it might be. Please stop attributing straw man positions to me and simply read what I write.

Try to grasp the difference between whether the story works without certain elements and claiming "what really happened".

So are plainly false accusations, straw men and apparently willful ignorance. Get back to me when you have something other than that. :wave:

Transient

Blimey mate you must be attached to your pet theory to get so abusive.

You said that no-one was being deliberately deceptive.
So I said:
"No-one is deliberately deceptive?
So the story writer believed everything he was writing.
"Jesus" was deluded into thinking he was actually performing incredible miracles?
His closest followers also thought he was?
All the people who witnessed the miracles also thought they were real?"

So I have been trying to understand your scenario - quite difficult - like pulling teeth.
So your scenario is that it is all an innocent mistake?
Jesus thought he was doing miracles but was deluded?
The people who witnessed the miracles were mistaken?
His closest followers were also deluded?

I cannot state it more clearly than that mate - if you cannot answer these things directly but must resort to other stuff then I will leave you to your pet hobbyhorse.

Amaleq13

:banghead:

It is not my "pet theory" and has never been presented as such. That you think it is suggests I am correct that you haven't really been paying attention. I've been trying to explain why the miracles need not be real for the story to work while you have apparently been trying to get me to defend some particular position.

Second, yes, I tend to get tired of willful ignorance and an apparent disregard or lack of actual thought about what I have written, straw men, and false accusations. You earned your response, amigo. Sadly, you do not appear to have learned from your earlier mistakes.

I addressed these questions here and provided you with resources to reduce your ignorance. Again, which answer do you not understand?

Asking the same questions suggests you either didn't understand or didn't read the answers. If the latter, read them. If the former, you might try asking different questions that have not already been answered so that you might make some progress toward comprehension.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Innocent mistake by whom?

The word "deluded" seems loaded to me with an implication of deliberate deception so try something more neutral like:

Jesus, like many of his time, believed he was capable of miraculous powers.
People who witnessed his demonstrations were, like many of his time, believed such powers were real and that some special people had them.
His closest followers were simply the first of these people.

I certainly hope you can do a better job of explaining what confuses you because you haven't so far. As I already indicated, you appear to be relying on an argument from personal ignorance. Also as I already indicated, you appear to be uninterested in reducing that ignorance. I also continue to suspect that you are more interested in fitting me into some preconceived box for "opponent" than in just reading what I've written (e.g. "what you think happened" and "pet theory").

You might also consider answering my questions as a way of increasing your understanding. At the very least, it will reduce the appearance of hypocrisy on your part.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, I've already given you an explanation but I cannot give you understanding.