You think the story of Osiris resembles that of a normal human with a handful of magic bits attached? Dionysus? Inanna?
Can't say I agree with you there.
On the other hand Jesus, Muhammad, Pythagoras, Augustus, etc do resemble normal humans with magic bits attached to them.
Jesus was written about far sooner than the other mythical gods, and seems far closer to a normal human than they are.
This is the problem with trying to shoehorn things into made up categories, it is a highly subjective activity and often distorts more than it enlightens.
You missed the point here. It cannot be used as definitive evidence either way.
It can be used as evidence though, which is what I was doing,
But a good argument can be made that Paul is talking about non-apostolic Christians. Dr Carrier analyzes the Epistles in his book specifically to understand the "brothers" phrase and concludes the simplest hypothesis, with the least ad-hoc assumptions, is that he meant "Christians". Ch 11 The Epistles in OHJ.
And a better argument can be made that Paul and Josephus are referring to an actual brother
That is why Carrier gives the odds at 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.
Which has as much rigour as me saying I put the chances as 90%+
"If what I believe is true and my subjectively assigned probabilities are correct, then…”
I don't understand what you mean. All of the evidence available is used? This is strangely common, people arguing against something they didn't actually research?
You were the one who said it wasn't evidence, you have now clarified that meant it wasn't "definitive" evidence which had already been noted multiple times anyway.
There is no multiple, independent sources.
Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus.
You could not. None of those had these attributes:
You are also missing the point.
Which of those could be explained as a normal human who had some magic bits attached to their life and were written about in near contemporary sources?
The reference class you use matters.
You seem to think that Carrier is simply identifying some objective category that Jesus obviously belongs to and that is the only category that we could legitimately use.
"Dying and rising gods" are not some natural kind, but a contested and subjective category that may or may not be a meaningful one to use.
"Purported humans who were written about in near contemporary sources but have some magical characteristics" is also a category that Jesus could belong to. It is also a less contested and subjective category.
If we choose the first category, we will get a very different probability to the second category.
And that is not to mention the entire question of how meaningful any numerical probability is for a unique event with incomplete data that relies entirely on highly subjective interpretations.
Where does the 3 to one come from? If you are going to act like you are the only person who can actually read Carrier's work, at least try to be accurate.
It is significantly based on using the reference class of "Rank-Raglan hero"
As explained, the applicability of this reference class is highly questionable.
Are you a PhD historian currently applying your degree to a historicity study?
Using a credentialist argument to support a fringe theory is pretty silly.
This is the shortest way to catch up.....
Just taking Carrier’s word for it does save you time no doubt.
Can you provide some evidence? So far everything you have mentioned was not what you believed it to be.
Everything I said is common scholarly opinion, you seem to think Richard Carrier disagreeing with it negates any competing views.
I can go much deeper on any of these points as well.
It's alright, I can read Carrier's books and blog posts myself.
