If you were just neutrally noting some historical context, can you explain the word "but" in your note that "It's an interesting article but very much a legacy of 19th century interpretations that failed to gain traction among most scholars"? And can you explain why you added in the same sentence that this theory isn't accepted by most scholars, if you were just noting some context?
We'll call that a failed attempt to backtrack, shall we? And note that it's just un-Christian pride that compels you to double-down here.
I understand why you appealed to expert consensus and why you cited Ehrman's work on the topic. But what you keep ignoring is that your quotation of Ehrman happened to focus on the simplistic formulation of the Christ myth theory from Kersey Graves, which has nothing to do with my article. So by citing Ehrman as you did, you were effectively strawmanning my article.
Regarding Osiris's resurrection, Carrier spanks Ehrman, as you can read for yourself in the link I provided. Ehrman deals only with Plutarch, whereas there are lots of other statements of the Osiris myth on Egyptian tomb walls.
Moreover, the Egyptian and Christian accounts are similar because in both cases, the resurrected body is glorified and capable of surviving in the heavenly spheres. Jesus's resurrected body is no ordinary flesh-and-blood body. If it were, how could he have ascended to heaven? How could his followers not have recognized him and how could he have disappeared before their eyes like in a magic trick, as in Luke 24 :31? How did the risen Jesus pass through a locked door in John 20:19? Or how to explain Paul's statements that flesh can't inherit the kingdom of God, and that the resurrected body is incorruptible? (See the ink below for Carrier's response to Ehrman.)
I'm not dismissive of history because it's not a science. That would be rank scientism. I'm dismissive of your appeal to the authority and to the consensus of Jesus scholars.
We may indeed all have conflicts of interest, but I wasn't the one who appealed to the consensus of experts, was I? You did that, so the conflict-of-interest objection applies to what you said. Meanwhile, my article lays out lots of evidence without appealing to authority or to popularity.
