Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-23-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That point, since you have apparently missed it each time it has been repeated, is that the inclusion of obviously fictional elements or the obvious use of older, familiar stories to describe more recent events/people was not an indication in ancient that the entire story was fiction. We know this because authors who were explicitly claiming to relate actual events and describe actual people engaged in those same practices.

Maybe.

That's the point. When one's alleged indication only provides a "maybe", it isn't much of an indication, is it?

Amaleq13 · 01-23-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Nonsense,

Whether you are aware of it or not, nothing that followed this assertion actually served to support it. You offered nothing that argues with the substance or logic of my statement.

Quote:

Why shouldn't we believe that both Mark and Apuleius are telling us that their works are fiction by including the fantastic in their stories.

You shouldn't assume it for the reason already given. That the alleged indication is used in an apparent work of fiction is wholly irrelevant to and does nothing to address the obvious flaw that has been identified.

Quote:

Regarding the obvious use of older, familiar stories, Mark is not copying ancient stories.

Nobody said he was. But what Mark did do was compared to similar efforts by other ancient authors who claimed to be describing actual events and people.

Quote:

It is also possible that when his original audience asked Mark if it was fiction or history, then he said "it was fiction of course". We will never know.

Yes, "maybe". That is my point with regard to the assertion in question. The alleged indication of fiction simply is not a reliable indication. You don't get beyond "maybe" with it.

aa5874 · 01-23-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

It is also possible that when his original audience asked Mark if it was fiction or history, then he said "it was fiction of course". We will never know.

And further, it is of little consequence whether the audience knew or believed the author of Mark wrote fiction or whether the readers or hearers asked him if he wrote fiction.

The gospel of Mark ,as we have it today, is a compilation of many fictitious and implausible events with respect to Jesus, therefore anyone can reasonably infer that the whole of gMark is fictitious with respect to Jesus since such inference cannot be contradicted whatsoever by extant evidence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.