(December 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(December 20, 2014 at 11:33 am)Brucer Wrote: I find this statement to be an inaccurate portrayal of my position, as I clearly stated my position in a previous post, and you either missed it, or chose to ignore it.
Nonetheless, here it is again:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-30305-p...#pid823721
Hopefully you will keep that in mind as this discussion continues, so that we can avoid unnecessary ad hominems in an effort to keep this discussion civilized.
I read it. I'm simply not impressed by it...or you.
Aslan or Ehrmann make the same claims. They look over the story and subtract what is inconvenient for them. It's called the Sharpshooter Fallacy, you can look that up too.
The entire Mythicist argument does a far better job of employing the Sharp Shooter fallacy than Aslan or Ehrmann could ever hope to achieve.
Most mythicists that I encounter are more denialists than true skeptics. Their arguments are so illogical and improbable as to defy reason to such an extreme as to be nothing short of absurd, in my opinion.
Quote:We have ONE story of your boy: The so-called gospel of mark. Everything else is derived from it by other authors who added in various claims and miracles to impress the dolts....successfully, I might add.
That is one view held by many, other views vary.
Quote:So which parts of the story are you willing to sacrifice to your modern sense of "historicity." Remember that whatever you come up with - except the resurrection which was not in the original 'mark' - will not be backed up by the only evidence you claim to have.
It's not so much about what I am willing to sacrifice as much as it is about what I am willing to accept.
