Kharakov

Perhaps he enjoys pretending to be oblivious due to the reactions he gets out of you?

Amaleq13

That would be less depressing but I suspect the obliviousness is genuine.

dr lazer blast

its not new considering I said this like around 5 pages back. Also you're incorrect about joy and amazement not being synonmous

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=amazement+and+joy

as that is commonly used all the time.


now you're just skating around the issue, hitting straw men.
refute the way I am interpreting the scripture and the bolded statement.

Sheshbazzar

Ah Ah Ah doc. Yer doing it again. I asked you four specific questions, citing your own words to assure that they are provided in context.
In order again "doc", Question Number One is;
Dr lazer,
We are told that on departure they experienced "fear", omitting the causes that are related in the preceding Biblical narrative, WHY would they be experiencing any "fear" (or "doubt") on their departure?

Be careful in the twisting and squirming, lest you twist off your tail yet again.

Amaleq13

OK, your second equivocation rather than "new".

Try an ancient Greek dictionary for the word.

And the fact that the words, in English, are often used together does not indicate they are interchangeable synonyms.

Now you're using "straw man" incorrectly. Your argument requires doubt and you simply don't have it in the texts. You have fear.

Matthew depicts Mary as joyful after hearing the message from the angels.

John 20:2 depicts Mary solely concerned about the disposition of the dead body of Jesus.

It is implausible for the latter to follow the former.

Your narrative does precisely that.

Your narrative is implausible.

QED :wave:

dr lazer blast

Did I ever say the same words was used? no I didn't I am laying out a time frame just like you. First fear, joy, then lastly fear. You continue to skate around the issue.

Forget the doubt, why do you keep talking about doubt? doubt was removed like 3 pages ago, I said Mary didn't believe what the angels said, not one single part of what the angels said, so I don't know where you're getting doubt from.

dr lazer blast

I guess you missed the part where I said the reason I said that is because I was showing amaleq how his OWN logic was flawed. I was basically using his logic and showing him how it didn't make any sense, meaning his 'stick to the text' logic didn't make sense at all if you really 'stick to the text'

Sheshbazzar

Then we are to understand that your statement;
-does not actually represent your interpretation of the text?
that your statement as written was actully intended to be the stinking pile of crap that it is?

Pardon me when I point out that this about the most bass-akwards and disingenuous form of presenting a sensible argument that could possibly be devised.
Who in the hell is to be expected to follow your reasoning, if you engage in composition of statements that deliberately misrepresent your interpretation of the Biblical narrative?
It is difficult enough to follow some of the abstract and arcane ideas and interpretations being imposed upon these texts, even without the introducing of such queer and duplicitous use of quasi-logic to misrepresent your own actual position.
Are you then conceding that the question presented is unanswerable, solely because that your own statement was intentionally fallacious?

Sheshbazzar

Reviewing this discourse "dr", what about this? there is certainly nothing obvious in your above reply that would indicate that you are intending the employment of some sort of reverse-logic on Amaleq.
The sense of it is that Amaleq is wrongly "assuming things", and that YOUR position is;
Reading your statement clearly presents you in opposition to Amaleq's "plain reading" of the text, (as is also clear by a review of the foregoing posts)

with YOUR opposition being;
Nothing present or preceeding indicates that this statement was ever originally intended as a ploy to illustrate Amaleq's (allegedly) flawed logic.
To all appearances it presents YOUR OWN opposing position, one which you now are attempting to to abandon by the ruse of inventing contrived ad-hoc explanations.
More contrived apologetics to cover up for faulty apologetics, figures.

dr lazer blast

your post and the one underneath it show that you have no idea why I wrote what I wrote. If you actually followed the thread, you would see where I constantly wrote to amaleq "if we follow your logic, then we should come to this conclusion (said conclusion being a fallacious one)" there were even posts wehre I took what he said and showed how he was being fallacious. Considering the fact that you're just jumping in the middle of the conversation with no prior knowledge of the discussion between amaleq and I, I'd say your criticisms have no bearing whatsoever, also the very fact that you are using a red herring fallacy and not talking about narrative or critcizing it in any way shape or form(you're just critcizing an off tangent display of amaleq's logic) I'd say you fall into the category of "If you're not going to criticize my narrative, either PM me,set a thread or wait for this challenge to be over, and I'll address your off topic questions"

So unless you want to criticize my narrative, I suggest you either PM me, make a new thread, or wait.