rahrens

And what part of my noting three different scenarios, one of which was yours, denies anything about an appearance of miracles? I've done no such thing, merely noted that there is another explanation different from yours.

Again, you seem to be determined that your scenario is the only one left standing!

If I can quote myself:

That is an admission that your scenario is valid. I've never claimed that it wasn't, just that mine is just as valid, given different assumptions.

I never said we didn't need to remove anything having to do with popularity, plenty of itinerant preachers have been popular without miracles! And of course, his theology isn't a miracle, so why would I remove that? Come on get real, you're making just as many assumptions about my scenario as you say I've made about yours. Clearly, even if no miracles occurred, and the initial stories contained little of such, a relatively new theology coupled with a charismatic speaker is enough to get him noticed enough to begin to be the kernel of a mythology that would contain miracles to support the theology to future adherents. No conflicts there at all.

But my scenario does put in doubt the necessity of Roman action, as there is at least some corroborating evidence that the Jewish community DID have the ability to use the punishment of stoning against those who violated religious law, which puts into doubt the assertion in the Gospels that Herod had to refer Jesus to Pilate because only the Romans could put a man to death. Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned for adultery, and if I remember correctly, Josephus mentioned that James was stoned to death? I don't recall that passage mentioning a Roman trial.

Now, can you see your way to understanding what I've been saying about mine? (Which is not an exclusion of yours, just different.)

We really don't need to be talking in circles, you know.

Transient

You could have said all of that in about a quarter of the words and without all the abuse mate - it is not appreciated at all.
So now you have finally answered my queries.
That your scenario includes:
1 Jesus was deluded (what the hell is wrong with that word mate?) into thinking he was actually performing miracles - he was innocent in that he did not seek to pretend or lie about them.
2 His followers were the same - they fully believed that thier leader was performing real resurrections and healings etc.
3 The witnesses of the miracles were convinced that real miracles had occurred.
4 The authors of the gospels were the same - they fully believed in the truth of what they were writing.

Does that accurately portray what you think happened?
Just answer without all the abuse if it is possible for you.

Amaleq13

I never said it did. I simply showed how one possible scenario denies the claim.

I've never suggested there wasn't. I've just denied one claim with one possible scenario.

I have no idea where you got that idea. I have never argued it nor suggested it. I have argued against one particular point by presenting a "scenario" that denies it.

You and Transient been trying to turn my point into an argument for the only possible scenario but that remains a straw man with no actual connection to my posts. :banghead:

And I never said you did. Please reread my posts without your preconceptions and simply take the words at their face value.

That's what it would take to destroy the logic of the outcome of the story.

I've never been confused about your argument except why you think it has anything to do with my posts.

I'm just standing here watching you circle me without actually making contact with my posts and, apparently, not really having any good reason to do so since you don't actually disagree with my point. :huh:

Amaleq13

If you had been paying attention the first time, I wouldn't have had to use any additional words at all. You earned any "abuse" you think you obtained, amigo. Avoid attributing straw men to me, ignoring questions while falsely complaining that your own haven't been answered, and show some indication that you've actually read my posts and you'll be heading in the right direction.

Finally? Your inability to comprehend or ask for clarification of the answers already given to you does not become me dragging my feet.

Did you not read or just not understand the explanation you have already been given?

No. :banghead:

That describes the scenario I offered to counter the notion that, without real magic, the outcome makes no sense.

Do you truly not understand the difference?

Stop bitching and actually read my posts. Or reread them. Whatever. Either way, you obviously did not get my point from the outset and never bothered to check despite repeated warnings that you were clearly off-track.

Transient

Ok you are obviously quite a jerk mate - I will let you wallow in your abusive muck - have a nice day.
I will ignore your posts in future.

rahrens

Ok, this is ridiculous, your points are getting less and less attached to the reality of what we've been talking about, and you are now asserting stuff that makes no sense, given what we have both posted.

I think now that you've managed to do this to TWO posters should give you a clue that your arguments are just here to do only that - argue - and not to have any kind of a sensible discussion of anything. In addition, your insulting tone hasn't helped either.

So I'm going to stop now, too, because I'm just wasting electrons trying to get you to understand me at all.:banghead:

Joan of Bark if you've been trying to follow this, let Transient and I know which of these scenarios you think are what you were talking about, and we can go on from there.

IF Toto doesn't split this virtual hijack off into a dead thread somewhere else.

Amaleq13

As far as I can tell from your responses, you've yet to read any of my posts in this discussion so that doesn't represent any sort of change.

This should be a clue to you that, as I have tried to point out repeatedly, the discussion you seem to think we're having has nothing whatsoever to do with my actual point. :banghead:

Neither of you have actually responded to the content of my posts as they were written and both of you want to blame this on me. You both apparently misinterpreted my posts from the outset and continued to misinterpret them after my repeated attempts to point it out. :huh:

Throughout this entire "sub-discussion", I have been consistently trying to do only one thing and that is trying to explain why the magic doesn't have to be real in order for the story to work.

I have never suggested this was "the" correct way to understand the story and have never suggested this was "what really happened". Yet both of you somehow concluded that I did. :banghead:

Again, your failure to read my posts for what they actually say rather than what you expected them to say or assumed them to mean is not my mistake.

My point has always been that the magic need not be assumed real in order for the story to work. If that hasn't been a claim you support, my posts are irrelevant to you. Sheshbazzar and Joan appear to have had little difficulty understanding my point so that, too, counts against this being a problem on my end. rahrens now seems to have grasped this point though apparently not that it has been my entire point the whole time. I have no reason to think Transient has ever been interested in understanding anything except the argument he was expecting.

Continue on your deluded way but you both really need to slow down and actually read posts before your respond to them. They don't always say what you expect them to say and responding to them as though they do can only result in the confusion we've seen. :wave:

rahrens

Crap. I have responded to your posts point by point, and you have repeatedly misinterpreted my points and accused me of doing that to yours.

More BS. Again, I have responded to your posts time and time again, and have suffered through your repeated misunderstanding of mine.

As I have repeatedly tried to explain why MY scenario is one that depends on TOTALLY DIFFERENT assumptions than yours, but you insisted that I was denying your points.

Another broad miss-statement, as I showed in one of my recent posts, I NEVER accused you of saying either of these things, but was trying to push my own scenario.

Pot, kettle, black! Your own posts show that you have misread mine at least as much as you accuse me of doing to yours, hence my repeated remarks about our "talking in circles"! Or did you miss that part of my posts?

Actually, I haven't seen Joan participate in our little sidebar, so you can't really make that point stick.

"Deluded way"?? More personal attacks, which have no place here. I have made no such remarks about you or your reading, debating or writing techniques, so this is simply uncalled for.

Did you ever think that maybe I didn't "get" your point at the beginning because it wasn't clear? That is the point of repeated rounds of discussion, to clear up misunderstandings, and not to accumulate "points" against one's "opponent". I wasn't aware that this was a contest, but supposedly a discussion, and I get misunderstood and attacked.

I thought that this was a serious discussion, but I guess I was mistaken.

Ben C Smith

I just read your discussion with Amaleq13 from the point at which I think it started, and I think you are just plain missing the point. For you, as late as post #132 of this thread, to ask whether a list of events accurately portrays what Amaleq13 thinks happened betrays an inability to cope with hypotheticals.

It also seemed to me that Joan of Bark was being reasonably clear.

Ben.

Amaleq13

If you reread the exchanges, you will find that, of the two of us, I'm the one who is correct.

I provided the answer to your initial question in here and you responded to that answer as though it didn't exist by essentially asking the same damn question!

Your question quite obviously does not remain after it has been answered. :banghead:

You responded again and again with clearly confused posts that were obviously missing the point and focusing on a straw man. I tried to point that out repeatedly but you just ignored the warnings and kept right on plugging away. The specific straw man you refused to abandon is the notion that Joan was suggesting all the miracles have to be removed from the story. I even linked to her post in which she explicitly includes the idea of "other explanations" (ie naturalistic) for some miracles.

Then you incorrectly claimed I had created a false dichotomy and attributed ridiculous assumptions to me about the story being true or believed to be true which had nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

Only until very recently did you show any sign of actually comprehending my point and it turns out you apparently don't disagree with it!!

Sweet fucking Jesus on a bicycle, man! Reread the exchange. It is all there in black and white. There were warning flags all over the place and you just kept the peddle to the metal. Then you blame the crash on me! Ridiculous.

No, I insisted you were missing my point because you quite clearly were. You had misunderstood Joan and refused accept the correction. It is as simple as that.

While it is true that the word and phrase in quotes connect more directly to Transient, I guess you just forgot that you made the following accusation:
Broad miss-statement? Not hardly. I strongly encourage you to reread the exchanges before you stick your other foot in your mouth.

Neither assumption is something I accept and neither is necessary for my point. Straw man. Missing the point. More of the same confusion.

I was thinking specifically of the post in which I was thanked (along with yourself) for trying to get the thread back on track. That would be rather stupid of her if she didn't understand my point. You are running out of feet and mouth room, amigo.

But I note that you skipped over the more directly supporting example of Sheshbazzar who quite clearly had no trouble following my point. And now you can throw in Ben who, even coming to the party late, has no problem understanding what I've been trying to explain to you.

I know of no other way to describe such bizarre behavior. It is perverse in the extreme but, to give due credit, you are certainly not the worst of the two. You've made some effort to comprehend.

That is when you ask for clarification rather than continue on with your faulty assumptions and misguided argument. That is how a "serious discussion" takes place.