Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 06-15-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

we don't know how mary reacted..

Yes we do. She reacted with joy and fear after encountering the angels and hearing the message. I'm not sure why you have this perverse desire to deny the obvious but you've referred to it explicitly as a reaction and consistently treated it as a reaction despite your sometimes careful avoidance of that specific term. You've failed to respond to my repeated requests that explain what her fear and joy are if not reactions to her recent encounter with the angels.

We know how she reacted because the texts you are supposed to be harmonizing tell us.

Quote:

I am asserting that she did not believe the angels though.

Yes and that assertion continues to have no support from the texts you are supposed to be summarizing. There is no doubt of the angels in John. There is no doubt that Jesus is dead. There is only concern about the location of his dead body.

You are inserting the doubt from nowhere but your own mind and it creates an obvious conflict with Mary's joy upon hearing that Jesus was alive. In addition, it isn't supported by any of the texts upon which you are supposed to be relying.

IOW, your effort is a failure until it resolves this point in a plausible manner.

sschlichter · 06-16-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

There is a big difference between missing information and un-necessary information.

As far as inspiration:

Paul explains Scripture is inspired (God-breathed)

2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

Peter includes Paul's writings as scripture.

2 Pe 1:21
for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Pe 3:15
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
2 Pe 3:16
speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

The gospels were not written when Paul wrote to Timothy. Should we take it that he meant his own letters? I'm quite sure he was talking about the Torah and the Prophets here.

I should probably read 2 Peter before answering, but in the first instance Peter appears to be talking about prophecies (from the OT?), and in the second... well, to say that someone is talking according to the wisdom given to him isn't IMO the same as saying he is inspired by God. (Rather, it seems a little derogatory.)

well, I agree with you that Peter could not have known what the NT would look like when finished and therefore cannot say that he is talking about the gospels, but he when referring to Paul's writings he says "as the rest of Scripture". (inclusively referring to Paul's writings).

~Steve

dr lazer blast · 06-16-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Yes we do. She reacted with joy and fear after encountering the angels and hearing the message. I'm not sure why you have this perverse desire to deny the obvious but you've referred to it explicitly as a reaction and consistently treated it as a reaction despite your sometimes careful avoidance of that specific term. You've failed to respond to my repeated requests that explain what her fear and joy are if not reactions to her recent encounter with the angels.

its funny how you contradict yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Yes and that assertion continues to have no support from the texts

lets take a look at scripture to see what supported sha'll we?

Quote:

8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

hmmm only departure, no reaction,

Quote:

8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

hmmm only departure, no reaction.
No mention of how they reacted in either of those verses, or even if they did react, so the very notion of them reacting is not supported by the text.

so if I cannot assert that Mary didn't believe the angels because why amelaq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

that assertion continues to have no support from the texts

but a reaction is not supported by the text either so we cannot assert they even reacted because why amaleq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

that assertion continues to have no support from the texts

yet you are continuing to assert they reacted, and even go as far as saying they reacted a certain way. Using your logic, it seems that we can't even say they reacted at all, much less HOW they reacted and why can't we do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

that assertion continues to have no support from the texts

thanks amigo.

So your criticisms aren't very valid here.

Amaleq13 · 06-16-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

hmmm only departure, no reaction,

Departure with fear and joy or, as in Mark, just fear. Your perverse denials certainly notwithstanding, those clearly are reactions. They are not just random emotions that have no connection to what immediately preceded their description in the story.

Quote:

yet you are continuing to assert they reacted, and even go as far as saying they reacted a certain way.

Yes, as does any honest reading of the texts.

dr lazer blast · 06-16-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Departure with fear and joy or, as in Mark, just fear. Your perverse denials certainly notwithstanding, those clearly are reactions. They are not just random emotions that have no connection to what immediately preceded their description in the story.

wrong you're assuming it's their reactions to the angels, and the text does not support that, the text states they DEPARTED with fear and joy, which is stating the fear and joy was during the departure and nothing else, so if there are reactions (i am saying If for the sake of argument here), one should note that the reactions are based upon the departure.

your contradicting assumptions are just that, assumptions.

WVIncagold · 06-16-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

hmmm only departure, no reaction,

Departure with fear and joy or, as in Mark, just fear. Your perverse denials certainly notwithstanding, those clearly are reactions. They are not just random emotions that have no connection to what immediately preceded their description in the story.

Quote:

yet you are continuing to assert they reacted, and even go as far as saying they reacted a certain way.

Yes, as does any honest reading of the texts.

Amalq13 we cant have an honest reading of the text then it would not fit into the world view of theist cognitive dissonance. I mean they need to continually warp what the Babel does say so that it fits into their narrow view of what is true, but only so long as it corresponds to their Babel idea mind you.
Departure with Fear and Joy sure sound like reactions one would have when faced with the evidence of a zombie.

gregor · 06-16-2008, 11:20 AM

For the love of god, can DLB stop misstating logical fallacies.

Saying your arguments are weak, unpersuasive, and poorly written is not an ad hom.

Keith&Co. · 06-16-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

For the love of god, can DLB stop misstating logical fallacies.

Saying your arguments are weak, unpersuasive, and poorly written is not an ad hom.

He does have a very low threshold for things he will identify as a 'personal attack.' Which seems odd in comparison for how he treats everyone else.

dr lazer blast · 06-16-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

For the love of god, can DLB stop misstating logical fallacies.

Saying your arguments are weak, unpersuasive, and poorly written is not an ad hom.

it is when you aren't addressing the argument.

DLB:2 + 2 = 4

Amaleq13: your arguments are weak, unpersuasive, and poorly written!

that is an ad hom, cuz your not addressing the ponit.

your response is also an example of the intellectual dishonesty on this site, you point out my errors, but not amaleqs arguments from authority, contradictions, and factual errors.

06-16-2008, 03:09 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

[I]2 Pe 1:21
for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Pe 3:15
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
2 Pe 3:16
speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

Mate -
Timothy and 2 Peter are forgeries (*)

Do you think forged documents are good evidence?

Iasion

* pardon me - I should say "pseudographs"

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

06-16-2008, 11:20 AM	#277
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	For the love of god, can DLB stop misstating logical fallacies. Saying your arguments are weak, unpersuasive, and poorly written is not an ad hom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.