Magus55

I see. So you can make the assertion that Jesus is different things in each book, with nothing to back it up, but I can't? Nice double standard.

ex-xian

This is a non-answer. Either you can provide evidence for your claim or you can't. Why don't you go ahead and provide the evidence just to show that you're a better scholar than he is?

diana

And Magus scores!

He's quite right.

(Y'all make an interesting point about Paul's persecution of Christians, btw.)

And Stephen...I don't get your meaning. You want me to decide whether I believe 2 or 3 is the absolute truth? Huh?

Why would I care which it is? It is enough for me that I'm satisfied, barring the appearance of actual evidence that would require me to rethink my position, that is isn't #1. (Or was that your sarcastic point?)

d

diana

Not fair, sir. The first positive claim was made by Ameleq13. All he has to do to "win" this argument is to produce examples of each. Turning the tables to force Magus to produce every verse in which Jesus is ever mentioned and prove that they all are talking about a god-man simply because he disagreed with NOGO's assertion is foul play*.

d

*As well as quite impossible. The biblical claim and assumption is that Jesus was a god-man. Every verse won't explicitly state this. To settle this disagreement, it is imperative that NOGO deliver the verses that he believes are inconsistent with this assumption, and explain why.

To force Magus to prove all the verses are talking about a god-man is like trying to prove your mother's husband is really your dad by referencing every mention of him. She won't keep restating it. The assumption is implicit. The way to argue the assumption is to find something that indicates it ain't so.

[Edited because all the world's a stage and I had the players mixed up. Also to add some clarifying muddy water to the mix.]

Bob K

Magus55 v. NOGO v Amaleq13:

Here is the sequence of quotes:

NOGO:Magus55:Amaleq13:Magus55:General Principle of Discourse: He who asserts must prove.

Restated: If you say it, you prove it.

Amaleq13 is addressing Magus55, which is his right, since he is interested in evidence which supports Magus55's assertion.

Magus55 is implying that Amaleq13 made up "the assertion that Jesus is different things in each book, with nothing to back it up" which is incorrect because NOGO made the original assertion "Different books of the New Testament speak of different kinds of Jesus Christs."

Magus55 has not yet shown any interest in evidence which supports NOGO's assertion "Different books of the New Testament speak of different kinds of Jesus Christs."

Magus55's statement ...... becomes useless whining & sniveling when the real issue herein is presenting evidence which supports an assertion.

NOGO: Can you provide us with evidence which supports your assertion "Different books of the New Testament speak of different kinds of Jesus Christs"?

Magus55: Can you provide us with evidence which supports your assertion "[Jesus] is a man and God in every book"?

ex-xian

Um. You might want tor reread the posts. All magus or ameleq would have to do is provide one selection of verses from each book, not show that every about jesus points or way or the other.

And I didn't say that ameleq shouldn't have to prove his claim. Magus55's statement of "you first" is a tu quoqua, and therefore an illegitmate form of argumentation.

diana

Ah yes. Right you are. I missed that (obviously) .

Thanks for the correction.

I still think NOGO needs to be front and center. But I acknowledge that the request made of Magus is reasonable.

d

[Now that I've been proven wrong, I'll slink into retirement in abject shame. Right. Y'all couldn't be that lucky. ]

Amaleq13

Bob K,


Thank you for clarifying exactly who said what to whom and in what order.


diana,


You are required by article 17.773 paragraph 2 to immediately revoke the point or points that were clearly prematurely given to Magus55 or suffer the horrible fate of having your point-giving powers removed!!

diana

I'm sorry, but that rule was altered with the acceptance of the Southampton Decision of 1984, which states, in part, that premature points may be suspended pending the outcome of the round. And it was a much-needed change, which allowed Hollingsworth to reign unmatched for three straight seasons, as well as drastically reducing the amount of paperwork necessary for all involved.

(I'll take a long vertical to Clappem Commons.)

d

Amaleq13

diana,


The Southhampton Decision was the work of the Illuminati and Hollingsworth was the Grand Poohba.

More relevantly but distinctly less amusing, should the upcoming knockdown drag-out battle royale be given its own thread or do you mind having yours sullied?




Oh, how many times (before entering the bliss of matrimony, of course) have I asked a woman that last bit...