Sheshbazzar

Really? Post #191 was it? are you sure of that?
Anyway, are you intending to make the claim that in all of your dozens of posts that have came after that statement, you were continuing to use Amaleq's logic, and never presented a thought or an opinion of your own?

(hint; You really ought to take time and go back and read post #191)
Hey doc, you are the one claiming to be employing Amaleq's faulty logic, getting your rocks off by costuming your arguments in the garb of another man's garments.
Sorry to break the news to you, but you really are not Amaleq, and you really come off looking silly parading around in his cloths, pretending that your semi-insane ideas really originate with him. Yep, a foolish masquerade.


Then it appears that you suffer from a serious case of myopia, and are having some real difficulties with reading comprehension.

aChristian

I would have to agree with this point. If Amaleq is arguing that their emotions could not have been mixed or changed at all in any way over the entire time described in the accounts, I think the absurdity in his position is obvious. Again, although I am not sure that I totally agree with this interpretation, I think anyone would have to admit that it is at least plausible.

dr lazer blast

hey thanks that's exactly what i was refering to when amaleq started using his appeals to authority, that although people might not agree with the interpretation (which is fine), it is plausible.

dr lazer blast

excuse me, post 273.

the only claim I am making is that you are irrecoverably wrong, in this statement,
and in this statement.
Like I said, you asserted that you read the thread since page 6, and that your observations will stand the test of investigation????

Looks like you failed your own test :rolling:

Because in post #273 (I was wrong when I said post #191, I meant post #273 which is what I initially said here )

you will see where I istated I was using amaleqs logic, which refutes your assertion here.

Like I said, you have no argument.



Nice strawman. I was employing amaleqs faulty logic to prove a point simple as that. Now, I ask you nicely to stick to the point and criticize the narrative, because you've come to a dead end.

I repeat
I am still looking for criticisms on my narrative and I am still looking for a response from amaleq regarding my post calling for him to directly respond to the bolded text in post #353

Sheshbazzar

While it is not at all surprising that comments supportive and complementary of my (and Amaleq's and others) position were posted, This "show of hands" poll did not, and does not solicit nor require any such statements of support for my (our) position.
The "vote of confidence" Yea or Nay is -only- concerned with the persuasiveness of dr lazer blast arguments. "Nay" votes here are not in themselves support for my or Amaleq's particular positions or arguments, indeed it is quite possible that one could thoroughly disagree with our arguments and positions, and also be totally "unpersuaded" of the soundness of DLB's arguments, thus a "Nay" vote only indicates one has not been persuaded by him. [Of course that has been part of the problem, because one can never be certain of where or when he is speaking his own mind in these posts, or is instead attempting to argue his points from his claimed quasi-Amaleq logical position]
Just to clarify and give a snapshot synopsis of this, take a look at post #275 in this thread.
On reading this would appear to be a straight-forward exchange of opposing ideas and of clearly opposing positions........
Go ahead, read it carefully, draw from it what you think is doc lazer's position.
Do you make sense of HIS argument and position as it is stated in his reply? (no, one not need write out replies to these questions)

Does what dr lazer states here make any sense?
"they DEPARTED with fear and joy.......the reactions are based upon the departure" (that is, their "fear and joy" had NO connection to anything they had seen or heard from the angels at the tomb in the preceding narrative, DEPARTURE alone being the independent, and sole source for their "fear and joy" ?????? obviously, something is fishy here, and it led to a long string of posts that further clarified that these were the opponents actual positions.

Beginning at post #308 I asked DLB this question;
This question was repeated in post #345, and yet again in post #354 in the face of an increasing frenzy of hostility from dr lazer.

Finally, in post #357 after dodging the issue of his logic for 49 posts, though still able to wrangle on and on about their fear, joy, doubt, amazement, (of course still sticking to it that this "fear, joy, doubt, amazement- was only a response to the fact of their departure and had nothing to do with the events they heard and saw at the tomb)
He come up with THIS............explanation?????
Now look back to post #275 where he had seemingly so clearly stated his own views in opposition to Amaleq's views.......and continued that line of argument for pages, but now, this really wasn't his view???? and he was really only "using his (Amaleq's) logic"????
And that therefore, nothing that he had written was intended to be taken as his real position?????
(One might wonder, just where did he stop "using his (Amaleq's) logic"???? IS he still using it in these posts???? who knows? how can we tell? he may tell us that he's not........but who knows what he will say latter about anything that he says now?
Of course theists will understand that ONE knows the end of all these matters, ONE whom will require of men an account for every idle word.
doc's posts here have been no credit to religion, neither his own nor of others.

Of course the dispute has went forward from there.

If you want to join in with support for his lunatic fringe biblical interpretation, fine.
But you have been forewarned that nothing he states can be regarded as being trustworthy, because he might, at any time, actually be speaking as one of his distorted versions of someone else's logic.


Yes, you are obviously not well read in these subjects, and very evidently not in the Bible, nor the Patraistic writings either (if you were, you would be well aware of the discrepancies that are and always have been, present in the narratives, and which have been topics of discussion amongst your fellow Christians from the beginning.
Honest Christians never felt compelled to force every single sentence and statement of Scripture into some ersatz fully "harmonised" account.
Only the rise of Fundamentalism in the 20th century has taken this tact, arising out of ignorantly proclaiming their KJ Version of The Bible to be God's inerrant and infallible word. In so doing resorting to ever increasingly contrived, convoluted, and grotesque arguments, interpretations, and interpolations that earlier Christians never even heard of, and would reject if they had.

Sheshbazzar

So you have said, but I guess what most of us would like to know at this juncture, is are you still employing someone else's faulty logic?
When did you stop? you continued on the same lines of argument for dozens of posts, page after page, but when did you stop?
Will you again claim latter, that whatever your reply here might be, you were just employing someone else's logic?
Sorry doc, but you just don't come across any longer as being very convincing.

Sheshbazzar

You have a video feed for watching and recording everything that I have read on here for the last two weeks????

That I disagree with, or perhaps may have even misunderstood certain contents of this thread, does not support your conclusion that I have not read all of it from the beginning.
Thus your charge that I am "irrecoverably wrong, in this statement" has no basis at all in fact.

-Although I'm not certain of it, it is possible that IIDB tracks our viewing as well as our postings- there may in fact be an actual record of every page that I have brought up on my computer, it will (or would) account for my viewing of every single page of this thread, many of them multiple times.
And while that may not be evidence that I actually read it all, the presumption in a Court of Law, would be, that if I brought them up, that I had read them.
(I could provide more evidence of this Legal finding, if you wish to dispute it, as it comes up in Court cases all the time)

I have never made any such assertion.

I would love to move along to the criticism of your narrative.
The only thing preventing that is knowing whether you are going to be YOU, in your arguments, or whether it will be just another round of your attempts to argue your positions under a guise of writing from someone else's faulty viewpoints and thus perverting both their actual viewpoints, while also disguising and misrepresenting your own views.
No doubt, this is also why Amaleq is no longer engaging or answering you.

Amaleq13

Sorry for the delay in posting, folks, I was doing some backcountry camping in Denali N.P. Also, thanks for the kudos but, to be honest, I consider my inability to walk away from this nonsense to be a personality flaw.

A review of my posting history will reveal that I have had no problem obtaining substantial opposition to my arguments from my fellow atheists so it is simply untrue that blind acceptance is a given.

I'm not skating around anything. I'm just trying to make sense out of your repeated mischaracterizations of my argument, the inevitable blind alleys that result and your own constantly varying defenses.

Because it was your explanation for Mary's radical change from being joyful in response to the angel's message that Jesus was alive to her complete failure to even mention the angel's message to Peter and sole concern with the disposition of his dead body.

You asserted that she doubted, despite the absence of any support for it in the texts, and tried to turn the explicitly described "fear" into "doubt". Now, you appear to be trying to "switch" doubt for disbelief as though that is meaningful or somehow avoids the same problem. It is neither as those two words are certainly synonymous in this context.

What you describe is doubt. Changing the doubt you introduced into disbelief does nothing to eliminate the problem for your narrative.

You will always have a problem if your attempted harmony depicts the angelic message as taking place before the interaction described in John 20:2. Note that the author of John does not make the same mistake. He places the message (albeit from Jesus rather than an angel) after the initial encounter with Peter.

The sentence was poorly written but it appears to me to be more of the same sleight-of-hand you've been attempting throughout. You simply and without justification dropped Mary's joyful response to the message. Mark has fear and amazement. Matthew has fear and joy. You cannot meet the requirements of the challenge by simply ignoring the joy in Matthew.

Amaleq13

No, you've got it wrong. I don't suppose it might be because you haven't actually read the thread?

I'm saying Matthew 28:8 describes Mary responding with joy to the message from the angel that Jesus was not dead.

I'm saying that John 20:2 depicts Mary as solely concerned with the location of Jesus' dead body.

I'm saying that the proposed harmony is implausible where it claims that Mary's joyful response to the angel's message preceded her sole focus on the disposition of Jesus' corpse. There is no textual justification for such a dramatic change nor for the notion that Mary somehow came to completely disbelieve the message from the angel.

Barker's challenge requires that any proposed harmony both include all details from the texts and be plausible. This one fails to meet either requirement.

Kharakov

I find that without his presumption of biblical inerrancy his arguments appear to be pure sophistry. If the presumption is correct, of course, his arguments could be true or they could be alternative explanations that are incorrect: without an actual historical account we could never be sure what sophistic explanation is closer to the truth.

If we judge the bible with the same standards that we judge all other material written by humans, we can only come to the conclusion that DLB's arguments are pure sophistry. If, however, we judge all of reality against what is written in the bible (instead of judging the bible against reality) and assume the bible's inerrancy, we can tell that reality is the work of the devil as it directly opposes some teachings of the bible.