sschlichter

granted that I may not be allowing for a common literary device, but I feel that the views on inspiration of a person pretending to be another person are suspect.

dr lazer blast

you miss the point, the point is you're assuming things. An actual reactoin from the angels is not supported by the text at all, you're just assuming their departure with fear and joy has to do with the angels, and contradict yourself telling me that I can't assume a reaction of my own from the angels, because in actually a reactoin is not supported

WVIncagold

I agree. Perfect example on how not to debate people.

Amaleq13

We have an encounter and two emotional reactions as they leave the encounter. The only thing I'm "assuming" is that the author was attempting to write coherently. I'm "assuming" that the author isn't describing random emotions with no connection to the obviously emotional event just described.

It is the only rational explanation. You've certainly offered no plausible alternative. You simply deny the obvious and declare the emotions are somehow connected only to the departure.

You've been doing nothing but denying the emotions are reactions and failing to provide a plausible alternative explanation for them. :huh:

dr lazer blast

once again you're assuming that the 2 emotional reactions they feel as they leave are connected to the encounter they had before they left, and that is just not supported by the text, if we go by the text we see that joy and fear came with the departure.


No I don't need to offer a plausible alternitive to destroy your assertion. All I am doing is showing you how you're contradicting yourself. you continue to assert that my narrative does not match up 'according to the text' but that is just your interpretations of the text, and we aren't going by your interpretations of the text, if we do a neutral un biased look at the text it seems we have.

since we are sitcking to the texts they departed the tomb with fear and joy, so they didn't feel the emotions until they departed, and the departure was after the angles. So once again if we go by your logic, you're wrong.

no i haven't been denying anything, you continue to try and make this your narrative but its not.

Mary didn't believe what the angels said, so she still thought Christ was dead.

Amaleq13

That is how language works when it is intended to be coherent.

It is difficult to believe this is a genuine position as it suggests such a profound inability to comprehend language that one shouldn't be capable of communication.

I'm certain you will be unable to obtain any scholarly support for such foolishness but I would even be surprised if you could obtain support for it from any theist here.

I suspect you are utterly alone in your perverse refusal to accept what the text clearly states. Your effort continues to lack plausibility and continues to be a failure. :wave:

dr lazer blast

You can deny it all you want, but as I said, this is not about how you interpret the scripture so you fail there, you thought you had a point at trying to 'stick to the text' but I proved that wrong so you failed there, you thought you had a point trying to assert that joy came after fear, but you failed there, you thought you had a point when you could make arguments from authority but you failed there, and now you're just ignoring the criticisms to your weak argument, but you also fail there.

I am asserting that Mary didn't believe what the angels said, which would explain why she went to peter in the way that she did.

Amaleq13

No, I agree that this is not about "interpretation". It is about you refusing to accept the plain meaning of the text and offering nothing plausible in its place.

The only thing you've proven is that you have no desire to deal honestly with the texts as they are written. You've simply denied the plain meaning and offered nothing plausible in its place.

:rolling: You still can't get it right!!! More evidence of the nature of your efforts.

You can't blame me for your failure to read and comprehend your own source on the subject.

There is no substance to your criticisms so there isn't anything to ignore. You simply declare the plain reading to be untrue and offer nothing plausible in its place.

Where in the rules does it say you can make things up that have no correspondence to the texts?

Your assertion is contrary to the explicitly described reaction you perversely deny. It would appear that the only reason you have to reject the plain meaning of the text is to avoid the contradiction with your assertion.

Ignoring the details of the text and inserting your own is the opposite of what is required by the challenge. :thumbs:

dr lazer blast

you have no argument, you're saying I can't assert that mary didn't believe the angels because it doesnt have correspondece to your interpretation of the text, but as I said before this is not your interpretation of the texts as the rules clearly state it is up to me to make a plausible coherent narrative.

Amaleq13

It doesn't have correspondence to anyone's interpretation of the text except your own. That isn't plausible.

And you have yet to do this.

Your denial that the women's joy and fear are reactions to the encounter with the angels is not plausible.

Your assertion that Mary doubted the message from the angels when you have no text to support it is not plausible.