Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.Feel free to back up your insult with links to my posts that you feel I had been dishonest.
No you are not. You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.I came up with all of the possibilities and asked which combination is consistent with your model. I am not telling you what your model is but rather am asking what yours is.
Absolutely not. But that is what you need to prove in order for your views to be validated in rebuttal to my views.So unless I can disprove the story, I must accept it?
Exactly, you dismiss my views, based on logical reasoning of the data available, because of your speculation on data that is not available.While there is speculation here, I've taken everything into account aside from the motivation of the women being at the tomb, but you certainly don't have that information either.
Because it would be speculation since it is not recorded. We went from agreeing that speculation was not a valid argument to you basing your entire argument, after not being able to refute the slippery slope fallacy claim, to speculation on data that is not presented.You have still ignored the first
I shared the data in which I used to logically reasoned a conclusion. I have refrained from speculation because I thought we were in agreement that it was an invalid argument. Please address where I speculated by showing logically that my argument fails the definition of logical reasoning.Your model employs speculation but also ignores severe continuity errors, so your model is dismissed outright until you account for those things.
I have no idea but I do know they considered that problem.…what was their plan for moving the stone…
Yeah right. So absurd you have not been able to refute it without speculating that another event occurred which is not part of the data we have available to us.You have given only a completely absurd answer thus far.
Feel free to back up your false accusation with some facts.Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.
Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.
//
Feel free to back up your insult with links to my posts that you feel I had been dishonest.
Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:
The women were... Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
Upon arriving, the women... Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.
You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.
Please explain how the above quotes indicate I was being dishonest.Nihilist Virus said: ↑
Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:
The women were... Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
Upon arriving, the women... Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
Tawhano said: ↑
Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.
Tawhano said: ↑
You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.
No answer eh? Wow, didn’t see that coming…not!
When in fact I did not say any of those things.Because you are literally saying this:
1. Jesus performed more miracles than could be physically recorded at the time, including healing handicapped persons and even raising others from the dead
2. The guards did not see Jesus' body being stolen, nor did they actually see the risen Jesus
3. There is no need to investigate
So you are being quite intellectually dishonest.
And again this is not what I said at all and you wanted me to pick and defend what I did not say.Regardless, your sequence of events seems to be this:
1. The guards are guarding
2. Angel(s) appear
3. The guards are so terrified that they are "like dead men"
4a. The angel(s) temporarily leave(s) (?????) so the guards, who are still terrified, can look inside and make a report
4b. The angel(s) remain(s) but the guards, who are still terrified, inexplicably push their way past the angel(s) to look inside and make a report
5. The women show up later, the angel(s) is/are there, the guards seem to be long gone
And once again this is not what I said.You have said that because of X, Y must have happened.
Again, you claim this is my model when I didn’t say any of the above. I called you out for being dishonest and because you have nothing to defend your dishonestly you simply replied that I was dishonest but you cannot provide evidence to back up your false accusation. You seemed to think that providing the “or if I’m missing something” negates the fact that you said “draft your model”. What you are missing is what you deliberately left out; my actual views. I say again; You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate.Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:
The women were coming to anoint Jesus' body and therefore either: 1) they were unaware that guards were posted and there was a massive stone sealing the tomb, or 2) they knew about both of those facts and assumed they could persuade the guards to assist them in removing the stone, or 3) they knew about both of those facts and were planning on killing or otherwise subduing the guards so as to have free access to the tomb, and they had a plan for moving the stone, or 4) they were unaware that there were guards but knew the stone was there and were prepared for the task of moving it. Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
Upon arriving, the women gave no indication that they saw the guards who were either in a state of terror or else were unconscious due to having fainted. The women either: I) did not see the guards, or II) did not think it was worth mentioning to the disciples when they returned to give the very first gospel message, or III) they did mention the guards to the other disciples, but this was not recorded, and Peter went to the tomb anyway. Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.
I repeat, please feel free to back up your false accusation.Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.
There was no need to send anyone as it was the duty of the guards, already posted at the sepulcher, to investigate after the stone was rolled away. This they did and they reported their findings.
How could the guards tell them what happened if they didn’t investigate the sepulcher? How did the chief priest know Jesus’s body was no longer in the sepulcher if the guards who were there did not tell them?
I have posted my views many times. Apparently I failed to make them understandable to you. I will try to correct that.You say that what I am missing is what I deliberately left out; your actual views. Guess what. You haven't given them.
All three. The part I disagree with is that you turned my view that there was an investigation and therefore no need for further investigation into your strawman argument that I said there was no need to investigate.So I would like to know which of the three things here you disagree with. Do you disagree with (1.) the Bible, or (2.) the Bible again, or (3.) yourself?
Another strawman; my view is that because the guards gave a report of what happened and the priest acknowledged that the body of Jesus was missing by bribing the guards to lie about the disappearance of the body then the logical path from these two recorded events (the data) is that the guards told them in their report of the events. If the priest did not know that the body was missing then they would not have fabricated the story that the disciples stole the body. This is logical reasoning in that you take two facts (the data) and ascertain a logical path from one to the other. Logical reasoning answers the question “how did the priest know the body was missing?” from the data given. I could have speculated that the guards reported the stone being rolled away and the priest, in counsel with the elders, sent people to investigate the sepulcher and discovered it was empty but that is not a logical path from one verse to the other. It lacks further data to be substantiated. It is plausible but not logically induced from the given data.You have said repeatedly that the guards must have looked in the tomb. Or in other words, you have said that because the guards gave a report, they must have investigated.
This is not true. If you recall I entered this thread with a full explanation of my views on this topic. It is the one where I assumed you did not read the accounts in Matthew. At that time I was given the impression the standard for debate was on the Biblical data which I felt was more than obvious an answer to your question. It was not until later I discovered the standard was actually your view that the book of Matthew was entirely fictional. A view you admitted you could not prove. I believe that you attempted to debate using that standard in disguise of the premise you posted.I'm not sure if this is your position or not because you spend all your time dodging questions and complaining about my behavior instead of giving answers and contributing to the thread. You refuse to give a precise order of events on the grounds that it would be speculation, but I am only asking for a sequence of events that is plausible, whether or not it is speculation. You refuse to give even that.
I explained it as best I could. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend the difference between speculation and logical reasoning.…your "logical deduction" that the guards must've looked inside the tomb at some point even though you give no plausible sequence of events in which this possibly could have occurred…
You believe this not because of a failure on my part but a failure on your part. You fail to understand the structure of logical reasoning. It is not “because of X, Y must have happened” at all. It is this:So you have, in fact, said that because of X, Y must have happened. You're a confirmed liar.
More insults to my intelligence. Exactly how is that conducive to an honest debate? Quite a hypocritical selection of words.I have posted my views many times. Apparently I failed to make them understandable to you. I will try to correct that.
All three. The part I disagree with is that you turned my view that there was an investigation and therefore no need for further investigation into your strawman argument that I said there was no need to investigate.
Another strawman; my view is that because the guards gave a report of what happened and the priest acknowledged that the body of Jesus was missing by bribing the guards to lie about the disappearance of the body then the logical path from these two recorded events (the data) is that the guards told them in their report of the events. If the priest did not know that the body was missing then they would not have fabricated the story that the disciples stole the body. This is logical reasoning in that you take two facts (the data) and ascertain a logical path from one to the other. Logical reasoning answers the question “how did the priest know the body was missing?” from the data given. I could have speculated that the guards reported the stone being rolled away and the priest, in counsel with the elders, sent people to investigate the sepulcher and discovered it was empty but that is not a logical path from one verse to the other. It lacks further data to be substantiated. It is plausible but not logically induced from the given data.
This is not true. If you recall I entered this thread with a full explanation of my views on this topic. It is the one where I assumed you did not read the accounts in Matthew.
At that time I was given the impression the standard for debate was on the Biblical data which I felt was more than obvious an answer to your question. It was not until later I discovered the standard was actually your view that the book of Matthew was entirely fictional. A view you admitted you could not prove. I believe that you attempted to debate using that standard in disguise of the premise you posted.
I explained it as best I could. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend the difference between speculation and logical reasoning.
You believe this not because of a failure on my part but a failure on your part. You fail to understand the structure of logical reasoning. It is not “because of X, Y must have happened” at all. It is this:
If X (guards give report)
If Y (priest knew body was missing)
Then Z is a logical path. (the report included the missing body)
You are missing the third element which is the logical reasoned element. This is not saying that Z is the only plausible path. It is saying that it is the logical path based on the data given. I do not know how to explain this any further to make it clear to you. Logical construct is not an easy concept to grasp.
I do not say this as slight toward you (despite my personal opinion of you). There were many intelligent people in my class that found it hard to get their head around this construct.
Logical deductions do not necessarily lead to a unique conclusion. It simply establishes a logical explanation as a path from event X to event Y. There can be multiple paths. If you recall I accepted that there were other possibilities but the ones you provided are speculations and not derived by logical reasoning. Despite that I accepted that they were indeed a possibility and have said so on numerous occasions.…you are WRONG because logical deductions must necessarily lead to a unique conclusion…
An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?Again, WRONG. You don't seem to understand that the disciples began to spread the rumors that Christ had risen.
An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?The priests didn't have to hear of the empty tomb from the guards, and they probably didn't have to wait very long to hear the rumors popping up.
And you make the assumption that this didn’t happen. Where does it say that in the text?…you are assuming that the priests issued their false statement about the body being stolen on the day of the resurrection even there is no textual evidence to indicate that….
And to prove that you offer your assumptions. This is your double standards tactic you have been using throughout this debate. Please explain to me how your assumption trump my alleged assumptions?You make assumption on top of assumption and then claim victory.
Your arguments have been built on assumptions and strawman fallacies. You have not debated anything I actually said but simply ignore my actual position and substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position. You debunk your own strawman arguments and have not answered any of my questions.My argument stands and you are fully debunked.
Logical deductions do not necessarily lead to a unique conclusion. It simply establishes a logical explanation as a path from event X to event Y. There can be multiple paths.
If you recall I accepted that there were other possibilities but the ones you provided are speculations and not derived by logical reasoning. Despite that I accepted that they were indeed a possibility and have said so on numerous occasions.
An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?
An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?
And you make the assumption that this didn’t happen. Where does it say that in the text?
And to prove that you offer your assumptions. This is your double standards tactic you have been using throughout this debate. Please explain to me how your assumption trump my alleged assumptions?
Your arguments have been built on assumptions and strawman fallacies.
You have not debated anything I actually said but simply ignore my actual position and substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position. You debunk your own strawman arguments and have not answered any of my questions.
No, I accept your views as plausible.So it seems that you are willing to accept my version of events, provided that I can show it is more plausible.
You crack me up. First of all you already demonstrated you lack the skills to ascertain what a valid logical argument is. You never understood the concept behind the fallacy you used as your main argument. Second you demonstrate here that you did a web search or something and found the definition of syllogistic logic and failed to understand that concept as well. A syllogism is a tool to determine the validity of the conclusion of an argument. If a logical deduction has two or more conclusions you use the formula of syllogistic logic to ascertain each conclusion separately. So while what you say about syllogism is correct in having one conclusion you confused that with the construct of a logical deduction.When I say that logical deduction leads to a unique conclusion, I am saying that a valid, sound syllogism cannot have two conclusions that are both equally valid but also mutually exclusive.
You have never argued my views but instead you make up something and present it as my view so please site the post where you “obliterated it” with valid arguments.In your version of events you gave a half-baked explanation of the reason that the women wanted to visit the tomb, and you never bothered to defend it after I obliterated it.
Please explain how you are qualified to judge my versions as “utterly absurd and indefensible version of events”. You have never provided rebuttal to my actual views except to ridicule them without one single reason as to why you judge them as such. I can and have defended my views. Your replies have always consisted of insults, strawman and lies with no connection to my views.…you want to cling to your utterly absurd and indefensible version of events…
Again, how do you even entertain the idea that you have one ounce of ability (or credibility) to determine what is a logical deduction and what is not? You consistently demonstrate you do not possess any such skills.…I need to pull a half-Tawhano and say that I logically deduce that the disciples began to spread the rumors immediately. Mind you, a full-Tawhano is to claim logical deduction despite employing premises that are implausible and undefended.
This just proves what I have been saying all along; you lack the skills to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. I have explained this to you multiple times and you still don’t get it. You do not know who wrote Matthew so you cannot possibly know the circumstances behind how he obtained the information to write the epistle and what he should or shouldn’t include in it. Saying that he should have recorded an investigation is a fallacy because you cannot possibly use that as a true premise for your conclusion. All premises have to be true. You cannot provide any evidence that this premise is true. That is the fallacy; that you based your argument on your unsubstantiated opinion that he should have included that information. There may have been an investigation that the author knew nothing about. The author may have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes and therefore deemed the investigation was of no importance to his narrative. He reported minimal information on how the guards who were in charge with making the sepulcher sure and “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” as details on the investigation. There are a whole host of reasons why the author did not include exact details about an investigation. None of which you even attempted to address to prove that an omission of the details is evidence to the resurrection never having taken place.Don't forget the slippery slope fallacy where I am saying that an investigation should follow if fantastical claims are presented as an explanation as to why one failed at one's job.
You crack me up. First of all you already demonstrated you lack the skills to ascertain what a valid logical argument is. You never understood the concept behind the fallacy you used as your main argument. Second you demonstrate here that you did a web search or something and found the definition of syllogistic logic and failed to understand that concept as well. A syllogism is a tool to determine the validity of the conclusion of an argument. If a logical deduction has two or more conclusions you use the formula of syllogistic logic to ascertain each conclusion separately. So while what you say about syllogism is correct in having one conclusion you confused that with the construct of a logical deduction.
You have never argued my views but instead you make up something and present it as my view so please site the post where you “obliterated it” with valid arguments.
Please explain how you are qualified to judge my versions as “utterly absurd and indefensible version of events”. You have never provided rebuttal to my actual views except to ridicule them without one single reason as to why you judge them as such. I can and have defended my views. Your replies have always consisted of insults, strawman and lies with no connection to my views.
Again, how do you even entertain the idea that you have one ounce of ability (or credibility) to determine what is a logical deduction and what is not? You consistently demonstrate you do not possess any such skills.
This just proves what I have been saying all along; you lack the skills to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. I have explained this to you multiple times and you still don’t get it. You do not know who wrote Matthew so you cannot possibly know the circumstances behind how he obtained the information to write the epistle and what he should or shouldn’t include in it. Saying that he should have recorded an investigation is a fallacy because you cannot possibly use that as a true premise for your conclusion. All premises have to be true. You cannot provide any evidence that this premise is true.
That is the fallacy; that you based your argument on your unsubstantiated opinion that he should have included that information. There may have been an investigation that the author knew nothing about. The author may have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes and therefore deemed the investigation was of no importance to his narrative. He reported minimal information on how the guards who were in charge with making the sepulcher sure and “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” as details on the investigation. There are a whole host of reasons why the author did not include exact details about an investigation. None of which you even attempted to address to prove that an omission of the details is evidence to the resurrection never having taken place.
I’m not sure why you feel that is a valid argument against your conclusion being based on a fallacy. An argument is an argument even if it is hypothetical. You are still basing your hypothetical argument on the premise that the author would have recorded an investigation if the resurrection did occur. Is that not your main argument?There is no fallacy behind my main argument. I'm not saying it is factual that there was no investigation, and neither am I using that to claim that the resurrection did not occur. I'm saying it is factual that no investigation was recorded, and this is correct.
You used sarcastic remarks to obscure my views with your own. There was nothing to reply to. I already gave you my answer which was “I do not know”. You use this argument which has nothing at all to do with my explanation on why I believe the text does indicate that the guards investigated because you have nothing to back up your unsubstantiated claims. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. The only thing you obliterated was your own strawman argument.I never saw your response to this, and I even double-checked by ctrl+F searching "whilst" on that page and this one and there were no uses of it in your posts, so you did not quote me on the topic. And I would say your absurd suggestion was obliterated.
Your inability to understand basic logical reasoning is not an indication of my failure to provide a plausible explanation as to why I believe the text indicates that the guards investigated the sepulcher. Your attempts to insert your views as mine is the reason for this failure. Answer this question; why did you agree that it was plausible, not once but multiple times, if it was not plausible?You have utterly failed to explain how it is plausible that the original guards investigated the tomb. You "deduce" that it occurred without addressing the gaping plot holes.
That is your unsubstantiated view. You cannot provide one single coherent reason why it would be stupid of the author to do such. I wager that even if the author included a detail account of a full blown investigation it would not make one iota of a difference to unbelievers.Then the author was clearly stupid because he expects the reader to believe his fantastical claims based on nothing at all.
This would be impossible because of your prejudices and unwillingness to acknowledge that your sole purpose in being here is to ridicule the beliefs of the people you disdain. You believe somehow that your views trump the views of the people on this forum and that is equivalent to you obliterating their views. There is nothing rational about that.…we can have what is called a rational discussion…
No, it was divine inspiration.Fortunately, the gospels had to have been given to the authors via divine revelation... right?
Got anything other than sarcasm, lies and strawman arguments to show that the ones I gave are not “good ones”? No you do not. All you have is smoke and mirrors.Got any good ones?
I’m not sure why you feel that is a valid argument against your conclusion being based on a fallacy. An argument is an argument even if it is hypothetical. You are still basing your hypothetical argument on the premise that the author would have recorded an investigation if the resurrection did occur. Is that not your main argument?
You used sarcastic remarks to obscure my views with your own. There was nothing to reply to. I already gave you my answer which was “I do not know”. You use this argument which has nothing at all to do with my explanation on why I believe the text does indicate that the guards investigated because you have nothing to back up your unsubstantiated claims. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. The only thing you obliterated was your own strawman argument.
Your inability to understand basic logical reasoning is not an indication of my failure to provide a plausible explanation as to why I believe the text indicates that the guards investigated the sepulcher. Your attempts to insert your views as mine is the reason for this failure. Answer this question; why did you agree that it was plausible, not once but multiple times, if it was not plausible?
That is your unsubstantiated view. You cannot provide one single coherent reason why it would be stupid of the author to do such. I wager that even if the author included a detail account of a full blown investigation it would not make one iota of a difference to unbelievers.
This would be impossible because of your prejudices and unwillingness to acknowledge that your sole purpose in being here is to ridicule the beliefs of the people you disdain. You believe somehow that your views trump the views of the people on this forum and that is equivalent to you obliterating their views. There is nothing rational about that.
No, it was divine inspiration.
Got anything other than sarcasm, lies and strawman arguments to show that the ones I gave are not “good ones”? No you do not. All you have is smoke and mirrors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?