Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Spin goes on in his normal way ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin What are the primary sources? You know you need them.

What special great information do they contain that changes this issue of the possible identification of the Herodians. You are welcome to share if you think there is something specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Language matters are beyond you.

Your theories about interpolations and redactions and fatigue and such are not language matters per se. They are NT textual fabrications, designed post facto to match your theories. First you develop your theories, then you develop the -

a) interpolation and redactions that match your theories.
b) non-redactions that should have been to match your theories.

When you were called on the evidence for your supposed post-Trinitarian Corinthian interpolations (against massive textual and early writer evidence) you simply were silent.

Why ? Easy to answer.
Such textual theories are absurd, untenable, they are floated only by spin,
no scholars, and only to match spin's preexisting doctrinal theory.

A methodology of manipulation.

Same with your proposed fatigue non-redactions.
Simply spin absurdism.

(MPE: Moderator Placation Explanation - spin likely actually believes his own textual theories, his "NT textual fabrications". He is that confused about the NT text. Thus Spin is not fabricating his own belief or theory in an "original text" that he rewrites to match his doctrines. Spin actually, amazingly, believes his nonsense. However spin is fabricating his revised text, designed for his apologetic purposes, against all hard evidence.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You can fantasize about an "alliance".

There is no fantasy involved. That is simply a word to describe what occurs in the New Testament. An alliance of convenience against Jesus among those who normally don't get along. Something we see in politics every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You don't do dialog, praxeus. You apologize -- and you have a lot to apologize for..

It has been noted that when spin blunders again and again he does not apologize... he does not even say -

"oops, I was wrong".

Spin looks for every hand-wave and diversion possible to hide the correction in the midst of spin-junque. (Simple examples, claiming Sinaiticus as supporting Luke 3:36 Cainan, or that Vaticanus is directly derived from the Hebrew.)

There is a major difference in our approach to the importance of accuracy in our words and our desire to impart proper information when we write.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Look Rocky, nothin' up my sleave!

There is a linguistic matter at the heart of the issue, but of course you say, "What me worry?"

You're too busy building an apologetic to deal with the content of what you think you need to deal with.

What are you talking about?


When are you going to say something? So far it seems that you've used lots of words to show that the lights aren't on at home.

Fantasy "alliance". Luke dropped all the evidence. Matt didn't do such a good job, so you can cling to your fantasy. All you need is the slimmest excuse.

Naaa, that's what they all say.

Oh gosh, a conspiracy! Yet more fantasy.

praxeus loves to project.

And you provide them.

All you are doing is hiding from the fact that the LXX as indicated by the surviving texts have Kainan. You've also admitted that the text has been tampered with. In fact, the implication is that it is an error in Luke to include Kainan in the genealogy. So, you vainly try to cover up with obfuscation. Well, face it. You've admitted to one case of christian tampering and that implies another.

At the same time pedantry won't change the fact that Vaticanus is derived from a Hebrew text, that that text is not the MT, but partly visible among the DSS material and that it is the closest of all the LXX versions to the LXX Hebrew Vorlage. You can kid yourself as much as you like, but that's all you are doing: kidding yourself.

I see. Apologetics means accuracy, does it? Apologetics is the key to why you won't understand anything that you are trying to read in the bible. You aren't free to read what it says.


spin

aa5874

You know what evidence is available? You have not put forward a single piece of evidence to support the HJ position, in fact, you have none.
You cannot place Jesus the Christ, his followers, or his teachings in the 1st century. I challenge you.

Maybe most are not Christians, but some still believe in Jesus.

And are you claiming that BC&H is not the forum to discuss the historicity of Jesus the Christ and the credibilty of the NT?

gregor

While I doubt you'll ever do it, please address spin's request that you identify the bases for this reference. What original source documents support this assertion?

spin

As you still haven't got it, I don't support the HJ position, but you don't seem to notice much, do you?

Fat lot of good such a challenge is to me.

I've been trying to get past your blather about how "It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false." This statement of yours gives the impression that you don't seem to know what "logically" means.

You should realize that there are different issues being investigated here. If you want to attempt to bait christians, why don't you find yourself some, instead of messing up here?

You seem to have exausted everything you have to say on the subject, saying much the same thing over 500 posts. If you want to discuss your issue, please do. Just don't simply repeat it yet again.

We are continually dealing with the credibility of the texts we look at, but you don't seem to have noticed.


spin

aa5874

That 's exactly what I thought, you don't have anything to offer on the subject.

I realised that long time ago.

spin

Once again you go beyond the bounds of what you can meaningfully say.

You were too busy falling over yourself to notice much at all.

You still cannot see the error of this claim: "It follows logically that the character called Jesus the Christ did not exist as a real person. His existence is false."

aa5874

I regard the the NT as fairy tales, utter nonsense. I do not rely on the NT for any credible information.
The Jesus, as described in the NT, is a biological and physical impossibilty.

I am still waiting for an HJer to place Jesus the Christ, his followers or his teachings in the 1st century. I hope to get some credible external sources, before 'he' comes back, 'the second time'.

spin

I think I've heard this before.

You can believe what you like. However, you are aware that it isn't a particularly logical position.

It's still

some X imply Y, so all X imply Y.

You'll wait.

aa5874

Still waiting on the HJers to place Jesus the Christ, his followers, or his teachings in the 1st century.

This is our 2000th year, I have the patience.