spin

I couldn't get any shallower than this response of yours if I tried real hard. :notworthy:

The one question I asked praxeus a few times was certainly ignored. Reading only Matthew's birth account, what would ever make you think that Joseph and Mary moved before the birth?

I cannot help it if you cannot understand a simple linguistic response. There is a difference between inceptive and durative information. If someone "came and dwelt" in a place the language clearly indicates the start or inception of an action. If someone "dwelt" somewhere for a long time, the writer indicates the durative nature of the action. The term "citizen" was proffered by Liddell and Scott in order to help understand the verb usage. I suggest praxeus get hold of Liddell and Scott and take his gripe up with them.

Stop misrepresenting the issue: the text claims that he never previously lived there.

I've explained the grammatical information. Try to understand.

I wish we could bank on praxeus non sequiturs.


spin

spamandham

If that's true, then I would argue they should not be doing that in any firm manner. IMHO, the proper technique would be along the lines of this:

- 'based on these facts {...}, the dating is this, and based on these fact {...} it's this. Based on these facts {...} we can establish a no earlier than date of X and based on these facts {...} we can establish a no later than date of Y.'

In all such matters involving events from thousands of years ago, it is inappropriate to claim undue precision.

Why not? Eclipses (all of which were considered significant by the ancients), are usefull for BOUNDING dates of writings. If a writer discusses a total eclipse and associates an event with that eclipse, this puts a bound on the writing itself, not on the purported event. It requires only that the writing be later than both the eclipse and the event, and even then, only to the extent both can be independently determined.

This seems to be the trend among modern historians, and one which I can agree with, which is to quit just making shit up to fill in gaps, and instead, use a forensic approach to determine the bounds of what is knowable.

spin

If we are to believe Luke -- the source of why you want the move from Nazareth --, the family went to Bethlehem because of Quirinius's enrollment. Once the baby had been presented in the temple, the family went back to Nazareth (Lk 2:39). Either you stick to Matthew or to Luke but you can't pick and choose, ignoring what you can't fit.

Matthew clearly writes that

1. before Joseph had taken Mary to live with him an angel appeared to him (Mt 1:18b);
2. Joseph took Mary to live with him (Mt 1:24);
3. Mary gave birth to the child (Mt 1:25);
4. that happened in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1);
5. the magi visited the house [oikia] where they lived (Mt 2:11);
6. the family moved to Galilee, because he couldn't go back to live in Bethlehem (Mt 2:22);
7. this move was in order to fulfill a prophecy (Mt 2:23)

spin

3DJay

Where was the house?


Peace

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Notice that spin never answered the question .

So one more time.

If the word used by Matthew ..

Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene.

- somehow supposedly implies that Joseph and Mary never dwelt
there before, were not "citizens", then what is the word that would
be used for their dwelling in Nazareth if they did have family there
and had lived there.

If there is no other superior word then the supposed Greek
vocabulary argument was clearly only sophistry.

It is amazing how much spinning folks will do rather than simply
acknowledge that their point was fallacious.

Surely in English there is no reason to assume that they had not
lived there some years earlier. The Sanders and spin error. I came
and dwelt in the New York area around 1990. Yet I had been born
and raised in the region.

(To be complete, in some contexts I could say I "returned" to the region, however in many contexts that would be superfluous, awkward and unnecessary.)

Oh, when you read Matthew, the seque into -

Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea
in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came
wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

is quite abrupt and interesting. A great read.
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...rrentChapter=2
Before that verse and section of the birth of Jesus and Herod's
trouble and the Micah prophecy you can see that Bethlehem was
entirely omitted, that where Joseph and Mary lived before the
birth was simply (and deliberately) not part of the Matthew text.
spin makes major efforts to try to obscure what you find when
you actually read the text, to fabricate a type of flowing
geographical linkage that is not in the text.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Continuing ...
By the Sanders logic those who claim a Mayflower lineage would have to show you a list of many thousands of names. The only difference is that we are talking about determining from the various tribes (leaving aside the question of whether the non-Davidic folks would also move for the enrollment).

The flaw however is that a lineage system works top-down, and is designed to have the tribal affiliation maintained and singular for each individual in each generation. This is discussed in Jewish history (and I believe it is generally understood that the tribal lineage was patriarchal). 70 AD and the diaspora put a major damper on maintaining the system accurately.

So the fact that Sanders goes into his flights of fancy of millions of names rather than discuss the actual lineage system question demonstrates that he is (perhaps inadvertently) mired in the confusion of the errantist agenda, weakening his attempts at scholarship.

I say this having noted how Sanders uses this as the fundamental attempt (along with the very weak Nazareth-Bethlehim issue discussed above) to support his claim of Luke or Matthew error. And the flowery irrational flights of numerical fancy give one the sense of agenda at work.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mountainman

Of course you understand that what the author
is talking about is the miraculous survival of the
biography by Philostratus entitled
"The Life of Apollonius of Tyana".

Quote:

PROVING that APOLLONIUS OF TYANA was the TRUE FOUNDER of early Christianity and that the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament had NO EXISTENCE except in the IMAGINATION of the Pagan Roman priests at Nicea, subsequently called the "Church Fathers," who INVENTED him as a SUBSTITUTE for APOLLONIUS, THE TRUE CHRIST"

You seem be to waving the conspiracy theory flag
around a great deal.

Clearly, the author of the above book could not contemplate,
or did not articulate, the obvious -- that Constantine must
have been involved in the fabrication of the Galilaeans
from the very beginning, but instead (the author above)
implicates "Roman priests at Nicea" ---- yes, this might be
perceived as some form of conspiracy.

I hope you understand that the historical possibility by
which the Emperor Constantine may have invented and
implemented "christianity" does not require any special form
of "conspirational endeavour". Absolute military power does
not require the malevolent despot to conspire.

My source for a date of birth for Apollonius
of Tyana was provided as requested. Since you are happy
to calumify this source, perhaps you can provide a better
source for a date of birth for Apollonius of Tyana?

BTW, are you related to the Elsa Gibson, the author of
"The <Christians for Christians> Inscriptions of Phrygia"?

spin

praxeus is painfully deluded.

When Abraham came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre (Ge 13:18) is there any scope for him to be just returning there??

When the Philistines came and dwelt in the cities that the men of Israel forsook (1Sa 31:7, 1Ch 10:7), is there any scope for them to be just returning there??

When Jesus left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum (Mt 4:13), is there any scope for him to be just returning there??

In each case the Greek uses the same verb in the same context.

It should be so obvious to you that you shouldn't need an answer. But hell, what can we expect from you? The text would not use the verb katoikew, but said something else, such as "returned" as in the case of Naomi (Rt 1:22).

When will you get to doing Linguistics 101??

It's amazing how people parade their lack of knowledge as though it's a boon.

Read the text and deal with it.

That's what they usually did.

He takes Mary into his family in 1:24 and the child was born in 1:25.

As I said in an earlier post:
and a later one:
When asked to evaluate something praxeus remains silent.


spin

Larsguy47

In Bethlehem:


1 After Jesus had been born in Beth´le·hem of Ju·de´a in the days of Herod the king, look! astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, 2 saying: “Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star [when we were] in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance.” 3 At hearing this King Herod was agitated, and all Jerusalem along with him; 4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They said to him: “In Beth´le·hem of Ju·de´a; for this is how it has been written through the prophet, 6 ‘And you, O Beth´le·hem of the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant [city] among the governors of Judah; for out of you will come forth a governing one, who will shepherd my people, Israel.’”

7 Then Herod secretly summoned the astrologers and carefully ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearing; 8 and, when sending them to Beth´le·hem, he said: “Go make a careful search for the young child, and when YOU have found it report back to me, that I too may go and do it obeisance.” 9 When they had heard the king, they went their way; and, look! the star they had seen [when they were] in the east went ahead of them, until it came to a stop above where the young child was. 10 On seeing the star they rejoiced very much indeed. 11 And when they went into the house they saw the young child with Mary its mother, and, falling down, they did obeisance to it. They also opened their treasures and presented it with gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 However, because they were given divine warning in a dream not to return to Herod, they withdrew to their country by another way."


Obviously, these were Jewish astronomers working at an observatory in Babylon. This reference allows for suspicion that the VAT4956 and the SK400 were actually Jewish-inspired texts that double-dated back to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, since he is difinitively connected with Jewish history. Also, the custom of dating month 13 as month one as long as the full moon occurred after the equinox apparently was a custom of the Jews but not the pagans, thus the dating of the 763BCE eclipse in line with the Jewish option suggests Jews were involved in the coordination of the astronomical texts for the new chronology.

Just theories, no proof beyond the context.

LG47

Larsguy47

As you know, both Joseph and Mary lived there before they went to Bethlehem, right?

Luke 1:26 "In her sixth month the angel Ga´bri·el was sent forth from God to a city of Gal´i·lee named Naz´a·reth, 27 to a virgin promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of David’s house; and the name of the virgin was Mary."

So Nazareth was their hometown. So the reference about them not returning to Judea, where they apparently were staying only temporarily was in response to them first being told to return to "Judea" since those seeking the child's death had died, meaning Herod. It took a while for Archaeleus to actually get into place to begin to rule though. They had to bury Herod and there were other delays. So by the time they did get close to Judea, the new development of Archaeleus was now in place so they were afraid to go into Judea, and receiving divine warning they simply returned to their hometown.

Archaleus was beginning to deal with the people just before the next passover season, so perhaps they intended to go back into Jerusalem for the Passover celebration but thought it was now too dangerous.

As far as Luke goes, there is no reason to find a contradiction for Joseph and Mary returning back to Nazareth shortly after Jesus was presented to the temple, as is implied. We know further that they came into Jerusalem from time to time, certainly for the festivals, and so the incident with the Magi could have occurred around the time of the Festival of Booths, a year later when Jesus was about a year old.

Nazareth was the hometown of Joseph and Mary, thus Jesus could be called a "Nazarene".

LG47