Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

We have discussed how important are the driveby contradiction accusations by Carrier. It has become clear on this thread how they are the rallying cry to the skeptic troops.. Contradiction ! .. if not the nativity date .. then over here, no there, maybe under that .. somewhere.

Thus the drivebys.

And in none of the drivebys does Richard Carrier even remotely allude to the possibility that his "contradictions" have cogent responses, different interpretations, commentaries that have discussed his view in depth and offerred counterpoint. In this regard Richard Carrier gives us a propaganda fluff piece rather than scholarship.

The strangest driveby is about the Temple..

First Carrier lays the groundwork with an overstatement.

presented at the temple in Jerusalem (2.21-38), where two different people publicly proclaim him the messiah (Simon and Anna: 2:25-38), one of whom even continues telling everyone about him in the temple afterward.

The actual principle verse is more nuanced -

Luke 2:38
And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord,
and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

As John Gill expounds ..

" they in Jerusalem that looked, and diligently waited for, and earnestly desired the Messiah, and spiritual redemption and salvation by him, being now assembled together in the temple; or afterwards, as she had opportunity of conversing with them, when she acquainted them with what she had heard and seen."

Carrier jumps from all this to a supposed "contradiction", one which is hard to find as an accusation in the literature as it is so strained.

Matthew contradicts Luke... Luke describes Jesus being presented in the temple to repeated public pronouncements of his status, which would not have escaped Herod's supposedly murderous eye (or memory). Matthew, in contrast, has Herod only finding out roughly two years later, from foreigners.

Matthew 2:1-3
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,
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the east,
and are come to worship him.
When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Now obviously there is a huge qualitative difference in events here.

Chatter among some devout in the Temple of an elderly woman about a special child she saw.. Interesting.. possibly not that uncommon.

And an unusual group of men, respected, perhaps Persian Magi,
making a special long journey to share their revelation.
Speaking of the signs in the sky and the world-moving significance..

Herod became troubled after the latter.
Something very intense was going on, impressive people from
far away traveling directly to his kingdom.

When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

To somehow create a "contradiction" here is simply absurd.

In this particular case I do not know if anybody has offered
an answer to this "contradiction" .. since one first would have
to find the contradiction claim ! If anyone can find the claim
it would be appreciated as Carrier offers no references in
regard to this strained driveby.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

So praxeus is not interested in evidence, just other people's opinions, people who agree with whatever he's saying today. :banghead:

One wonders when praxeus is going to deal with the issues. Oh, I forgot, praxeus doesn't deal with the issues. He can't, so he fobs you off onto other peopele's opinions.

And are you waiting for praxeus to show where the case is wrong. You'd better put a bunk beside the computer.

Yup, you guessed it. Not even an attempt to show where the case is wrong. No evidence, just opinions. I guess you put the bunk alongside the computer for nothing.

We're left with praxeus's adulation of

"Lukan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships"

because he mentions that a few local rulers were tetrarchs. We forget about the imprecision about the Romans. We can forget about the census mix-up. We can forget that Lysanias lived 65 years before the time that Luke was talking about.

"Lukan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships"

I'll remember praxeus by this albatross.


spin

judge

Well..dont mention the peshitta
If that ever gets accepted it will positively nail shut the case against taxation.
But we wont mention my preferred version. Luke 2 and Acts 5



I'm not sure I follow ..but it's been a long week for me.



Well, we dont know but it could have happened in this short a space of time.

What causes the the fervor on the part of the people, why do they wonder if John is the Messiah:?
If the expectation at that time was very high then we might have the ingredients for a more rapid fermentation. It was a time of tension on many sides perhaps inducing herod to keep a close eye on such events and take action he thought necessary quickly.


Agreed, but even if it took two years (or even five years) the chronology is still way off

My impression was that he stretches things just alittle too far to be credible.

He just manages to get back to 33 AD by arguing Jesus could have been 27.5 years old, not just 27 , and then arguing that anywhere from 27.5 and 32.5 would be around 30.

Its not terribly solid.


:devil1:

Steven Avery

Tis fine by me. Post it here and there. It simply demonstrates how strange you are.

Since it is one of the few points of Richard Carrier in 'Nativity' to which I give a hearty amen !

As similarly posted on the other thread.

Richard Carrier on the issue of Lukan precision on titles and rulerships.

"I thought Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself documents), but Luke fails to be precise in naming the office of Quirinius, too."

So Richard Carrier supports Luke's precision on all titles of men in power, as a fact, leaving open only two issues, that Quirinius was listed as governing Syria (which was 100% accurate although it could be technically more precise) and his own strange Archelaus theory, a rare bird in any commentary or scholarship.

As for spin's interpretation, there is little to discuss but it should be on the Lysanias thread. Where the main inscription, the secondary inscription and the Josephus ambiguities and Luke's general accuracy can all be discussed right and left. For this thread on the Carrier article it is simple to point out spin's method. Declare his view "true" by fiat and then rail and whine against anything else. Rather tawdry.

The big irony here is that in more cogent moments spin actually acknowledges that he is just giving an opinion that others might consider as an alternative.

"I think.. "
"I think not..."
"apparent .. error".

The problem for the forum is that such cogent moments are exceptional and rare.

Spin forgets the actual backdrop and starts railing and trying to derail (the thread).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Both these discussions are fascinating. I have given a response to one point ("decree.. that .. should be taxed") on the Quirinius thread, where that discussion has been vibrant.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...04#post4247104
Quirinius and the registration of 3 B.C.E.
decree to tax, enroll, register.. census, oath ?

The John the Baptist ministry discussion is more directly related to the details of the Richard Carrier discussion at...

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...JohntheBaptist
The Date of John the Baptist's Ministry

So it could be comfortable on this thread, if the approach of Richard Carrier is being examined and analyzed. Then it works well here. Otherwise, probably better over dere.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

After stating - "I think.." "Apparently.."
spin says in essence - "prove to my satisfaction otherwise".

However we know his own view is cement and the existing thread covers the issues quite well (except for the 2nd inscription, a relatively minor issue compared to the 1st and the Josephus ambiguities. Lukan historicity is a general element that is not really discussed there and definitely there is an underlying difference of view).

Anybody can read the threads and come to their own conclusions.
The cement will stay hardened.
Jack-hammering attempts are low priority on this forum.

=====

As a reminder, earnest discussion, rather than derail attempts,
of Lysanias, would be at ...

Another Lukan Historical Error?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=78440

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

No, not really. From your past performance you've shown that you consistently cannot defend yourself regarding the positions you take, so you spend all your time obfuscating, either by attempting to shoot the messenger rather than the message or by spouting others' opinions unanalysed and contenting yourself that you've done your apologetic duty...

... oh and saying nothing tangible.

...see what I mean?

Yes, do read the thread. You will learn that you need to do something about Lysanias.


spin

Amaleq13

Since this was clearly offered within the context of "the other possibility", it seems unwise to assume that it applies to the explanation Carrier prefers:

Though I think Luke is certainly only referring to Archelaus, the other possibility deserves further discussion.

Amaleq13

An "apologist" can disagree with the source for which his supposedly apologizing? That is rather unique take on the word, I think. It is almost as though you want to use the word against your opponents so much that you are willing to apply it inappropriately.

Save the absurd conspiracy theories for your Christian Comedy Club act and stick to the evidence, Steven. Appealing to such nonsense only makes you look bad.

spin

Anybody who seriously believed in Lucan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships obviously hasn't actually looked at the data.

Luke makes an attempt to be accurate, but fails. It doesn't know the rank of Pilate, like it didn't know the status of Quirinius. It messed up on the registration of property as well as the Lysanias reference.

Between the intention and the execution there is a gulf. And praxeus is content with appearance not reality, when he tries to deal with the Carrier article, thinking that he can eke some sort of conflict between what Luke attempted to do and what really happened.

praxeus is not interested in getting his facts straight. We are just witness to another display in recreational apologetics.

And I didn't enter this thread with any desire to defend Richard's writings or your erroneous positions. He is quite able to look after himself and shows no interest in these convoluted acts of attrition.

We could just mention that the only real content in this which is of any interest is that both believe that Luke is accurate, rather than merely attempts to be accurate and misses. I don't subscribe to an Archelaus theory. I don't find any evidence for it, so I wouldn't defend it. It is the Quirinius error that has necessitated much of the discussion.

The reason why Lysanias was mentioned in this thread was because people were dealing with Luke's accuracy and Lysanias is another blow to that supposed accuracy.

As usual, being factfree, praxeus has no grounds for making any judgments. But let him churn on about Carrier. Richard isn't reading and probably doesn't care. I can see no reason for him to.


spin