Amaleq13

The basis for your scholar's assertion is clearly and unequivocably relevant since you appeal to it to support your rejection of spin's argument. Without the evidence supporting that assertion, there is no good reason to accept it as legitimate and, subsequently, no good reason to reject spin's argument.

The point is that Gill's unsubstantiated opinion is insufficient to establish this conclusion.

The surrounding narrative context does that job quite well for anyone who chooses to avoid your a priori special pleading.

Steven Avery

Rarely have I seen such an irrelevant post.

Amaleq, are you actually affirming a position that

"came and dwelt"

requires no previous dwelling in earlier years ?

And are you claiming that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth per Luke or
Matthew in earlier years ?

Shalom,
Steven

Amaleq13

Permit me to attempt to reduce your confusion:

I am asking for the basis of Gill's assertion which you offered in support of your denial of spin's argument and I am observing that Gill's assertion is ineffective in that regard unless you can provide the basis for it.

Steven Avery

Amaleq, there is absolutely no confusion on this end.

John Gill gives the same English understanding that most anybody in the world other than Amaleq would have .. that "came to dwell" is not a defacto prohibition against an earlier time of life there. Whether you can prove that the person did in fact live there is the type of speculative irrelevant diversion upon which you excel. Even spin to some extent understood the significance of the verse reference, since he is the one who originally tried to show that Biblical references all match a "no possible earlier living there" concept. And even without the verse, or having the verse itself without the Gill commentary, there would be no grammatical case. The verse and commentary simply serve as a 100% refutation of the attempting to apply a grammatical argument against Matthew 2:23.

Neither John Gill or I remotely stated that they could prove the earlier living place, or that it was 100% certain, making all your insistences above 100% strawman. Amaleq, you seem to be completely unable to separate grammatical conceptions and interpretations from historical 'facts on the ground'.

Worse, we now also have the fact on the table that Jesus never dwelt
in Nazareth earlier, in any account, making the grammatical argument
doubly refuted.

So I note that you did not even remotely touch the two questions I
asked you. This type of gamesmanship on quibble points of your own
non-comprehension of the issues is fairly common and an IIDB lowlight.

The same type of gamemanship quibbling as where you tagteam
rah-rah the Acts authorship diversion. Designed solely to hide
and avoid the real and substantive issues that are on the table.

Please avoid the normal knee-jerk response. Think about it.
Try to see the whole picture. I'm off to work so take your time.

===============
TO REPEAT

On the other major Sander's problem being discussed -

I do wonder if anyone is going to try to defend Sander on the
lineage claim. Or agree that his writing was off. His using of
an implied, unstated and dubious assumption in order to go
into numerical flights of fancy.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

And I didn't claim any.

Here are the two verses in question:

24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the lord commanded him: he took Mary as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had her firstborn son; he named him Jesus.

There we have Joseph taking Mary (against the possible public shame where he lived) and she gives birth and Joseph names the child Jesus.

Does the narrative provide you with any indication whatsoever of a change in location from some other place to the place where Jesus was born?


spin

Amaleq13

Clearly there is confusion on your part as this nonsense continues to utterly fail to address my question.

I am asking for the basis of Gill's assertion which you placed in bold as specifically supportive of your position against spin:

"where probably he formerly dwelt"

On what specific evidence does Gill conclude that it is probable he lived there before? I don't see where he justifies this anywhere.

If this assertion you have offered against spin cannot be supported, it should be granted no merit.

The only strawman is this ridiculous mischaracterization of my entirely reasonable request. Gill asserts it to be probable that the man formerly dwelt there and I'm asking for the basis of that assessment since you have specifically offered it in support of your position.

Simply offer the support or acknowledge you don't know or that Gill offers no such support.

Yes, I avoided your attempt to distract from your failure to respond to my question. Thank you for noticing. Now answer the question.

Doug Shaver

Should I also have figured out that when the poster said you can't prove a negative, he meant ". . . except in mathematics"?

Doug Shaver

The assertion, apparently relevant to the actual discussion, was made that a negative cannot be proven. It was a blanket statement allowing of no exceptions. I noted that there are exceptions, and therefore the statement was false. Since it was false, any argument based on it is unsound and therefore irrelevant to the actual discussion.

aa5874

You can prove a negative, without mathematics. I can prove George Bush Junior is not dead. Can't you?

Amaleq13

That's what I thought. It was just a pedantic quibble irrelevant to the actual discussion. :banghead: