gregor

bump (awaiting Steve's answer)

jgibson000

And another day has gone by without reply.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson

Cicero died 22 years before Herod Antipas was born. BDAG's reference must be erroneous, and, if Antipas is meant, it cannot be to any work of Cicero.

Stephen

Steven Avery

For three weeks you simply ignored the powerful Lukan historicity in Acts that had been given in an earlier post (instead you were simply repeating the false assertion that Luke only references tetrarchs) and then when the historicity was repeated and expanded you simply said.

"So we'll just hack out the Acts stuff, as totally nothing to do with the topic."

Obviously if Luke was the author (or just the feasible or likely author) of Acts then Acts has plenty to do with the historicity of Luke. In titles, law, geography, history, culture, dates, etc.

So your claim that Luke essentially only references tetrarchs rather than other detailed offices was obviously dependent on an implied claim that Acts is not by Luke. Which it took three weeks for you to actually state, and now try to play both sides.

This type of game-playing is transparent. Then we have the unfortunate situation of a "moderator" rah-rah crew who actually applauds this type of nonsense game when it obscures an untenable infidel/skeptic position

And you try to say that a whole nother thread would have to be opened to "demonstrate" (to who's satisfaction?) Luke was the author of Acts. (Which I pointed out would simply be a waste of time.)

So your position is simply a diversion to play games by ignoring the dozen or so powerful Acts references. And the "moderators" actually actively support such junque.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

I don't see what Acts has to do with anything. If you would like to introduce it as evidence, all you have to do is justify it somehow.

You may be right, but as things stand its only a conjecture. Yes, I know it's a popular conjecture, but if you want to create a connection, just do the footwork. Until then I'll happily ignore it or hack it out.

I cannot help your erroneous assumptions. If you believe that the writer of Luke was also the writer of Acts, that's just dandy, but if you want to talk about it, you'll have to do the work to make the claim meaningful.

Oh, shit, praxeus. You've crapped on from one end of this thread to the other and the dawn finally breaks that not everyone believes the rubbish that you do. Perhaps it's better late than never.

When you make errors, why look to blame everyone else you can?

That's because you know you can't do it.

This of course means that you are aware that Luke (you know the book by the name) is woefully limited in the sorts of historical indications you've tried to dragoon Acts in to bolster. Why don't you admit that you've willfully crapped on trying to hide the reality that Luke doesn't have many wonderfully precise and accurate historical indications?

Why blame other people for your mistakes? The moderator didn't post as a moderator. He merely pointed out that your assumptions weren't well-founded. And they weren't.

:boohoo:


spin

gregor

bump, waiting for prax
[or the "pierced" argument, the Wyatt support, or the light speed information]

jgibson000

Another few days gone by, and we're still waiting!

Why do you think that is?

Jeffrey

Yellum Notnef

I suspect he's busy scrambling through his thesaurus looking for some more uncommon words to insult you with.:Cheeky:

Steven Avery

And whatever is posted, you, or the skeptic rah-rahs, can simply claim .. "waiting" .. (claims made off topic and in other threads). Quite silly, actually.

eg. there were long threads on Ron Wyatt archaeology issues (including Sodom and Gomorroh and the Exodus and other issues including the integrity accusations .. is your requirement that I 'convince' you in order to have responded ?) ... Then you retracted one claim above as simply wrong. And I have posted (not sure if on IIDB, but easy enough to do) lists of papers and articles (many from folks not known as creationary) on the speed of light not being a constant and having a limit ... which is more a physics conceptual framework issue than an 'absolute' anyway. And I have pointed out that all such physics is considered to break down at the proposed big bang singularity .. leading to contrasting theories of how to get from there to here. The pierced discussion had its own dynamic where it might have been possible to have a decent discussion with Api (taking as a realistic agreed point that the verbal reading has good support) but the noise and nonsense in the thread made such a discussion extremely difficult. Also it would be good to reinvite Phlox back.

So what we have above is only a type of propagandistic approach .. politics. Meant only to divert from the issues actually being discussed. And the rah-rah stuff only shows the impoverished posting of the fellow propagandists, typical of IIDB.

Folks who read these threads know that I have rather indepth discussions on a wide variety of issues. Within the limitations of these types of forums, which are many.

As for tetrarchs and ethnarchs and such, the most interesting request was from Ben of a more complete review - which would include all the instances where basileus is more than the official Roman title. That was a substantive question approach which I was ready to try to work with, since we have a number of references in the thread to collate. Perhaps someone wants to collate the references, including all the NT references, without omissions due to their personal interpretations. (The "generic" NT references are many and could do with one example and a list of verses.)

Meanwhile I am waiting for the current 'operative' actual accusation against the NT texts of Mark and Matthew as well, which I have asked for a number of times.

And have been quite busy with an ISeries upgrade, and post on this thread (known for its tediousness and diversions and parsings.. Including <edit> Amaleq belatedly trying to assist spin to separate Acts from Luke for historicity - a skeptic tactic of convenience revealed after weeks of spin-junque, see right above for more) only in spurts. In fact the more substantive part of the thread is the part about the enrollment.

However the desperate measures used to avoid a real sensible and measured discussion of Luke's historicity in Luke and Acts is a perfect example of the depth of confusion and dialogue feinting that is the skeptic modus operandi here. Nobody will even touch the carefully laid out multiple accuracies and precisions from Luke in Acts .. instead we see a skeptic tag-team last-gasp desparate :

"prove to me first to my satisfaction that Luke wrote Acts"

type of approach. And this transparent switch-the-debate-point skeptic-propagandist idiocy is heartily seconded by the supposed "moderator" !

Returning to Matthew and Mark and king Herod .. if someone would make clear precisely which verses from Mark and Matthew they consider wrong and why, that would be helpful. With all the various aspects of basileus usages in and out of the NT that should be the minimal starting point. spin's personal fatigue theory is rather irrelevant, however if someone else wants to buy into that stuff they can declare their allegiance.

And maybe even supply the requested scholarly citations for those verses being "attempted non-redactions .. failed by fatigue" or the three spin Corinthians verses being "interpolations" without a shred of textual or early church writer evidence. Or, lacking a citation, at least simply acknowledge that they know of no such specific scholarly claims - outside of spin spinning them to match his existing argument against the NT text.

And thank you for the thesaurus comment, Fenton. I will take that as a compliment to having a decent vocabulary, and to some hopefully a helpful and informative writing style.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

gregor

great word salad prax. Let me summarize:

duck, dodge, weave. . . I posted independent confirmation of Wyatt's "findings", really I did but don't ask for proof . . . I demonstrated the speed of light changed here, or maybe it was on some other forum . . . I would defend "pierced" if Apikorus asked me again for the 4th time . . . have I written enough distraction for people to forget that I claimed that other writers have used the terms interchangably . . .

Steve, you must be a good amateur magician, because you are great at misdirection.

(BTW, I didn't "retract" a claim per se, I wrote in error, in that one of your many dodges was about "pierced," but it was most recently mentioned in a "like a virgin" thread. I mistakenly called it the virgin dodge)