Steven Avery

However, Jeffrey, I did not post on the eclipse, outside the connection with the the Scroll of Fasting where basic fast-date and time-gap information was missing from Carrier and supplied by others. A strange omission, since Richard Carrier was seemingly giving the Megillath Ta’anith as a support of his position, yet without the expected normal footnotes or graphs or references or whatever.

Beyond that to request a summary as something that would be helpful to the readers, myself included. As I made clear.

There are various sub-plots to the eclipse question, such as whether a partial would not allow for a red moon to be seen as a sufficient sign connection. Or whether the implication is definitely a full eclipse. I note these discussions with some interest but no particular preference or agenda or position.

In my studies the eclipse is quite the secondary issue in the Nativity. There are a number of side issues that I view of virtually no importance, with the eclipse being a bit more interesting but again, only secondary.

As usual you are back in sniping mode, which is not surprising and a bit humorous to see, again and again and again.

One redeeming factor is that you are more or less an EOS .. an equal opportunity sniper .

You are a good example for readers of the pitfalls of modern scholarship. Folks might puzzle as to whether knowledge equates to intelligence and wisdom.

Or whether the 'tools necessary' are :

...a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart,
O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

I wonder how you can tell, especially since the truth of your claim depends on something you have demontrated over and over again that you do not have -- i.e., familiarity with modern scholarship.:devil1:

JG

Steven Avery

Again, as discussed in its own quickly-closed thread

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t...ichard+Carrier
Richard Carrier's credentials split from Critique of Richard Carrier 'Date of the Nat

there is no indication that Richard Carrier is anything other than one aspiring to be "a professional in the field of history".

His paper was built upon a number of contructs (at least one of which I believe is 100% sound).

Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself documents)

With his only exception to this being the rather inconsequential 'imprecision' of governing versus governor.

Richard's arguments are worth analyzing closely. He makes a number of errors and blunders and omissions in the article and that can be easily seen by anyone with a clear mind simply looking at his convoluted 'apologetic case' for a particular mode of contradiction between Matthew and Luke, which itself has two conflicting branches.

And that is what I will return to on the other thread. The fact that it was moved may turn out to be a help, lessening diversionary elements.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

spin

Very noble of you there, Joe. So much effort to untangle one tiny bit of data from the cloud of obfuscation in the attempt to disseminate confusion amongst those who won't do such work as you've done because they want to believe in the obfuscation. But you'll note that the brain will forget what the eye has seen.


spin

spin

Poor prax. You sound rather burnt at the moment. I can understand, but do try to contribute something useful. :wave:


spin

jgibson000

Wow. Argument through prooftexting. Now there's a sure and indisputable sign of familairity with scholarship!

In any case, I'm pretty sure that in this verse "Paul" was not speaking of you. And I'm even more cetain that, after reading what you write on matters NT, and looking at the sources you appeal to for your claims, "he" would find himself revolted at the narcissim that is embedded in your implicit assertion that "he" is.

JG

Steven Avery

Not at all, spin.
Tis a bright and beautiful day.

Off to work, however I believe these posts made a number of issues clear, to those with ears to hear.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

Pleased to hear that, but then you have no excuse for your functionally contentless posts.

ETA: You might like, if you wish to make amends and say something to the OP, to explain why you continue to linger on this subject, seeing as there is no way to date Quirinius as the one governing Syria before his appointment in 6CE which included the settlement of the Judean kingdom of Archelaus. A nice presentation of the evidence on the issue from your point of view might be helpful in understanding exactly where you stand on the census/property enrollment.


spin

Steven Avery

The 'subject' has many component, overlapping and interlinking elements. "Quirinius and the registration of 3 B.C.E."

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin seeing as there is no way to date Quirinius as the one governing Syria before his appointment in 6CE which included the settlement of the Judean kingdom of Archelaus.

Right .. I have never dated Quirinius to be governing before 6CE.

Shalom,
Steven Avery