spin

I know the evidence, so I have a basis from which to discuss the material.


spin

judge

Ok Spin what makes you qualified to talk. Who are you you.
What are you qualifications?

Toto

PLEASE avoid personalities and baiting.

judge

I think you misunderstood. Spin wants to show the reference to Lysanias in Luke is wrong, that no such Lysanias existed. He knows he cant do that, and that there is evidence against this, so he calls it "apparently erroneous" seemingly because that is a vague enough term to perhaps make people think he has shown such.

Which makes the outburst all the more ironic.

spin

You seem to be confused.


spin

Roger Pearse

I apologise if I was unclear. I suspect that I was replying more to Spin's comments than yours here. He was accusing me of inserting references from F.F.Bruce (!); actually I was merely tidying the article, not creating new stuff.

So it seems. I never quite understand this urgency myself. Atheism will not be proven true by strained arguments of that sort, liable to be overturned by any coin discovery; nor false. Christianity cannot be proven false that way either; nor true either. So what's the point?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

As I'm not an atheist and you are dealing with matters concerning me, so stop talking what seems intentional rot. The serpent is wily.

By obfuscating the boundaries between historical and possible though not historically demonstrated, you are debasing historical pursuit.

judge can make his own unfounded assumptions. That doesn't matter. You have the demerit of spreading your erroneous thoughts and interfering with the work of others as you have done on the Lysanias entry.


spin

judge

You wish to post your own pet theory on WIKI. WIKI discourages this for obvious reasons. They dont want it to be a place filled with the pet theories of every obsessive crank.

Your critique may not be this.

There needs to be some process though to help things. It appears you wish to subvert this process, from what I can see. But surely this process helps us all in the long run.

spin

Vandalism I don't find helpful. An approach based on slavish adherence to apologetic sources at the distrust of anything else is not helpful either. And to know that information is a pet theory, you need to know something about the subject.


spin

judge

Whether the alleged vandalism is helpful to you is irrelevant. Who cares?
Why should WIKI care about whether an anonymous internet poster with no apprent qualifications finds it helpful when they are pulled up for overstepping WIKI's guidelines ?

They are trying to help everyone by discouraging WIKI being flooded with "pet theories".


Sure, but you need to exaplin why WIKI should treat you, an anonymous internet poster with no apparent qualifications and no published papers should be treated differently than anyone else.

Ok so what are your qualifications?

Seriously, according this recent post you are only now familiarising yourself with Josephus in order to look into a related subject. In view of that how can you be any kind of expert?