spin

Plainly praxeus has difficulties understanding the English of his bible.

But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Who is he that came and dwelt in Nazareth? The only "he" provided in the passage of course is Joseph, the head of the family. I don't think Jesus was yet old enough to make decisions, do you?

You, the reader, are left to make the connection between the "prophecy" and Jesus.

Oh my, another blunder from praxeus.

The subterfuge accusation is ever available for your attempts to bend the truth. In this case the subterfuge is avoiding giving a straight answer. You're good at pretending to deal with something and waffling to cover the emptiness of your response.

If there is no change of venue, ie a move from Nazareth to Bethlehem, then Joseph originally lived in Bethlehem where he took Mary for his wife as Matthew indicates, when he says that the place where Mary gave birth after Joseph to her as his wife was Bethlehem.


spin

jgibson000

That's nice, except for the fact that texts cited from English traslations of the Bible and "common sense" arguments (presented by you?) are irrelevant, since this is a lexical argument and can only be refuted by using actual lexical data.

So far I haven't seen a whit of it from you.


Why should they when what you say Sanders was attempting to do was not actually what he was up to when he cited numbers?

But be that as it may, what is your Greek lexical evidence that Spin's claim regarding the meaning of the word in contemporary usage is wrong?

Can you produce any?

JG

jgibson000

Um .. what??? The subject of the participle ELQWN and the verb KATWKHSEN is Joseph.

JG

Amaleq13

My question was as answered as it is apparently going to be so I'm not sure why you are continuing on the subject. You have no idea what evidence, if any, is the basis for Gill's assertion. You apparently didn't want to admit this and took several posts to get you to do so but the truth finally became clear.

You can't know it is "sensible" if you don't know the basis for it and you can't claim to understand it if you don't know the basis for it. Your faith in Gill is, however, irrelevant to a rational discussion.

No, I just wanted to know how Gill determined the man had probably lived there previously and you apparently cannot answer that question.

You appear to be confused about the difference between requesting the supporting evidence for a claim and disagreeing with a claim. You are equating them and that is a mistake.

I'm perfectly willing to accept Gill's assertion but I first have to know the basis for it..