Steven Avery

Hi Peter,

And actually I do not 'keep' the scriptures pure in any manner, shape, or form. God does that.

At times I do explain and expound their purity and perfection, to the best of my ability, to those who are cornfused on the matter.

To those who buy into silliness .. (Simple example, the recent Nazareth-mythicist thread, where the simplicity of truth and historical argumentation is attempted to be smothered in a ball of skeptic fog and where logical and sensible thinking was virtually absent .. Two major and very distinct issues could not even be properly separated .. Somehow a cloud of irrationality descends upon the supposed methodological naturalists .. or their compatriots .. which can be countered simply and decisively with a little critical and conceptual thinking.)

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

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Peter, there is at least one secular ghetto here on IIDB where thoughts in harmony with the Bible are censored. Your a priori attempts to filter out Bible acceptance (under the guise of methodological naturalism) will be more in harmony with those sections that these. (Although your accusation of idolatry may have plenty of backers here among the skeptics.)

One major challenge in this section is precisely the dissonance between those who accept the Bible as the scriptures and the skeptics who deny both the scriptures and their Author. The multisided nature of the dialog is a given here - although occasionally the overlords try hard to tilt the discussions.

Peter Kirby

Steven,

How can your mind consider rationally and fairly the existence of a Nazareth settlement of Galilee in the first century B.C., when you are bound by solemn purpose and belief to the unequivocal and inflexible doctrine of its positive existence?

The answer is that it cannot: your opinions on this subject are warped by faith.

Peter Kirby

My post has nothing to do with the rules of IIDB and everything to do with the nature of historical inquiry.

Steven Avery

Yet I showed conclusively that the thinking on the thread was hopelessly muddled. And I took the time to demonstrate one huge Mack Truck flaw in the Rene Salm view being used as the base for Nazareth mythicism.

Ironically the very claim of a "rational" issue on the :

"existence of Nazareth in the 1st century"

is itself skeptic irrationalism. The supposed question is based on an inability to do even the most rudimentary and simple logical and conceptual thinking. And it also involves a nonsensical a priori rejection of the Bible historicity despite an incredible track record on such matters as geographical accuracy.

(A type of a priori rejection that real historians like the late David Flusser or Professor Lawrence Schiffman would not entertain, even if unaccepting of the New Testament in many ways.)

And perhaps most amazingly of all, not even being able to logically separate two very distinct questions. (Some of the Christians share the weakness on this one.)

We see that your opinions on the subject (or those you are defending) are totally warped by skeptic unbelief.

Apparently a type of spiritual principality comes to play that chases away a "sound mind" in thinking.

(Granted, such a priori bias and irrationality can be given a shell exterior varnish of methodological naturalism.)

Shalom,
Steven

Peter Kirby

Steven's Statements:

1. There is an a priori rejection of Bible historicity.

False! You project your a priori fideism onto your opponents, who are unfettered by such.

2. The question of the existence of Nazareth in the first BC is a "Supposed" question.

Nope, it's a real question. Your qualifier is illogical.

3. The question (!) is based on an inability for conceptual thought.

Does this deserve more than an "LOL"?

4. (Implied) Steven is free of the "a priori bias," "irrationality," "logical weakness," etc. on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first BC.

FALSE. STEVEN IS COMMITTED TO THE EXISTENCE OF NAZARETH BACK THEN WITH AN UNSHAKEABLE FAITH.

His opponents (opponents because he makes them opponents, when all they are trying to do is history, while he is "fighting the good fight") do not have such a commitment, nor an opposite commitment ("We believe that there was no Nazareth in the first century..." when did that get into a skeptic's creed :huh: :huh: ). Yet he smears them with all the labels of noetic failure that he must inexorably come to recognize in himself, when he is honest in his understanding of his doctrinal Christianism.

Steven would not have hurled all these epiteths if we were trying to discern the existence of a eighth century BC Rome, or a Homeric Troy, yet he does so for those who raise a question -- an honest to goodness real question! -- as to what the origins of Nazareth are.

Can this do anything but demonstrate how doctrinal Christianists are incapable of asking honestly the real questions of history in Christian origins?