Steven Avery

spin is a legend in his own mind

Just so he doesn't snow anybody on this thread -

Here is the main Lysanias thread on IIDB
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...6&postcount=58

Note the two scholarly quotes supplied by Peter Kirby.
Fitzmyer and Carroll
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...71#post1468871
And some excellent stuff from Layman in the thread.

Then compare to this recent manic stuff...

Spin
"Luke is simply in total error"
"Lysanias...who died over sixty years before the time being referred to". "hysterics "

Then Spin takes us to his post ..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...63#post1470663
"clearly an error of the gospel"

Yet behind all the recent bluster even in that very thread it is all Spin's tentative interpretation against the scholars (Fitzmyer and Scheuer)
- plus Spin never even responded the second inscription evidence.

"I don't think Schuerer is necessarily correct here."
"I think that it is more likely that the "August lords" were Augustus and Livia."

As Layman put it...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...22#post1472322
I'll stick with the real scholars, including the nonapologists Fitzmyer and Schurer, on the question of the inscription, which attests to a Lysanias tetrarch no later than 14 CE and as late as 29 CE.

Also as Layman showed well, the idea that Josephus was only referring
to the early Lysanias, whose name was also a legend that lived on, is
difficult.

Spin will give all sorts of bluster even when he himself is simply
offering his differing interpretation against accepted scholarship.

Making his posts hopeless as they are designed for show.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

judge

I admit Quirinius is a problem (it may be an error, it is not impossible there is another explanation), but you wont admit any problems on your side, and wont provide an explanation either, for the nine years, or provide any alternative for the date of the eclipse.


As for praxeus why not take your own advice and keep personalities out of it and rather address the points you have avoided.

As for the eclipse the chronology is clear, the eclipse happens herod falls grivously ill and dies and passover follows.

This happens in 1BCE. Do you have an alternative?

Wars of the jews book 1

antiquities book 17

spin

This is called evidence according to praxeus.

Obviously that is no help to praxeus, who cannot read what he cites.

And this date has been shown to be baseless if one examines what it is based on the analysis I provided in this link.


Poor layman withered away for inability in the thread. And praxeus cherrypicks his way through the thread avoiding most of the inconvenient content.

Once again, empty-handed, praxeus allows someone else to do the work for him, so that he doesn't have to sully his brain with activity. It's better to flatline, defending his ignorance of the matter by appealing to opinions and regurgitating other people's thoughts on the matter.

The simple fact is he doesn't see that he is repeating the same farce: it had to be someone else. This one has sadly played out before. Quirinius... oh, it had to have been another census. History provides us with candidates and praxeus has to join the expedient chorus of inventing others.

Yes, hopeless, but entertaining. Keep it up praxeus. This was a gem:

"Lukan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships"

:notworthy:


spin

spin

I have asked you to put foward a clear case for your complaint. You still refuse.

There were several eclipses. The probable one was in late 5BCE. That fits closest to what Josephus tells us, doesn't it? You cannot appeal to your views of how Josephus should write his history. You have to make a convincing case from the evidence and we are all still waiting.

ETA: And I've already pointed out the error in the page that you depend on here. That's why I want you to put forward your case here so that everything is out in the open and you don't conveniently overlook anything.


spin

judge

No you have not pointed out the error with that page. Perhaps you have not read it. I'll grant there has been a lot to read in this and all the other threads you are involved in, and I have not mentioned the details at all. So i understand if you have not read every detail.

There is at least one more important reason why the Sept 15 5BCE eclipse cannot be the correct one.

Since you still haven't read it ,I'll post it here.

You are welcome to dispute this, and prove it wrong. I dont care either way. I don't see how you can.
But you need to at least read the argument before claiming to have dealt with the page depended on.

26.T. Barnes, Journal of Theological Studies, XIX (1968), 209.

27. Vermes and Millar, The New Schurer, 326.

28.Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 162.

29. Josephus, Antiquities XVII.82; War I.606.

30. Horayoth, 12b; Yoma 12b; Megilla 9b.

judge

Here it is again...

Sept 15 5 BCE seems to fail, any other alternatives?

spin

I asked you to present a case, not spew someone else's rubbish onto the page. You don't even get to think about it this way.


Why did I talk about Matthias, judge?

Eclipse in September, 5BCE. Herod dies early in 4BCE. What's the problem other than that you won't read your own sources?

Look, judge, I wish you had had the decency to at least read your own rubbish. As I indicated, they have the wrong Matthias. Look up the source text. Your source is crapping on needlessly on the wrong person. Fail. Try again. The argument against the Sept 5BCE eclipse is based on bad reading.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Spins regular rant.. opposed to accepted scholarship, spin tells us in his Lysanias post ..

"I think ..."
"I don't think..."

From his own interpretation, opposed to Fitzmyer and others, spin will leap to ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin "Luke is simply in total error" "Lysanias...who died over sixty years before the time being referred to". "hysterics "

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Poor layman withered away for inability in the thread.

Folks can read the thread and see that Layman posted excellently. Spin played geography and avoided the issues. After Layman posted this spin mostly went to Nazareth.

Layman
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...21#post1474521

One suggestion as to why Luke included Abilene is in the Encyclopedia Biblia ..
http://books.google.com/books?id=9NQ...iGk4#PPT103,M1
As the land came to be ruled by Agrippa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin This was a gem: "Lukan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships"

Richard Carrier on the issue of Lukan precision on titles and rulerships.

"I thought Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself documents), but Luke fails to be precise in naming the office of Quirinius, too."

So Carrier supports Luke's precision on all titles of men in power, as a fact, leaving open only two issues, that Quirinius was listed as governing Syria (which was 100% accurate although it could be technically more precise) and his own strange Archelaus theory, a rare bird in any commentary or scholarship.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

judge

Here is what you wrote

Here are the words of Josephus.

Antiquities book XVII

Notice the parts I have emboldened. Mathias the highpriest is deposed of the office of priesthood, because of this action. The other Matthias is executed.
Both are the result (at least in part) of this action. The eclipse is concurrrent with both the death of one Matthias and the deposing of the other.

Is it possible you failed to read it properly?

spin

Sour grapes yet again from praxeus. He knows he can't deal with either Quirinius or Lysanias, so he changes the subjects as always. Best he can do is try to beat up on someone who isn't here. Yup, Lysanias died in 36BCE and that's 65 years before Luke's use of him. Quirinius carried out his census 10 years after Herod died, yet Matthean chronology wants it to be before Herod died.

Despite this, praxeus gets himself all gooey about

"Lukan precision on the Roman titles and rulerships"

What this cashes out to is that Luke got "tetrarch" right. Impressive, right? No, not really, because he got Quirinius and Lysanias wrong at the same time. He tried though.

Lysanias wrong? But it's not the same Lysanias! And, yeah, sure, we've heard it all before. The reason why it's not the same Lysanias is that Luke would be in error. We have a monument naming Zenodorus as son of Lysanias the tetrarch. Chronologically this suits the Lysanias of Abila and the Zenodorus who rented the lands back that we already know, so now we have to create another Zenodorus son of this other Lysanias and they are multiplying like flies.

There is a short moral to this story for apologists: when you're confronted with compromising historical facts (such as the census of Quirinius or the tetrarchy of Lysanias), duplicate the personalities and bleed that they were from a different time period. Works. You don't even have to think about the moral bankruptcy because it's a good cause.


spin