jgibson000

[ghak]

Perhaps, then (though I doubt it), you'll finally provide your evidence for your claim.

JG

Sauron

So it is your contention that everyone in Galilee and the court of Herod Antipas was operating under a broken understanding of what these two words mean? But at the same time Caesar and Herod Antipas had a perfectly good understanding of the same two terms?

What is your evidence for such a transparently desperate handwave?

And how does this ad hoc explanation square up with your attempt to use ancient sources to prove your claim that the two terms were considered equal? If Caesar and Herod didn't consider the terms equal, then why would anyone else in the ancient world do so?

But most prefer intellectually honest arguments - you seem to be in short supply.

spin

Thanks for tacitly admitting the issue.

If I respond to something you say, it's switching to another issue. That's a novel method of argument, praxeus.

Neither. He wrote Greek with a Latin substratum, which is best explained if the writer did so in Rome or another part of the Italic peninsula -- especially with the western "Syro-phoenician" reference.

Would you like to start a thread on the issue of Mark not leaving out the resurrection?

Restraint? More novelty.

Your unsupported statement looks weak. Why don't you overcome your liguistically challenged status and try to justify this comment of yours: give me more to laugh about.

What "absurd multiple interpretations" are you referring to?

I find it odd that you contemplate using the adjective "scholarly". You eschew everything scholarly. The notion is diametrically opposed to apologetic. You have done your best to display your non-scholarly world view, down to avoiding the very languages you need to know to talk about the things you try to. That's certainly pretty funny, praxeus. In fact, most of us find your lack of judgment coupled with your blind apologetic zeal quite entertaining, so one doesn't take you too seriously when you attempt to brand anything nonsense. Much of the modern world must make little sense to you.


spin

jgibson000

Well, you are now shifting the ground of the contention. But be that as it may be, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us how you know what occurred in Galilee and in the court of Herod with respect to question of the interchanging and interchangeability of the terms BASILEUS and TETRACHS. Do you have some special evidence on this matter that the rest of us are not privy to?

And why is Josephus not evidence for what occurred in the court of Antipas, as you now imply he is not?

JG

Doug Shaver

You must know the answer to that by now.

If X did not happen, then the Bible (KJV) is not inerrant.
The Bible (KJV) is inerrant.
Therefore, X happened.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spin, the absurd multiple interpolations were your claim in Corinthians. Interpolations that were claimed on no hard evidence whatsoever, simply to match your preexisting pet doctrinal theory.

=========

The other major point on basileus, not yet addressed, is simple.
The NT term was the general term for a ruler (a supreme ruler
of a region, which would include tetrarchs, minor kings).

The NT usage of basileus is by no means limited to the official Roman title.
Dozens of times, like this.

Matthew 10:18
And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake,
for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Luke and John and Paul as well as Matthew and Mark give us this
general usage, not at all limited to Caesar's proclamations as to who
is a king. Refuting Jeffrey's case that the NT should render as by
Caesar.

Luke 10:24
For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired
to see those things which ye see,
and have not seen them;
and to hear those things which ye hear,
and have not heard them.

Luke 14:31
Or what king, going to make war against another king,
sitteth not down first,
and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand
to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

John 6:15
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come
and take him by force, to make him a king,
he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

1Timothy 2:2
For kings, and for all that are in authority;
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

And the term is used outside of Roman titles in a wide variety of ways,
for the Pharoah of Egypt, for Melchisadek, and for the emporer Caesar
and of course by those who proclaimed Jesus "King of the Jews".

With such a wide variety of NT usage for basileus/king, it is amazing
that the usage by Mark and Matthew for Herod is still being disputed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 .. tell us how you know what occurred in Galilee and in the court of Herod with respect to question of the interchanging and interchangeability of the terms BASILEUS and TETRACHS. Do you have some special evidence on this matter that the rest of us are not privy to? ... And why is Josephus not evidence for what occurred in the court of Antipas, as you now imply he is not?

Jeffrey, If you want to quote Josephus as saying that nobody in the court of Antipas or among the people of Galilee would call Antipas "king" please share the quote. We understand that Antipas very much wanted the official title from Rome and that he failed in trying to gain the Roman official title. If you have a quote from Josephus that should be juxtaposed against Matthew and Mark, please share away.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Great start. Non sequitur! We know what to expect, don't we?



Next we get the presto-chango routine:
Unhappy with the fact that both Luke and Matt have attempted to get rid of the references to Herod Antipas as "king" he's now looking elsewhere for usage of basileos to compensate for the obvious.

We don't have a "loser" smilie. Sorry, praxeus.

Great research there, praxeus. Too bad that none of them actually show the term basileos being used for an entity who was not designated a king. There are references like "governors and kings" and that was the state of the Roman empire which had provinces and client kingdoms.

But of course it's not too relevant, seeing as both Matt and Luke specified that Herod was a tetrarch and references to him as "king" have been either removed or mostly removed. Whatever the case with other rulers our writers were specifically concerned with Herod Antipas being called a king.

You're right. I don't understand why you are disputing the fact that both Matt and Luke wanted to be sure readers understood that Herod Antipas was actually a tetrarch and not a king. Matt which makes the one mistake (it's called "fatigue", praxeus, "fatigue") has shown that the writer's desire was to remove the reference to king regarding Herod Antipas.


spin

jgibson000

I thought the issue was whether the terms BASILEUS and TETRARCHS were interchangeable and whether there was any primary evidence that indicates that TETRARCHS was ever thought, as you, pointing to secondary sources, and misrepresenting Millar to make your point, claimed it was, to mean "minor king". Why are you now shifting the question to the meaning of BASILEUS?

Um ... what? When did the issue become who Caesar named as king? And when did I even make a case that the definition of BASILEUS, as opposed to that of TETRARCHS, was determined by who Caesar thought was worthy of the title and office of BASILEUS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 .. tell us how you know what occurred in Galilee and in the court of Herod with respect to question of the interchanging and interchangeability of the terms BASILEUS and TETRACHS. Do you have some special evidence on this matter that the rest of us are not privy to? ... And why is Josephus not evidence for what occurred in the court of Antipas, as you now imply he is not?

How nice of you to equivocate so. But let me remind you that the issue is not what Antipas' courtiers or his subjects would have called him (how could we know that?), but what the evidence of Josephus shows us they did call him.

Please show me from Josephus that anyone called Antipas BASILEUS.

Hmm. Interesting. I ask you a question about how you know, as you claim to do, that Galileans and members of Herod's actually used BASILEUS of Antipas, especially when they were addressing him, and you ignore it.

Not only that, but you then go on both to misrepresent and not answer a second question I asked you about Josephus, but to shift the burden for answering that question to me!

So, shall I take it then, as seems eminently clear, that you have no evidence for your claim, yes or no?

JG

gregor

Dr. Gibson,
If prax will not address the several prior requests to actually support his assertions (just off the top of my head, I can recall requests regarding assertions on the constant speed of light, the accuracy of Ron Wyatt, and the LXX derivation of 'virgin'), what are the odds that he'll reference primary source data for the asserted synonymity.

jgibson000

Zero to none. There are great odds though that he will characterize the request and/or change the subject in some way, shift the burden of proof, and/or equivocate in some fashion.

Jeffrey Gibson[