C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real

[Angrboda]

I love how this uneducated moron continually goes on about how we don't understand proper research and debate, and yet he's the one who posted three sources that directly contradicted his claims all in a row.   If you don't get the big bits, I'm pretty confident you don't get the small bits, either.

This is the problem with stupid.  Stupid never gets tired.

what i love is when someone jumps in a third part discussion at the end of someone else's effort and proceeds to do a victory lap, when she has been given her own challenge that thus far goes unanswered.

Well, in the first place, I'm not obligated to respond to anything you've said, and if I have failed to do so, you would be foolish to draw much if any conclusion from that fact. As to my victory lap, there was nothing of the sort, so you can take that idea and stick it where the sun don't shine. I am curious though, exactly what 'challenge' is it that you think I have not answered and why do you feel that my not having answered it is significant?

[Drich]

what i love is when someone jumps in a third part discussion at the end of someone else's effort and proceeds to do a victory lap, when she has been given her own challenge that thus far goes unanswered.

Well, in the first place, I'm not obligated to respond to anything you've said, and if I have failed to do so, you would be foolish to draw much if any conclusion from that fact.  As to my victory lap, there was nothing of the sort, so you can take that idea and stick it where the sun don't shine.  I am curious though, exactly what 'challenge' is it that you think I have not answered and why do you feel that my not having answered it is significant?

The one you said would be ready tuesday?

and I know you are not obliged to answer anything.. that is what makes your victory lap here so 'loving.'

[Angrboda]

Well, in the first place, I'm not obligated to respond to anything you've said, and if I have failed to do so, you would be foolish to draw much if any conclusion from that fact.  As to my victory lap, there was nothing of the sort, so you can take that idea and stick it where the sun don't shine.  I am curious though, exactly what 'challenge' is it that you think I have not answered and why do you feel that my not having answered it is significant?

The one you said would be ready tuesday?

and I know you are not obliged to answer anything.. that is what makes your victory lap here so 'loving.'

Now you're just making up lies. As anyone can see in the quoted post, below, I said that I would not have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, and promised only to, "see what I can do then." I also indicated quite clearly that it was possible that I might not respond and went out of my way to thank you for your reply. Well, I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished, because now, here you are, making a gross misrepresentation of what I had said and trying to score points by casting my not responding as some sort of failing on my part. As noted, there was no victory lap involved, so that's just more dishonest crap from you.

Honestly, Drich, all you're succeeding in doing is pointing out what a lying ass you are, and giving me very good cause to consider reading or responding to your posts a lower priority than the very low priority it already is. Do you really need a map here? You're a complete fucking ass, and a monumentally incompetent one at that -- lying about a recent post that is readily available to anyone's inspection. That alone is worth mega stupidity points. I may or may not respond to the post you posted, but I'm feeling less inclined to do so now than I may have been originally. I had basically decided to leave things as they were. I had no idea you were so morally bankrupt that after my kindness in the matter, you would try to throw my failure to read and respond to your reply back in my face in an attempt to score points. You are truly a despicable person, Drich, and I have little doubt about which place you are going to go after you die.

Now, given that what little interest in your prior post that I may have had has been hunted down and mercilessly killed by you, if there is something specific in your reply that you would like me to address, I suggest you bring it up in response to this post and I'll see what I can do. This is not a promise that I will respond, but rather a note that as a result of your behavior, what hope you had of my addressing the original reply is pretty much gone.

Thank you for the reply, Drich. I won't have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, but I'll see what I can do then. I'm a bit backlogged with other things as well, so if I don't reply, accept my thanks for the effort you've put in here.

[Amarok]

The one you said would be ready tuesday?

and I know you are not obliged to answer anything.. that is what makes your victory lap here so 'loving.'

Now you're just making up lies.  As anyone can see in the quoted post, below, I said that I would not have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, and promised only to, "see what I can do then."  I also indicated quite clearly that it was possible that I might not respond and went out of my way to thank you for your reply.  Well, I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished, because now, here you are, making a gross misrepresentation of what I had said and trying to score points by casting my not responding as some sort of failing on my part.  As noted, there was no victory lap involved, so that's just more dishonest crap from you.

Honestly, Drich, all you're succeeding in doing is pointing out what a lying ass you are, and giving me very good cause to consider reading or responding to your posts a lower priority than the very low priority it already is.  Do you really need a map here?  You're a complete fucking ass, and a monumentally incompetent one at that -- lying about a recent post that is readily available to anyone's inspection.  That alone is worth mega stupidity points.  I may or may not respond to the post you posted, but I'm feeling less inclined to do so now than I may have been originally.  I had basically decided to leave things as they were.  I had no idea you were so morally bankrupt that after my kindness in the matter, you would try to throw my failure to read and respond to your reply back in my face in an attempt to score points.  You are truly a despicable person, Drich, and I have little doubt about which place you are going to go after you die.

Now, given that what little interest in your prior post that I may have had has been hunted down and mercilessly killed by you, if there is something specific in your reply that you would like me to address, I suggest you bring it up in response to this post and I'll see what I can do.  This is not a promise that I will respond, but rather a note that as a result of your behavior, what hope you had of my addressing the original reply is pretty much gone.  

Thank you for the reply, Drich.  I won't have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, but I'll see what I can do then.  I'm a bit backlogged with other things as well, so if I don't reply, accept my thanks for the effort you've put in here.

Don't be too cross Derpch clearly has reading issues if a clear "at the earliest " didn't register .

[Drich]

alright one more time. I took a few days to collect my thoughts and re read the argument.

The opposing/loosing argument is the herod the great was the only possible king of judea when christ was born. and yes if you look at other books this is possible and even the most likly situation..

However in looking what luke records we can make an argument for a much later date. I made this argument and you continue to blow past it because you don't seem to understand the linchpin of the whole horndean line. 3 brothers and 1 daughter all share the same name. While antipas or antipater was tetrarch HEROD Archelaus was entriarch of judea. or King of judea or as luke puts it While "Herod was King of judea..."

Which bring us back to the crux of my primary argument that the term "herod in luke" is an ambiguous name. it could mean any one of the 3 male herods. This time it meant Archelaus not the great, because of the 11 year gap between john and jesus. Sorry sport. should have put you out of your misery days ago.

I hope you enjoyed you brief victory lap now it's time to put this to bed.

---

Now you're just making up lies.  As anyone can see in the quoted post, below, I said that I would not have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, and promised only to, "see what I can do then."  I also indicated quite clearly that it was possible that I might not respond and went out of my way to thank you for your reply.  Well, I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished, because now, here you are, making a gross misrepresentation of what I had said and trying to score points by casting my not responding as some sort of failing on my part.  As noted, there was no victory lap involved, so that's just more dishonest crap from you.

Honestly, Drich, all you're succeeding in doing is pointing out what a lying ass you are, and giving me very good cause to consider reading or responding to your posts a lower priority than the very low priority it already is.  Do you really need a map here?  You're a complete fucking ass, and a monumentally incompetent one at that -- lying about a recent post that is readily available to anyone's inspection.  That alone is worth mega stupidity points.  I may or may not respond to the post you posted, but I'm feeling less inclined to do so now than I may have been originally.  I had basically decided to leave things as they were.  I had no idea you were so morally bankrupt that after my kindness in the matter, you would try to throw my failure to read and respond to your reply back in my face in an attempt to score points.  You are truly a despicable person, Drich, and I have little doubt about which place you are going to go after you die.

Now, given that what little interest in your prior post that I may have had has been hunted down and mercilessly killed by you, if there is something specific in your reply that you would like me to address, I suggest you bring it up in response to this post and I'll see what I can do.  This is not a promise that I will respond, but rather a note that as a result of your behavior, what hope you had of my addressing the original reply is pretty much gone.  

Don't be too cross Derpch clearly has reading issues if a clear "at the earliest " didn't register .

maybe it is you who does not understand as you are responding literally 1/2 through the discussion.

I said I clearly understand she does not have to answer anything I said which is why I applaud her for doing a victory dance for apparently defeating me in verbal kombat when she did even both answering a post I wrote to her directly... More specifically doing a dance because of someone else's effort all together ignoring what was addressed to her specifically (sound familiar sport?)

Do you understand now? probably not, so allow me to explain so you don't twist things in your mind and hurt yourself.

Jorgie had a big long post directed at her specifically. again to which no one has to answer anything I say to them but, if said person ceases the opportunity to do a victory dance on someone else's 'win'.. It makes them look intellectually weak or at the very least very lazy. why? because clearly they can not find enough conflict in what I directed at them, to mount a defense or counter point. or they simply don't want to.. because clearly they want to see me fail other wise why the victory lap when they never even ran the race given their own specific opportunity???

Kinda like you who as far as I know have never met. yet you feel like you won something strong enough to belittle my character when your only effort was to copy and paste the works of others and add you own BS commentary.. get over yourself we do not need another bill marr. try original thought. try and speak topically, try and pick up a thread and see if you can openly defend you pov, and if you can THEN do a victory lap, other wise you look like a johnny come lately looser piling on someone else's work!

[DeistPaladin]

alright one more time. I took a few days to collect my thoughts and re read the argument.

The opposing/loosing argument is the herod the great was the only possible king of judea when christ was born. and yes if you look at other books this is possible and even the most likly situation..

However in looking what luke records we can make an argument for a much later date. I made this argument and you continue to blow past it because you don't seem to understand the linchpin of the whole horndean line. 3 brothers and 1 daughter all share the same name. While antipas or antipater was tetrarch HEROD Archelaus was entriarch of judea. or King of judea or as luke puts it While "Herod was King of judea..."

Which bring us back to the crux of my primary argument that the term "herod in luke" is an ambiguous name. it could mean any one of the 3 male herods. This time it meant Archelaus not the great, because of the 11 year gap between john and jesus. Sorry sport. should have put you out of your misery days ago.

I hope you enjoyed you brief victory lap now it's time to put this to bed.

[Drich]

alright one more time. I took a few days to collect my thoughts and re read the argument.

The opposing/loosing argument is the herod the great was the only possible king of judea when christ was born. and yes if you look at other books this is possible and even the most likly situation..

However in looking what luke records we can make an argument for a much later date. I made this argument and you continue to blow past it because you don't seem to understand the linchpin of the whole horndean line. 3 brothers and 1 daughter all share the same name. While antipas or antipater was tetrarch HEROD Archelaus was entriarch of judea. or King of judea or as luke puts it While "Herod was King of judea..."

Which bring us back to the crux of my primary argument that the term "herod in luke" is an ambiguous name. it could mean any one of the 3 male herods. This time it meant Archelaus not the great, because of the 11 year gap between john and jesus. Sorry sport. should have put you out of your misery days ago.

I hope you enjoyed you brief victory lap now it's time to put this to bed.

I actually was making this point in post 42 where it shows the brother of antipas, Archelaus as the king of judea while antipas rules as tetarch. Archelaus was an entarch. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

And what's more my original argument : Bears out Archelaus as a possible luke 1:5 'herod.'



Again not disputing "the great" being identified in other books of the bible. just point out that in luke the translation CAN push the time line back as it is possible to have two different herods one beng the king of judea and the other of galilee at the same time. (remember tetrarch= 4 rulers, and there are 4 siblings. rome divided HtG kingdom amongst the children of herod.)
Granted this is a hair that does not need to be split unless you are trying to rectify the time line held with in luke. at which point can be justified with a later date.

look this is not my message as it did not originate from me. it is a message I have heard several times in the past. it is not a for or against which time lie. it simply offers a different pov.

[DeistPaladin]

I actually was making this point in post 42 where it shows the brother of antipas, Archelaus as the king of judea while antipas rules as tetarch. Archelaus was an entarch. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

And what's more my original argument : Bears out Archelaus as a possible luke 1:5 'herod.'



Again not disputing "the great" being identified in other books of the bible. just point out that in luke the translation CAN push the time line back as it is possible to have two different herods one beng the king of judea and the other of galilee at the same time. (remember tetrarch= 4 rulers, and there are 4 siblings. rome divided HtG kingdom amongst the children of herod.)
Granted this is a hair that does not need to be split unless you are trying to rectify the time line held with in luke. at which point can be justified with a later date.

look this is not my message as it did not originate from me. it is a message I have heard several times in the past. it is not a for or against which time lie. it simply offers a different pov.

OK, so you've gone from trying to prove Antipas was the Herod mentioned in Luke 1:5 to Archelaus was our Herod of Luke 1:5. And you claim that I move the goalposts. 

Scholarly consensus favors my interpretation. Do you have any evidence to offer for yours?

[Drich]

I actually was making this point in post 42 where it shows the brother of antipas, Archelaus as the king of judea while antipas rules as tetarch. Archelaus was an entarch. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

And what's more my original argument : Bears out Archelaus as a possible luke 1:5 'herod.'



Again not disputing "the great" being identified in other books of the bible. just point out that in luke the translation CAN push the time line back as it is possible to have two different herods one beng the king of judea and the other of galilee at the same time. (remember tetrarch= 4 rulers, and there are 4 siblings. rome divided HtG kingdom amongst the children of herod.)
Granted this is a hair that does not need to be split unless you are trying to rectify the time line held with in luke. at which point can be justified with a later date.

look this is not my message as it did not originate from me. it is a message I have heard several times in the past. it is not a for or against which time lie. it simply offers a different pov.

OK, so you've gone from trying to prove Antipas was the Herod mentioned in Luke 1:5 to Archelaus was our Herod of Luke 1:5. And you claim that I move the goalposts. 

Scholarly consensus favors my interpretation. Do you have any evidence to offer for yours?

I went from proving that luke 1:5 does not have to be herod the great thus creating a 10 year contradiction to proving that luke 1:5 does not have to be herod the great but his oldest son. This is not shifting the goal posts as the objection remains. the correction is what changed..

 Again not my original sermon it was something I heard several years back and simply got the names confused Antipater=antipas and Archelius are not exactly common names. I even tried to correct this in post 42 where I showed you where both ruled at the same time in the narrow window where Christ was a child. I knew the crux of the argument centered around the idea that the name herod was ambiguous as 5 different rulers all shared this common surname. 

Not to mention that I did this whole thing with yahweh is the way a week before and got it right till one of you called my use of antipater in place of Archelus which started my unchecked use of antipas. Meaning having to repeat myself 3 or 4 time per subject per thread times two different threads on the same subject tends to get confusing. so sorry about the mix up.

[Angrboda]

Don't be too cross Derpch clearly has reading issues if a clear "at the earliest " didn't register .

maybe it is you who does not understand as you are responding literally 1/2 through the discussion.

I said I clearly understand she does not have to answer anything I said which is why I applaud her for doing a victory dance for apparently defeating me in verbal kombat when she did even both answering a post I wrote to her directly... More specifically doing a dance because of someone else's effort all together ignoring what was addressed to her specifically (sound familiar sport?)

Do you understand now? probably not, so allow me to explain so you don't twist things in your mind and hurt yourself.

Jorgie had a big long post directed at her specifically. again to which no one has to answer anything I say to them but, if said person ceases the opportunity to do a victory dance on someone else's 'win'.. It makes them look intellectually weak or at the very least very lazy. why? because clearly they can not find enough conflict in what I directed at them, to mount a defense or counter point. or they simply don't want to.. because clearly they want to see me fail other wise why the victory lap when they never even ran the race given their own specific opportunity???

Kinda like you who as far as I know have never met. yet you feel like you won something strong enough to belittle my character when your only effort was to copy and paste the works of others and add you own BS commentary.. get over yourself we do not need another bill marr. try original thought. try and speak topically, try and pick up a thread and see if you can openly defend you pov, and if you can THEN do a victory lap, other wise you look like a johnny come lately looser piling on someone else's work!

I notice you didn't bother to retract the lie you posted about me promising to reply Tuesday. You're confirmation bias on steroids, you count the hits and simply ignore the misses. And now noting that you think I didn't point out your errors in simple reading comprehension and logic not once, but three times regarding your posts on global cooling simply shows that you are massively deluded. I'm not going to waste my time reposting that shit because you'd still pretend that the facts are otherwise than they are. I have already refuted those things multiple times, so you're simply fucked in the head.

As to the above, you continue to lie in claiming that I took any kind of victory lap. And your psychoanalysis of me simply shows that you know about as much about human nature as anything else, which is basically nothing. I clearly indicated that I was very busy and so might not get to replying to your post. That you think that shows that I cannot find enough conflict in what you directed at me, whatever that means, and that this shows that I'm intellectually weak is one of the more pathetic examples of bad reasoning I've seen lately. You're slipping further down the ladder of my priorities. You continue to lie, demonstrate that you're clearly too deluded and stupid to reason with, and engage in unjustified slurs against me.

You are an example to everyone here. A bad one. I pity anyone who looks to you for answers.

As to what I look like to others, you know as well as I do that your rebuttals and such do nothing to undermine the reputation I have, and simply undermine yours. So enjoy thinking otherwise, because that's just more delusional thinking on your part. The only person here who takes you seriously is you, for obvious reasons. That you think anybody else is doing anything other than looking on in shock and amazement, and laughing, just shows how out of touch with reality you are.