I have never claimed to be an expert in these matters. I have a fair amount of knowledge of ancient history but my expertise lies in an area entirely unrelated to the Bible. What is interesting is that when confronted with people who are experts, MCWAY uses the same apologetics as always. In fact MCWAY, unlike you, cannot even concede that it is faith that motivates him rather than evidence. MCWAY is the only one who thinks he is winning the arguments; just read them, his silly comments about idolatry and then he gets schooled on the facts that the Hebrews were always polytheists. I have said it before. MCWAY had this stuff browbeaten into him as a child, hence his vehemence and stubborness and even now infects the next generation with it.
What's interesting here is when YOU are confronted by people who don't subscribe to your insults, and cut-and-paste-gone-wild tactics, you run to the other site, licking your wounds and hoping your fellow non-believers can give you a boost. That explains why you came up with this thread.
As far as Ishtar's post goes, Ishtar doesn't state that the Hebrews were always polytheistic; in fact, she claims that Aaron and the Levite priests imposed monotheism onto the Israelites. She takes exception with my stating that Israel slipped into idolatry. In fact, to some degree, I was agreeing with her post, as I mentioned that Abraham's father was polytheistic, given where he lived. Abrhaham, however, turned to worshipping God, as many of His descendants did, until they got enslaved in Egypt.
Browbeating is what you were hoping your friend at the Koko site would do to me, which again is why you wanted me to go over there and why you are basically clapping like a seal with a fresh fish in his mouth, every time you think I'm getting "thrashed and owned". Unfortunately for you and your fellow skeptics, it takes more than foul-mouthed skeptic blubbering, attached to pastes, from atheist websites to get to me.
Your position is ridiculous MCWAY.
If an author such as Josephus has a habit of mentioning family relations or towns in a specific manner or in great detail and does this 99% of the time, you are only resorting to special pleading by saying that he is not obligated to do so. Of course he is not, but if he does this most of the time, it is odd and strikes one as being out of place. That is how everyone else sees it, only you don't.
You mean, how every other skeptic sees it (Remember you ain't on the Koko site). The best you can to do to explain why the second reference to Jesus Christ in the Antiquities was forged is to bleat about James being identified by his brother, instead of his dad? Even by your standards, that's pitiful, about as pitiful as wailing about Josephus not mentoning Nazareth, even though of all the towns of Galilee, about a fifth are mentioned by name in the Antiquities.
The irony of it all is that you and your skeptic buddies can't seem to make up your mind. On one hand, you accuse folks like me and Loco of just relying on faith and the Bible, instead of "evidence". Yet, when either one of us point to extra-Biblical, non-Christian sources, it's time to go to the conspiracy theories for the non-believers.
