Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 7:01 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:56 am
Giuseppe - the focus of your thread is an assumed Aretas V. You have provided no evidence for this assumed Aretas V.

Malichus II had a son called Aretas. This is a FACT.
And a daughter who was a queen: given the FACT that only male could rule in Nabatea, then the king who ruled with the daughter of Malichus II could only be: Aretas V.

But you don't have a FACT that there was an Aretas V and that this Aretas V had control of Damascus.

you are unaware that we human beings have a tool called logical implication:

From the FACTS that Malichus II had a son named Aretas and a daughter who ruled, then, given the FACT that only males ruled in Nabatea, the logical implication is that the female ruled with an Aretas V.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 9:21 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 7:01 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:56 am
Giuseppe - the focus of your thread is an assumed Aretas V. You have provided no evidence for this assumed Aretas V.

Malichus II had a son called Aretas. This is a FACT.
And a daughter who was a queen: given the FACT that only male could rule in Nabatea, then the king who ruled with the daughter of Malichus II could only be: Aretas V.

But you don't have a FACT that there was an Aretas V and that this Aretas V had control of Damascus.

you are unaware that we human beings have a tool called logical implication:

From the FACTS that Malichus II had a son named Aretas and a daughter who ruled, then, given the FACT that only males ruled in Nabatea, the logical implication is that the female ruled with an Aretas V.

You are using an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history. That's not logic that's assumption, speculation.

I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.

No trace of interpretation.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:46 pm I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.

No trace of interpretation.

Greg Doudna is using 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history.


(my formatting)


2 Cor. 11.32 is being used as 'confirmation' for the existence of Aretas V.

A NT Christian origin story is being used, being interpreted, as 'confirmation' of an Aretas V. Without an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 Greg has no way to support his theory of an Aretas V. By all means suggest the 'plausibility' that there 'could be' an Aretas V - but 2 Cor. 11.32 has it's own problems with historicity of Paul in Damascus and is thus an unstable base for 'confirmation' for secular Natabaean history.

If historical evidence turns up tomorrow that Aretas V was king of the Nabataeans in 69-70 CE - and that he controlled Damascus - well then, Greg has hit the jackpot and is then able to interpret 2 Cor. 11.32 as a reference to this Aretas V. Until such a time - the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III.

OK, sure Giuseppe.

DCH

"Facts" and "evidence" are not necessarily the same thing.

IMHO, you jump to conclusions way too fast, based on the flimsiest of evidence!

It's like "If something could happen in the context of the times, and this something could be interpreted to support an observer's POV, then this something MUST have happened!"

And the former US President MUST have really won the recent US presidential election ...

DCH

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:46 pm I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.

No trace of interpretation.

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 3:10 pmAnd the former US President MUST have really won the recent US presidential election

Wait a minute!!!
Are you tellin' me that Trump actually won?!??
I didn't know that!

CW





PS: /S

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 3:10 pm IMHO, you jump to conclusions way too fast, based on the flimsiest of evidence!

so, according to you, "the flimsiest of evidence" is:

• that the Nabateans were allied with the Romans during the war

• that Aretas IV never took Damascus

• that an Aretas son of Malichus II existed

• that the daughter of Malichus II ruled

• that in Nabarea a queen ruled usually with a male king.

DCHindley, no comment.

Hey Charlie,

'Round my parts, Trump is almost worshipped.

Our new mayor is a Trump worshipper, and the pastor of a Protestant church in town. Verrrry conservative in the political-right sense of that word. He has adopted arrogant Trump language and demands that all citizens of the town walk in lock step with him when he seeks to punish a councilperson who dares disrespect him in a tweet.

You see, during the period of discontent that followed the death of George Floyd, the mayor offered to move all the disrespected Confederate themed statues from wherever they may have been desecrated, and set them up here as a sort of park where the reverent can come to offer prayers.

There is a movement now to rename our county's Mosquito Lake Reservoir to "Trump Reservoir." Fitting in a way ... although no motors are allowed in water reservoirs here, so Trump will have to endorse electric motor driven vehicles if he decides to glory in this battle won.

DCH

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 4:38 pm

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 3:10 pmAnd the former US President MUST have really won the recent US presidential election

Wait a minute!!!
Are you tellin' me that Trump actually won?!??
I didn't know that!

CW

PS: /S

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 10:55 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:46 pm I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.

No trace of interpretation.

Greg Doudna is using 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history.

Now I want to be clear here. From the Nabataean evidence, we have a queen and we know her name. By inference we also have a king with her and we have plausibility that it could be Aretas V but we do not know that from the Nabataean evidence alone. Confirmation that that king was Aretas V comes from 2 Corinthians 11, which supplies the name and completes the argument.

https://www.academia.edu/49017407/Does_ ... f_69_70_CE

(my formatting)


2 Cor. 11.32 is being used as 'confirmation' for the existence of Aretas V.

A NT Christian origin story is being used, being interpreted, as 'confirmation' of an Aretas V. Without an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 Greg has no way to support his theory of an Aretas V. By all means suggest the 'plausibility' that there 'could be' an Aretas V - but 2 Cor. 11.32 has it's own problems with historicity of Paul in Damascus and is thus an unstable base for 'confirmation' for secular Natabaean history.

If historical evidence turns up tomorrow that Aretas V was king of the Nabataeans in 69-70 CE - and that he controlled Damascus - well then, Greg has hit the jackpot and is then able to interpret 2 Cor. 11.32 as a reference to this Aretas V. Until such a time - the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III.

Except for 3 years from 72 - 69 BCE.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:23 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 10:55 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:46 pm I have talked about FACTS and logical implications from FACTS.

No trace of interpretation.

Greg Doudna is using 2 Cor.11.32 to rewrite Nabataean history.

Now I want to be clear here. From the Nabataean evidence, we have a queen and we know her name. By inference we also have a king with her and we have plausibility that it could be Aretas V but we do not know that from the Nabataean evidence alone. Confirmation that that king was Aretas V comes from 2 Corinthians 11, which supplies the name and completes the argument.

https://www.academia.edu/49017407/Does_ ... f_69_70_CE

(my formatting)


2 Cor. 11.32 is being used as 'confirmation' for the existence of Aretas V.

A NT Christian origin story is being used, being interpreted, as 'confirmation' of an Aretas V. Without an interpretation of 2 Cor.11.32 Greg has no way to support his theory of an Aretas V. By all means suggest the 'plausibility' that there 'could be' an Aretas V - but 2 Cor. 11.32 has it's own problems with historicity of Paul in Damascus and is thus an unstable base for 'confirmation' for secular Natabaean history.

If historical evidence turns up tomorrow that Aretas V was king of the Nabataeans in 69-70 CE - and that he controlled Damascus - well then, Greg has hit the jackpot and is then able to interpret 2 Cor. 11.32 as a reference to this Aretas V. Until such a time - the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III.

Except for 3 years from 72 - 69 BCE.

Already mentioned in earlier post..


The ruler of Damascus between 72 b.c. and 69 b.c. was Tigranes II.


So - 'the only Natabaean Aretas that controlled Damascus was Aretas III'....