|
Author
|
Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: I noticed you have 300 and something posts to my 2200, do you think your tactics will work? Your a sad excuse at attempts to intimidate. please note my post count, to the left.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:27 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 209 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 7:13 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Well that is not the point i was making. My point was, do you have information better than the inspired Apostles and Nt writers that cite passages of the OT to relay them as a fulfillment of said prophecies? yes. that information can be found in the old testament, generally in the verse surrounding the prophecy the NT authors are misrepresenting.
secondly, if I am not mistaken, you dont even believe the writers of the OT were inspired, do you? my beliefs are not the topic of debate. the question is why should (you or) anyone "deconvert". the fact that the NT claims of "fulfilled prophecy" do not match the actual OT prophecies is a fairly good reason.
No, you've simply been presented with an argument, for which you will not attempt an answer. Here it is again. Please explain why I should not accept the NT writers conclusions and estimations about the fulfillment of the prophecies they cite as relating to and the fulfillment of said prophecies no. really. there's a whole thread devoted to this. there have been whole threads in the past. we once spent over 300 posts discussing one particular prophecy alone. my arguments and explanations can be found in the appropriate thread. in detail. you simply refuse to go look.
As such, I have a simple choice. I can believe them or I can believe you. it's not about believing me. it's about understanding the old testament.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: fun fact: none of the gospels are written in first person. the only books that use first person are the epistles. fun fact: they claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit fun fact: i can do that too. and so can you. and so can anyone. which is why the torah provides a way to determine inspiration.
first the dates you cite are from liberal scholars (apologists). i think you had better look up what "apologist" means. and "liberal".
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Dawn Bertot writes: what i posted was not an argument, but a summary of my past experiences. mostly on this very board, i might add. about 6 years ago, i gave up arguing against creationism with science, and instead, would reply to every post with information from the bible. And how did this work for you? very well, actually.
As I have contiually demonstrated and pointed out, they are not MY opinions, they are the NT writers inspired opinions. It may be possible that like the Jews of old, you were looking for a physical king, when a spiritual one was underconsideration by God You keep claiming I am missing something textually and now youve called it the finer points of the Prophets. Perhaps you could explain what it is that I am missing sure. there is a whole thread devoted to that subject right now.
quote:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
I specifically asked you not to give me another, "Bird in the hand" explanation and you did it anyway perhaps you would prefer?
quote:
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
"bird in the hand explanation" is not the word you're looking for, here. that word would be "proverb".
Were the people in this class inspired writers, did they have the inspired gift of decernment (1 Cor 12)? no, but they could read. something you evidently cannot do. and if we would have to be inspired by the holy spirit to even read the bible and understand its message, well -- what's the point of the bible, exactly?
Of course he did bring peace to the entire world and rules at its king, as it is stated "all authority has been given him in heaven and earth" iraq and afghanistan disagree with you. as does israel. remember israel?
Like the Jews of old , you are looking for what God never intended so you think the authors of the OT were not inspired, when they described the earthly rule of the messiah?
So Iam forced to a conclusion, I can believe this guy Arch, which can give no valid reason for his conlcusion, about what is intended in Zech, just his opinion, not to mention, Arch being uninspired don't believe me. believe zechariah. his words are plainly there for you to see on paper. why you can't comprehend them in plain, literal english i do not know.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Since you did not provide a passage, I cannot respond to it. there are several passages in the appropriate thread. you may respond there.
Secondly, if inspiration in the OT was behind the prophecies, then only inspiration could explain Gods interpretations of those prophecies, correct? incorrect. prophecy was meant as a message to the common folk, given by god through the mouths of the prophets. if your position were correct, everyone would have needed "inspiration" to understand the prophet -- and thus there would be no need for a prophet.
There is no reason to assume the writers in the OT were inspired and the ones in the Nt were not, unless you can provide a reason sure. several have been provided in the prophecy thread.
So only God could explain what he actually meant. This he did by his Son.. Many times he stated, that "the law and the Prophets testify of me" and any person can claim such a thing. the proof is in the pudding.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 238 of 566 (596679)
12-16-2010 1:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
12-16-2010 10:53 AM
|
|
Re: More scriptural misrepresentation.
jar writes: As in other such examples of quote mined misrepresentation, this passage from Isaiah is NOT talking about Jesus but rather the then current state of Israel and the fact that God allowed Israel to be conquered. since dawn likely doesn't know this particular bit of history, it's worth spelling out here. after solomon died, there was a dispute over the unified kingdom of israel. his son rehoboam ruled the southern kingdom of judah from jerusalem, and his other son jeroboam ruled the northern kingdom of israel. pretty much everything in the bible was written in judah. when the prophets refer to "israel" they are frequently refering to the northern kingdom, which was conquered by assyria around the time of the prophets. this is often in contrast to judah, as here in isaiah 50 (israel =bad, judah = good). sometimes they also refer to israel, meaning all 12 tribes, or the sons jacob -- all the hebrew peoples. but this is not one of those times. i find that people of the fundamentalist persuasion -- and those that have not read the books of kings -- frequently conflate israel and judah in prophecy, because they simply do not understand the difference. this difference would have been huge to the authors at the time, as israel was occasionally waging brutal war against them, and they were generally viewed as an evil and idolatrous nation.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by jar, posted 12-16-2010 10:53 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 239 by jar, posted 12-16-2010 1:43 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 245 of 566 (596745)
12-16-2010 6:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-16-2010 1:43 PM
|
|
Re: On Israel and Judah
It's important to understand that they are two separate nations and very often at war with one another and that even during the brief life of the United Kingdom it was far more like England and Scotland under James I and VI, two nations with a common monarch. that's quite debatable. certainly, the bible portrays a unified israel, under a monarch -- and the division occurs later. but there's a lot of thought that david and solomon might never have existed, and the israelites were really always 12 separate tribes who only loosely unified into two countries. certainly, this is how the modern middle east works... but that's really a topic for another thread. i just wanted to point out the difference between the sons of israel, the nation of israel, and the nation of judah. fundamentalists tend to conflate all three, simply because they don't know any better, and can't follow the book of kings (never mind the ideological point that israel was an idolatrous nation, and judah wasn't at least after josiah).
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by jar, posted 12-16-2010 1:43 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: i writes: yes. that information can be found in the old testament, generally in the verse surrounding the prophecy the NT authors are misrepresenting. How are they misrepresenting it? there is a whole thread devoted to this topic.
my beliefs are not the topic of debate. thats a foolish statement, of course they are. They are a part of it by indirect implication, especially when one is discussing the Old and New testaments no, as you repeatedly state, this topic is about why you or anyone should "deconvert". since i have not, the only way my beliefs would become relevant were if you were to try and convince me to "deconvert".
If both are inspired from and by God, only God can tell you what the meaning of the prophets is or is not. no, that's just silly. what is to stop just anyone from claiming inspiration? i could very easily say that yes, you are correct, only god can say -- and because god talks to me, i know that the rest of your point is wrong. after all, he said so. how would you know that i'm not telling the truth?
Knowing whether you believe that the OT and its prophets were inspired by God, is of vital importance. If they were not, the it matters little what either of the writers in either testament had to say, correct? no, it's all irrelevant. you can very easily check what they say against what the NT authors. i do not need to assume that either is "inspired" to notice that they do not match.
Friend, I have encouraged you to bring your strongest argument here from that thread. I assure you I am not afraid of any argument you may produce the problem is, it will utterly derail this thread. which is why there is a separate thread for it. i can promise that it will utterly derail this thread -- we've had previous prophecy threads that derailed themselves on the account of one single prophecy that happens to be rather highly valued by christianity.
But my friend, you are the one representing YOUR position, whether I understand the OT or not. You will have to explicate your position on these matters to see if it requires me to think differently my position is that the fact that jesus doesn't accurately represent the jewish messiah is a valid and supportable reason to "deconvert". for the argument about why that is a fact, see the appropriate thread.
If they are, then it stands to reason, that only MORE inspiration could give the explanations of such prophecies, correct? no. it should not take a prophet to understand the prophets -- or every believer would have to be a prophet. and since you are not, that sounds like a good reason to "deconvert" too.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Please by all means tell us what that WAY is. I am more than interested to know that method. But you have a serious problem in the meantime by quoting and using Duet 13. Here it is. You first need to make it plain whether you believe Duet 13 is from and inspired by God. no dawn, deut 13 is basically common sense. if a prophet speaks a verifiable untruth, he is not a true prophet. one does not need to believe that god inspired this verse -- or even that there is a god -- to recognize the truth of the this verse. i don't particularly need the bible to reinforce common sense. but i recognize that you do. my opinion on the inspiration of the text is quite irrelevant. but you believe that the text is inspired, so deut 13 should means something to you.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
No I cannot PROVE that any prophet was inspired of God, Old or New, correct. you can, however, prove when they are not. as it turns out, it's actually much easier to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive. jewish messianic prophecy, and christian claims of fulfillment do not match. one or both of them must be wrong.
That determination is based on what the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles, have to say about thier inspiration itself, by the history it supports, the doctrine it advocates, the unity it advocates in association with the OT so, basically because it says so?
There is no reason to believe any of the NT writers were inaccurate in what they taught along with the historical context of those beliefs sure there is. the gospels don't even match each other.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: friend, no argument from it will derail anything I have been saying or have believed and studied. I have encouraged you to bring your strongest or comprehensive argument here, yet you refuse i refuse because it will utterly derail this topic, and there is a certain merit to having things in the right places. those wishing to learn about or debate prophecy are probably going to be looking in the prophecy thread. there is a reason we try to stick to the topic on this board -- everything quickly becomes chaos if we do not. why exactly is it so hard for you to go post in that thread?
If a person doesnt even believe such things against the other areas of evidence that support the scriptures, how or why would one care whether a writer was inspired to make a prediction to begin with. er, you are complicating the issue entirely too much. if the text is not truthful, it's not inspired. or god lies. take your pick.
In contrast, if the writer was inspired, the it would follow that only God could explain a dual or an illudstration type prophecy, correct/ no, it does not follow. because then the reader would have to inspired as well. at which point, the bible itself no longer serves any function. it would have no reason to exist.
While a prophecy may have applied to a certain old test character, why is God not allowed to make it have a fuller and expanded meaning, for his ultimate purposes you are more than welcome to examine that position in the prophecy thread. however, i think you find that this "fuller and expanded meaning" is generally a tiny sliver of the actual prophecy, taken entirely out of context, and that the real prophecy as written in the OT has the fuller and more complete meaning.
So my friend it matters greatly whether you believe they were inspired no, it really doesn't. it only matters whether or not the NT claims of fulfilled prophecy are supported.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 268 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2010 10:53 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: How to test writings.
Dawn Bertot writes: The difference between the Koran and the Bible, is that the Koran clearly even by a simple application and reading has no theme anywhere. It seems to be random sayings slung together w/ on obvious purpose perhaps the problem is that you're simply not inspired. see, if you don't think it's inspired, then you obviously won't see the themes.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: How to test writings.
Dawn Bertot writes: can you check to see and understand what Gods overall intentions and purposes were by giving inspiration to the writer? yes. believe it or not, the bible is not that hard to understand. you just kind of have to read it. i don't know why you think it's so incomprehensible.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: How to test writings.
oh, clearly you can't tell that they aren't true, because you're not inspired.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2010 11:30 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: nothing of course could ever dispel my view of the evidence of scripture or its inspiration, that should be the end of the thread right there.
buts lets assume for a moment, it was not inspired. Besides there being no need to demonstrate whether Jesus was the messiah, if there were no inspiration(IOWs who would care)what evidence exacally would you use to refute that idea? inspiration is irrelevant. if jesus does not match predictions for the jewish messiah, then he is not the jewish messiah. it doesn't matter if any of those claims are inspired or not.
Excluding theTalmud, which Jesus often corrected, lets stay strickly with the OT prophets. Why is your statement factual? there is a whole thread on this topic.
No. Not only because it says so, but it is in line with what the Old testament taught concerning a Messiah and the fact that God never intended the jews to have an earthly king ...well, it's not. see the whole thread on the topic. and if god never intended the jews to have an earthly king, well, he sure messed up installing king david on the throne. and every king afterward, down to zedekiah.
Secondly, the Jewish writers of the 1st century were in a much better perspective to know what the prophets meanings were. Thier perspective would have been much better than ours they were in a much better position than the prophets themselves? that's interesting. see, this is not about our perspective. it's about what those prophets actually said. and time, frankly, is irrelevant.
אָרַח
|
™ Version 4.2