Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:24 PM
388 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,396 Year: 10,002/21,208 Month: 3,089/2,674 Week: 505/961 Day: 118/117 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   How the NT quotes Tanach texts
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 31 of 61 (717833)
02-02-2014 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 12:40 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
In all seriousness the above example is no different then the lists claiming 200/300/400 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. They claim the odds against a single person fulfilling them are astronomical. Or of their claims that passages like Psalms 22, or Isaiah 53 are about their messiah/god. Consider this well when you see or hear the claims made by missionaries or just simple Christians who you may meet. If not there may be a prophecy that does really apply: 'They are a people bereft of council and they don't have understanding.'

Im glad that you do not take what you have quoted to us as serious. Now lets ask why you do not. You do not because you know it is not inspired of God and why? Because it does not have the evidential nature and characteristics that both the old and NT do, does it?

This partiular Jew you quoted, whether serious or not, claimed no miraculous confirmation of his revelation from God did he. He did not come down from a mountain with tablets, already having demonstraing previously his miraculous confirmation from God, did he?

The Apostles like Moses performed and claimed miraculous confirmation, didnt they

Remember me asking you if, why and how the scriptures were confirmed. There was a reason I asked you

The Apostle Pauls speaking to a particular Chruch said, "I didnt come to you in word only, but power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit"

"The signs of an Apostle were wrought amoung you"

The New Testament is confirmed the exact same way as the old testament

So the first words out of your mouth are, "In all seriousness". Not surprising, eh

Since you were not around to witness anything Moses or Jerimiah said, why do you believe it to be true?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 12:40 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 7:31 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 32 of 61 (717839)
02-02-2014 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 9:34 PM


Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you.

quote:

Unbelievable

These are the kind of statements that make you a filthy, unobjective, intellectually dishonest liar.


Wow, you really hate people who actually know what the Bible says.

quote:

There is no one that ignores the entirity of the context more than a secular fundamental humanist. You pretend that you believe or understand, what the writer is trying to communicate, then blatently ignore and deny any claim to the miraculous, divine guidance.

Ironically, I was paying MORE attention to the context than ded2daworld - or Faith when she made the earlier post. To her credit Faith has retracted the claim, acknowledging the actual context. If your idea of helping Faith is to abuse people who correct her - AFTER she has accepted the correction - then you offer the sort of "help" she is better off without.

quote:

You do understand the willful stupidity and blatant arrogance for assuming such an alledged, misguided evaluation on Faiths part, correct

I'm not aware of any reason why reading Isaiah 7 and 8 and knowing what they say should be called any of the above.

quote:

Im sorry PaulK, please tell me again, who does not understand sound reasoning. Your ignorance of such things is either willful or you really are that silly

Obviously it is you, since all you offer is arrogant bluster in opposition to a statement based on sound reasoning. As I said, thank you for proving my point.

quote:

Do you really think you can dismiss the NTs and Christians claims to fulfilled prophecy without understanding and starting with simple sound reasoning

Apparently you think you can dismiss my statement without even understanding what it referred to, let alone the reasoning.

quote:

Come now PaulK you can do much better than that

Given your complete inability to rebut my point - or even attempt to do so - it seems that I did far better than you can manage.

Edited by PaulK, : typo correction no substantive change


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:34 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 11:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
Raphael
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 09-29-2007


(1)
Message 33 of 61 (717843)
02-02-2014 4:48 AM


Hi there all! I am by no means a scholar, but I would like to attempt to share what I understand to be true in the hopes that it will bring clarity.

I will be responding to only the quote about the virgin birth referenced in Matthew.

Your position (as I understand):

The translation of "almah" (עַלְמָה ) does not mean "virgin," but young woman, therefore the text in Isaiah 7 cannot be referring to the messiah, and the NT has misquoted the OT.

Eliyahu writes:

So the NT has been misquoting the Hebrew Bible.
Nowhere in the Tanach (Tanach is compilation of the first letters of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nevi'iem, (prophets), and Chetuviem, (writings)) is a virgin to be found who would get pregnant. In fact, NOWHERE in the Tanach does a virgin bear a child. This concept is only to found in pagan mythology.
And when we look at the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, then we see that it doesn't speak about the messiah. It speaks about God giving a sign to Achaz, that he will have peace in his days.
This chapter has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever.
What the NT does is ripping a text out of context, mistranslating it, and presenting it as a messianic prophecy."

This text is obviously the source of much disagreement. I would like to point to the context of this text for my thesis statement, which is: "It doesn't matter whether the text means virgin or not."

The reason why it doesn't matter is because the girl being a virgin or not is not a required detail for the prophecy's fulfillment. Let me explain.

Throughout this post I will be referring to Isaiah, 2 Kings, Revelation, and Luke. I will be providing texts throughout so feel free to check my texts and read the story for yourself for authentication. Let's begin, come on this journey with me . To begin, let's look at the text in question:

10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your[f] God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 And he[g] said, Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In order to illustrate, I need to point to three significant events that take place:

- The first event is the meeting of Isaiah and his son, Shear-jashub (שְׁאָר ) with Ahaz "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the Washer's field" (Isaiah 7:3, ESV). The reason why this event is important is because Isaiah's son, Shear-jashub (שְׁאָר ) literally means, "a remnant shall return." Source. The idea behind the name was the eventual returning of Israel to YHWH for deliverance (Isaiah 10:21), and his presence at this meeting is significant because it is at this place ("on the highway to the Washer's field) where everything comes to a head.

- The second event is the actual prophecy in question; the one given to Ahaz concerning an "almah" (עַלְמָה ) that will "be with child and give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel" (עִמָּ֫נוּאֵ֫ל ), which means "God with us/with us is God" The word's most recknognized meaning is "maiden"Source, but is also translated as young girl, maid, and virgin in other places in the OT."Almah" does seem to generall refer to a sort of "chaste woman" in six other texts in the OT: Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Song 1:3; and Song 6:8, but may also just refer to a maiden, I.E., virginity is not a requirement but it is implied. Regardless, I will be using the word "maiden" as translation for "almah." So, getting back to the story, King Ahaz would apparently be aware of the pregnancy of a "maiden" at some point, and this maiden would name her son "God-with-us." The text does not state the identity of the woman or the child, or the father, or even give us any other name by which to identify any of the mentioned. But there are two prophecies about this child which are significant:

1. "before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:16), meaning that before this boy has both grown old enough to understand good and evil (probably adolescence), and be capable of choosing good over evil, the kingdoms of Aram and Israel (10 northern tribes) would have fallen.

and

2. This "Immanuel" is referenced in the 2nd person singular in Isaiah 8:5-8:

The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore, behold the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, 8 and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Here, the speech is directed at Immanuel, saying that a flood will reach "the neck" of Judah, but in the following passages it continues in that repentance will follow, and that the plans will be thwarted because "Immanuel." which of course, literally, is god-with-us.

So, since no other information is given in the text, for Ahaz, kind of the tell-tale sign of Immanuel, was that he would "eat curds and honey when he learns how to refuse the evil and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:15). I mentioned adolescence because the natural tendency of children is to be disobedient as they develop instead of obedient. This may be speculation, but at any rate it was at some age that the change took place, and that was the thing Ahaz was to look for. Keep in mind that the identity of neither the mother or Immanuel are simply not mentioned.

Now we're going to zoom over to Isaiah 22. In this chapter we find that the two chief assistants to King Hezekiah are mentioned, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah (chief of the royal household) and Shebna the scribe. Shebna is condemned by God, a guy who will apparently be "cast out" (isaiah 22:15-17). On the other hand, Eliakim is a righteous man, one who "will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah." (Isaiah 22:21). Not only that, but God was going to "set the key of David on his shoulder" and he would be "driven like a peg in a firm place" (Isaiah 22:23).

Stick with me, this is where it comes together

In Isaiah 36, both Eliakim and Shebna meet with the Assyrian Rabshakeh in a familiar place: by "the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the Washer's field." There is the geographical connection with Isaiah 7:3 when, at the same place King Ahaz was met with Isaiah and his son, שְׁאָר ("a remnant shall return"). So why is that significant?

The significance is that Israel is now at a turning point. King Hezekiah began plundering the temple and paying tribute to appease the Assyrians (2 Kings 18:13-16). It wasn't until the Rabshakeh arrived basically at the doorstep (or "neck") of Israel that Hezekiah actually turned to the Lord for help. In short, tribute and appeasement were the means of addressing the problem of the impending Assyrian invasion.

So who is the child "Immanuel?" The one unidentified in the text?

It cant be Hezekiah, because he was born before king Ahaz began to reign Judah at 20 years old (compare 2 Kings 16:1-2 with 2 Kings 18:1-2).

The only other character that appears within the context of this narrative (Isaiah, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles) is Eliakim son of Hilkiah, the righteous head of the royal household mentioned earlier.

Why?

As previously noted, the prophecy of the sign of Immanuel was given to King Ahaz "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the Washer's field" (Isaiah 7:3). Isaiah's son, "a-remnant-shall-return (שְׁאָר ) was also present. This Immanuel was to witness the "flood up to the neck of Jerusalem" mentioned earlier.

It was Eliakim son of Hilkiah who met the Rabshakeh "by the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the Washer's field." (Isaiah 36:2). The interesting thing is that according to 2 Kings 19:2, he (Eliakim) was one of the leaders sent to plead with Isaiah to petition YHWH "on behalf of the remnant." (Isaiah 37:4). Basically, Eliakim son of Helkiah was the "MEDIATOR", or intermediary, and his role resulted in the inhabitants of Jerusalem to turn (and return) to YHWH for help.

In other words, Eliakim was a righteous man. It was not King Hezekiah, but Eliakim who had (or was given by God) the "key of David on his shoulder" (Isaiah 22:22). This same key is mentioned of Christ in Revelation 3:7-9, where the context is the repentance of "evil Jews." Eliakim was the "firm peg" upon which the throne of the house of David would rest. (Isaiah 22:23). However, it is also mentioned that at some point the peg would break (Isaiah 22:25).

So throughout this journey we have established three things:

1. We get to see that Eliakim is realistically the only possible character given in the text who fulfills the prophecy of Immanuel.

2. By standing as the intermediate between king Hezekiah and the Rabshakeh, Eliakim is, therefore, the type for Jesus of Nazareth, whose mother was also an "almah" (עַלְמָה ). Therefore "god-with-us" does not mean so much that God is reconciled to man but that man is reconciled to God through the work of the MEDIATOR who is Immanuel. Eliakim mediated and was the physical link (he was at the right place at the right time) for this reconciliation and deliverance through YHWH, and of course Jesus Christ is the mediator by through whom we are reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20, Colossians 1:21-23. Thus, the "key of David" mentioned in both Isaiah 22:23 and Revelation 3:7-9 is free access to covenant/reconciliation with God.

and finally:

3. It does not matter if either the maiden mentioned in Isaiah 7 or even Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin or not, since the point of the prophecy was not the miraculous nature of the boys birth, but what the "Immanuel" would do; his purpose.

One final point to bring it all together:

There were many things the apostles didn't really understand until near and/or after the death and resurrection of Christ. The references to the OT in regards to the Messiah are likely one of those things. The awesome thing about these references is that they were already understood by the Jews within the historical context in which they were written, I.E., the religious leaders of that time did not believe these texts were about a God-Man-Messiah, but purely saw them within the historical context as you are arguing. (Am not saying they didn't believe in a Messiah, just that they did not relate these specific texts with him, which is what led to confusion on the part of the religious leaders because Christ was not what they expected.)

Just before the ascension we read in Luke 24:

44 Then he said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

This identifies specifically when Jesus opened the apostles eyes to the meaning of the scriptures about him in the OT. All throughout the gospels we are told that they saw, but did not understand, and we see Jesus occasionally explaining to them but it is quite apparent that they do not really get it...but now they finally understand.

This is the understanding by which Matthew writes this gospel.

Hopefully this has offered some clarification from my understanding of the aforementioned texts! Wish I had more time to do others!

- Raph

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.


  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 34 of 61 (717845)
02-02-2014 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2014 1:11 AM


The NT is not divinely inspired
The New Testament is confirmed the exact same way as the old testament

Bs'd

Of course not.

Fact of the matter is, that EVERY religion begins with a supposed revelation to one single person who then claims to be God, or the messiah, (JC) or a prophet from God, (Mo).

That is, EVERY religion, except for Judaism.

Judaism started with a revelation, not to one man, but to a people of millions op people, at mount Sinai, when God gave the Torah.

And in that Judaism is unique.

The NT, as usual, is based on the statement of one man that he was God and the messiah, eventhough he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

So no way that the NT is confirmed in the exact same way as the Torah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 1:11 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2014 9:38 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 11:40 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 35 of 61 (717865)
02-02-2014 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 7:31 AM


neither the OT nor the NT are divinely inspired
Fact of the matter is, that EVERY religion begins with a supposed revelation to one single person who then claims to be God, or the messiah, (JC) or a prophet from God, (Mo).

And who was the single person in Animinism? Shinto? Slavic Paganism, Norse Paganism? And all those other religions that notoriously have no prophets?

Judaism started with a revelation, not to one man, but to a people of millions op people, at mount Sinai, when God gave the Torah.

No, Judaism claims that, but there is absolutely no reason to believe Jews on this matter any more than we believe the Christians that there were thousands or even millions of witnesses to divine intervention in 1st Century occupied Palestine as described in the NT. There were a few miracles witnessed by all or many, such as nasal quail or the murderous tantrum of the 14,700. But Yahweh did most of his negotiations and explanations through Moshe, right?

At least the Christians can say there were witnesses to this event a few decades after they were said to have occurred. Judaism relies on texts from around 7th Century BC to accurately report events from possibly thousands of years previous.

The NT, as usual, is based on the statement of one man that he was God and the messiah, eventhough he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Well no. It's based on the statements of five men that claimed that Jesus was the messiah/god/whatever. Four of them anonymous, one of them Paul.

So no way that the NT is confirmed in the exact same way as the Torah.

Well this is true. Neither have been confirmed in any way except in trivial matters. I wouldn't want to judge which is a less reliable reporter of facts, but I wouldn't trust either alone with my sister


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 7:31 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 36 of 61 (717872)
02-02-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 9:43 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Dawn Bertot writes:

So your unwarrented and unreasonable rejection of the miraculous....


I'm not rejecting the miraculous. I'm just pointing out what context means. You're welcome to use the New Testament to formulate your view of the Old Testament. You're also welcome to use C.S. Lewis or the funny papers. You just can't call them context.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:43 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 11:54 PM ringo has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 37 of 61 (717907)
02-02-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
02-02-2014 3:20 AM


Wow, you really hate people who actually know what the Bible says

Absolutely not. those are clinical observations I made. Your filty in the respect you are dirty intellectually. Your unobjective, because you use the context when it suits your purposes

Ironically, I was paying MORE attention to the context than ded2daworld - or Faith when she made the earlier post. To her credit Faith has retracted the claim, acknowledging the actual context. If your idea of helping Faith is to abuse people who correct her - AFTER she has accepted the correction - then you offer the sort of "help" she is better off without.

Really Paul, you should remove yourself from an emotional approach, to a logical one. My help came in the form of demonstrating that you dont really believe the context, or accept the context

You cherry pick it until it has assited your pathetic, irrational approach

Obviously it is you, since all you offer is arrogant bluster in opposition to a statement based on sound reasoning. As I said, thank you for proving my point.

Lets see. Since you clearly believe the text concerning the immediate conclusions, concerning Virgin or Young women, may I also assume you believe Isa was actually inspired by God to write these things?

Apparently you think you can dismiss my statement without even understanding what it referred to, let alone the reasoning.

My silly little fellow anyone can dismiss a statement or assertion, because they statements and assertion, not arguments.

If you feel like you have presented an actual argument, please restate it and I will be happy to address it

Given your complete inability to rebut my point - or even attempt to do so - it seems that I did far better than you can manage.

Again my simple friend, if you feel I have missed something, specifically an argument, not some unwarrented conclusion, please present it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2014 3:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2014 1:18 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 38 of 61 (717908)
02-02-2014 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 7:31 AM


Re: The NT is not divinely inspired
Fact of the matter is, that EVERY religion begins with a supposed revelation to one single person who then claims to be God, or the messiah, (JC) or a prophet from God, (Mo).

That is, EVERY religion, except for Judaism.

Judaism started with a revelation, not to one man, but to a people of millions op people, at mount Sinai, when God gave the Torah.

You cant be serious. Who exacally was on the mountain with Moses, when he recieved the commandments

It was because of the miraculous confirmation God had already established with him before recieving the commandment. Otherwise no one would have reason to believe him

The NT, as usual, is based on the statement of one man that he was God and the messiah, eventhough he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

So no way that the NT is confirmed in the exact same way as the Torah.

On the contrary. Jesus said to the pharisees, "If you do not believe me for the words that I speak, believe me for the works (miracles) that I do, THEY testify of me"

You and I believe in the inspiration of the text and the confirmation through the miraculous.

However, when dealing with secular fundam humanist, you have ot take different approach. They like to start in the middle of the context and assuming or trying to make you believe that atleast indirectly they believe the text. They do not

You dismantle thier attempts from a strickly logical approach. Starting in the middle of the text, as they do is like trying to decide which flavor of cheese the moon is made of

You and I would take another logical approach

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 7:31 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 39 of 61 (717911)
02-02-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
02-02-2014 1:16 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
I'm not rejecting the miraculous. I'm just pointing out what context means. You're welcome to use the New Testament to formulate your view of the Old Testament. You're also welcome to use C.S. Lewis or the funny papers. You just can't call them context.

When you say you dont reject the miraculous, does this mean you dont doubt it or you believe it?

This is always a slippery slope when dealing with SFH. As I said unscrupulous people wont tell you simply what they believe

For actual logical argument sake they waffel around to manipulate the argument

besides CS Lewis and the funny papers cant boast the same type of confirmation and evidence that the NT can


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 02-02-2014 1:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 02-03-2014 10:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 61 (717918)
02-03-2014 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2014 11:23 PM


quote:

Absolutely not. those are clinical observations I made. Your filty in the respect you are dirty intellectually. Your unobjective, because you use the context when it suits your purposes

In fact they were outright lies.

quote:

Really Paul, you should remove yourself from an emotional approach, to a logical one. My help came in the form of demonstrating that you dont really believe the context, or accept the context

I don't think that false and unsubstantiated accusations are "help", nor are they "logical" - and of course they demonstrate nothing.

quote:

You cherry pick it until it has assited your pathetic, irrational approach

And yet another false and unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

Lets see. Since you clearly believe the text concerning the immediate conclusions, concerning Virgin or Young women, may I also assume you believe Isa was actually inspired by God to write these things?

I believe that the text says what it says. Whether it was inspired or not is irrelevant to that. Therefore you have no need to make any assumption about my beliefs on the matter.

quote:

My silly little fellow anyone can dismiss a statement or assertion, because they statements and assertion, not arguments.

If you feel like you have presented an actual argument, please restate it and I will be happy to address it


Before I do that please tell me which point of Faith's I was referring to. What reasons do I give in my post to contradict it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 11:23 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2014 11:36 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 61 (717950)
02-03-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
02-02-2014 11:54 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Dawn Bertot writes:

When you say you dont reject the miraculous, does this mean you dont doubt it or you believe it?


It means I haven't said anything about the miraculous. All I've talked about in this thread is the meaning of English words.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-02-2014 11:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 42 of 61 (718044)
02-03-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
02-03-2014 1:18 AM


In fact they were outright lies.

Sorry they cant be lies when I have clearly demonstrated that you cannot follow or accept the context, when you do not follow or accept the entire context. Your not being objective

I believe that the text says what it says. Whether it was inspired or not is irrelevant to that. Therefore you have no need to make any assumption about my beliefs on the matter.

Wrong, inspiration gives it a meaning or meanings that God supposed for the text and not the author. In other words inspiration gives it a right to be about what God wants

Here is an illustration. Peter, through inspiration states,

1 Peter 1:10"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things."

Because they were inspired, there was A. A bigger meaning. B. that while the text of the old testament could refer to its immediate context, it was olny a shadow or type of Christ, his life, his message and his purpose

The inspiration you so conviently avoid, for argument sake, makes all the difference. Defining a word here or there in the context is not the same as including it in its entire context

Therefore you have no need to make any assumption about my beliefs on the matter.

Of course I do, if your assumptions are cockeyed and unobjective

Watch, (pay very close attention to what I am about to say) here is the problem in a nutshell. You and others claim these prophecies in the Old Testament do not refer to Christ.

Now here is the semi-quasi delimma. I have all this evidence supporting the Old Test. I have all this evidence supporting the NT, inspired writers as well, concerning, of whom this refers. Evidence of internal and external nature

Now watch this. Here come along a bunch of people, with no evidence to support thier position, that it does not refer to Christ and ALL they have to support thier contentions is outright disagreement

No actual evidence just disbelief and disagreement, with no external or internal supporting evidence for thier assertion

So from any logical standpoint it becomes very obvious that there is actually, NO delimma at all

besides disagreement and consternation what evidence can you bring forward that would actually make me go, Oh wow they are right

You see there is a difference in just disagreeing and an actual body of internal and external evidence. Obviously you have none

The Apostle Peter and the other writers of the NT are a part of a large body of supporting evidence.

While your very obvious disagreement is NOTED, its not a part of any supporting evidence.

Before I do that please tell me which point of Faith's I was referring to. What reasons do I give in my post to contradict it ?

No Im not going to do your homework for you. You can in very simple terms and in a couple of lines, support the idea that you actually accept the context, as you boast, when in fact you dont

PaulK writes

Parthenos does not exclusively mean "virgin". And using almah instead of betulah is an odd choice if "virgin" was the intended meaning.
The idea of some future meaning also has problems. Why should we imagine that a part of the prophecy - and only part of it - has some additional meaning, unrelated to the remaining text of the prophecy?

Because my simplistic friend it comes down to the fact that we have to go by the body of supporting evidence, not your unsupported disagreements and you unwillingness to acknowledge divine guidance

Now that I have went down your rabbit trail, perhaps you could get to the task of an actaul attempt, to try and refute my arguments

Or will you provide me with more homework, to distract your audience that you have no actual answer

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2014 1:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 61 (718057)
02-04-2014 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dawn Bertot
02-03-2014 11:36 PM


[quote]
Sorry they cant be lies when I have clearly demonstrated that you cannot follow or accept the context, when you do not follow or accept the entire context. Your not being objective
[.quyote]

Of course you're lying again because you've demonstrated nothing of the sort You haven't even tried to. All you've done is make unsubstantiated assertions.

Trying to claim that you aren't a liar by telling an obvious lie is hardly logical !

quote:

Wrong, inspiration gives it a meaning or meanings that God supposed for the text and not the author. In other words inspiration gives it a right to be about what God wants

In other words you claim that God is too stupid to write what he means as an excuse to twist and distort the text.

quote:

Defining a word here or there in the context is not the same as including it in its entire context

Amazingly you managed to say something that is actually true. Too bad that in reality it favours my point - the one you are supposed to be arguing against (and can't).

So, just to make one useful and relevant point here - trying to argue that almah means "virgin" is not only fallacious, it is irrelevant when the whole thrust of the prophecy places the fulfilment in the reign of King Ahaz, and the birth of the child is not that fulfilment at all, just a temporal marker to show that the fulfilment will be soon.

quote:

Of course I do, if your assumptions are cockeyed and unobjective

Typical Bertot irrationality. There is no reason to make an irrelevant assumption.

quote:

Watch, (pay very close attention to what I am about to say) here is the problem in a nutshell. You and others claim these prophecies in the Old Testament do not refer to Christ.

Which is concluded from the actual text of the prophecy, which rules out that interpretation.

Now at this point I should mention that this is a mere diversion. The topic at issue was my criticism of a point attributed to Faith by ded2daworld. A point which you have not even attempted to rebut.

quote:

Now here is the semi-quasi delimma. I have all this evidence supporting the Old Test. I have all this evidence supporting the NT, inspired writers as well, concerning, of whom this refers. Evidence of internal and external nature

Claiming to have evidence is mere assertion. Especially when that "evidence" is merely an excuse to twist the text.

quote:

Now watch this. Here come along a bunch of people, with no evidence to support thier position, that it does not refer to Christ and ALL they have to support thier contentions is outright disagreement

In other words people say something you don't like and you start lying about them. Because there are good reasons in the text of Isaiah 7 itself to conclude that the prophecy there is not about Jesus.
Falsely declaring that an argument does not exist is not logical, and the fact that you choose to lie only demonstrates your inability to answer that argument.

Now let us point out that in the actual issue we are supposedly discussing YOU have offered no evidence at all. Simple denial (and slander)

quote:

No actual evidence just disbelief and disagreement, with no external or internal supporting evidence for thier assertion

This, of course is just repeating the same lie.

quote:

You see there is a difference in just disagreeing and an actual body of internal and external evidence. Obviously you have none

The only thing obvious is that you haven't bothered to find out. And very likely you don't even know what the prophecy of Isaiah 7 says.

quote:

No Im not going to do your homework for you. You can in very simple terms and in a couple of lines, support the idea that you actually accept the context, as you boast, when in fact you dont

In other words you don't even understand the statement that you chose to call a lie. What further proof do we need that you are irrational and dishonest ?

quote:

Now that I have went down your rabbit trail, perhaps you could get to the task of an actaul attempt, to try and refute my arguments

You quoted the wrong text, as anyone who follows the chain back can easily see.

Now to any rational person it is necessary to understand a statement before it can honestly be called a lie. And any rational person can see that you have not even attempted to address the statement which you called a lie - no evidence of it's falsity has been offered at all.

The question of whether you understand it is therefore quite relevant. And the fact that you can't even find it when any competent person should have no difficulty at all in doing so only reinforces the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-03-2014 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-05-2014 10:50 PM PaulK has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3016
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 44 of 61 (718142)
02-04-2014 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 9:43 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Now, here you are being exactly what you claimed Paulk to be.

Dishonest.

Isaiah 7:14, the passage of the alleged prophecy, does not say 'Virgin'.The word in question, Almah, does not refer to sexual purity, but rather a young woman of marriageable age.

Not only that, but the 'full fillment' of the prophecy was to King Ahaz, and the birth of the child was a 'timer' for certain events to happen.. that supposedly did.. during the reign of King Ahaz. Isaiah himself describes it, and says HE and his sons are the signs to king Ahaz.

Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:43 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2014 12:32 AM ramoss has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 45 of 61 (718281)
02-05-2014 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
02-04-2014 1:37 AM


Of course you're lying again because you've demonstrated nothing of the sort You haven't even tried to. All you've done is make unsubstantiated assertions.

Trying to claim that you aren't a liar by telling an obvious lie is hardly logical !

Will try again, as I know anyone that can think is paying attention, except yourself of course. You lie and are unobjective because you do not and refuse to take the entirity of the text into context. The book of Isa is not just chapter seven, its the entire book

A person that will not tell the truth about rejecting the actual inspiration and pretend to understand the text is a liar

In other words you claim that God is too stupid to write what he means as an excuse to twist and distort the text.

Amazingly you managed to say something that is actually true. Too bad that in reality it favours my point - the one you are supposed to be arguing against (and can't).

So, just to make one useful and relevant point here - trying to argue that almah means "virgin" is not only fallacious, it is irrelevant when the whole thrust of the prophecy places the fulfilment in the reign of King Ahaz, and the birth of the child is not that fulfilment at all, just a temporal marker to show that the fulfilment will be soon.

And herein lies the problem at its core, you pretend to be speaking for God, when you dont believe in God, dont believe the text is inspired and you generally believe it to be myth in the first place

Because you fail to accept or believe in inspiration and divine guidance, you fail to understand that only inspiration in another context can explain that this prophecy in Isa is a shadow and type of what was actually revealed to Mary by inspiration as well

Now you are free to believe whatever you want about a single word, but when you fail to accept and clearly reject inspiration, you have much bigger logical problems than samantics

You are starting in the middle of an argument (or chapter/letter) where you should have begun at the beiginning. But this is your problem

No only that, you are dishonest to include inspiration and pretend for argument sake that you actually do. this makes you dishonest

Not only this, but to try and give the impression that you believe and understand something from a text you believe to be myth in the first place, is both dishonest and illogical

Bertot writes

Now here is the semi-quasi delimma. I have all this evidence supporting the Old Test. I have all this evidence supporting the NT, inspired writers as well, concerning, of whom this refers. Evidence of internal and external nature

Paulk writes

Claiming to have evidence is mere assertion. Especially when that "evidence" is merely an excuse to twist the text.

If this is true, lets see how it works in reverse. Claiming you are being contextual, when clearly you are not, is an excuse to ignore the entire text. Claiming indirectly ( by implication) that you acccept inspiration and divine guidance which you do not in truth, is an excuse to twist the text

Now lets develope this point of evidence alittle further. For some very odd reason, I have and am arguing with a secular fundamentlist atheist, a text which he believes is not actually supported by any evidence. Or at bare minimum, he believes the alledged evidence is unsupported and unreliable

And from any logical standpoint it gets even worse. Believing both the entire OT and specifically Isa to be mythological, fabricated and unsupported, he then defends in some vigorous fashion a text, he couldnt demonstrate to accurate in the first place.

Hold on, from any rational and logical standpoint the nightmare continues. He the vehemently rejects another text claiming to be inspired, based on the same type of evidence, referencing the exact same text

This is of course is complete irrational behavior. This is the problem he gets into by not being objective and accepting or including the entire text of Isa, that says, that God was the one speaking and not necessarily Isa

Because there are good reasons in the text of Isaiah 7 itself to conclude that the prophecy there is not about Jesus.
Falsely declaring that an argument does not exist is not logical, and the fact that you choose to lie only demonstrates your inability to answer that argument.

This comment would be true in most circumstances. However, not acknowledging the actual entire text invalidates your implication and I and the text, specifically the one about Immanuel are vendicated

Try and view Isa, as not only Isa 7, turn off your mioptic vision for a moment

The only thing obvious is that you haven't bothered to find out. And very likely you don't even know what the prophecy of Isaiah 7 says.

Well sure I do, but Im not going to let you off the hook. You or anyother secular fundamental humanist, that plays the dumb card and pretends he understands the text, from a standpoint that rejects inspiration

Were we debating in person before an actual audience, you would have already been laughed out of the building. Why in the world would you care whether Isa meant virgin or young women, if most of the text is filled with lies and myth. Can you see the audience laughing PaulK?

And any rational person can see that you have not even attempted to address the statement which you called a lie - no evidence of it's falsity has been offered at all.

Wont let you off the hook paul. Your starting in the middle of not only an argument but in the middle of Isa. Much to most peoples consternation Paul, I am sure, it does not matter the meaning of the word in Isa.

If one could actually pinpoint the actual meaning of a word and how it was being used, so long ago, does not matter, in this instance. God through inspiration and application gives it its meaning in whatever century.

Now you are free not to believe this, but you cant be logical trying do it defending a text repleat with divine guidance and assertion

On that note, why would a person supposedly versed in logic, as you claim, defend such a non-sensical position. Your sure Isa meant this or that when you believe the guy was probably a lunatic or liar at best

The question of whether you understand it is therefore quite relevant. And the fact that you can't even find it when any competent person should have no difficulty at all in doing so only reinforces the point.

How would going down your rabbit trail extricate you from your problem> The passage and hunfreds of others like it are either a shadow or type of Christ or they are not. Starting in the middle of or examining your problem on a small scale wont help you out

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017