Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 173 of 566 (596496)
12-15-2010 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
12-15-2010 4:08 AM


Re: scriptural unity
Of course. Of course "king" means "not a king", and "will rule in Israel" means "will not rule in Israel".
My guess is that you know exacally what Christ was saying concerning his kingship and kingdom, just like the rest of us, but you enjoy playing the dumb card.
But it wont be until your death bed or the fear of old age setting in that you will make the typical recant
Cowards usually operate in that manner. To bad I wont be there to see it, but my guess is that it will happen
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2010 4:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Panda, posted 12-15-2010 5:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2010 6:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 179 of 566 (596520)
12-15-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
12-15-2010 6:48 AM


Re: scriptural unity
According to you, the OT predicts "a great king that will rule in Israel".
Clearly Jesus did not fulfill this prediction.
Everyone make a mental note, DA disagrees that Jesus Christ is a Spiritual king over the Church (Spiritual Israel) and that is what the prophets predicted and the inspired writers in the NT make clear through inspiration and evidence
So Now, all DA has to do is demonstrate why I should believe HIM, with no evidence to the contrary and why I should ignore that Christ fits and fulfills those promises, the way they were originally intended, in a spiritual fashion
My guess is that you cannot provide a reason or evidence, anymore than you could not show a theme or purpose in the Koran
Lets see what youve got
Clearly Jesus did not fulfill this prediction.
Of course he did, its the church and he and his apostles make that known in both thier verbage and the evidence
Do you have any evidence that the church is not the kingdom the prophets spoke of?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2010 6:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 12:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 12-15-2010 1:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 213 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2010 7:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2010 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2010 11:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 255 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2010 10:08 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 180 of 566 (596521)
12-15-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Panda
12-15-2010 5:50 AM


Re: scriptural unity
Many people have mentioned this before.
Your reading and writing is at a young child's level.
What is wrong with you?
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. If cavediver couldnt do it, you have no chance. He tried for several years
Ill tell you and keep telling you, your wasting your time son
perhaps you could actually present an argument to the topic of the thread. As of yet, I dont remember any attempt by yourself
Such is life
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Panda, posted 12-15-2010 5:50 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by nwr, posted 12-15-2010 1:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 195 by Panda, posted 12-15-2010 1:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 201 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 3:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 182 of 566 (596523)
12-15-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
12-15-2010 11:37 AM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 11:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 12:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 183 of 566 (596524)
12-15-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
12-15-2010 11:37 AM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
The purpose of repetition is to point out to all that you have not responded to the issues raised or questions asked.
Since I have answered your question several times and demonstrated the the Koran is not on a par with the scriptures, that it is just a copy of OT stories strung together, with no purpose or theme, your above comment is therefore invalid
And the purpose of pointing you towards the other thread was to allow you the opportunity to present support for your many assertions that there are Old Testament prophecies that refer to or are related to Jesus and that Jesus somehow fulfilled some of those prophecies.
It is interesting that you do not respond to any of those requests except by continuing to claim such support without actually specifying anything that can then be questioned, verified or tested.
Again your style of discussion does not promote debate, it consists of you repeating yourself. there is no reason to believe you wont do it there as well
I have provided as much support for those prophecies as evidence will allow
If you think you have something better than an inspired writer, then go ahead and present it
You see Jar, as in design, it comes down to the available evidence. Your disagreement with the NT is not sufficent to pass as evidence. You would need to demonstrate that the NT is inaccurate and unreliable
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 11:37 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 12-15-2010 1:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 185 of 566 (596528)
12-15-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
12-15-2010 12:29 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Of course there is even a thread devoted to examining that very question. However you so far have refused to even bring your allegations to the thread where they could be examined and instead simply try to change the subject here instead of responding to the issue that are actually related to this topic.
Your free to address my allegations here as long as it does not get to far off topic
Do you have something better than an inspired Apostle?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 12:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 2:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 186 of 566 (596529)
12-15-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
12-15-2010 12:37 PM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
So you claim, but which would still not indicate 'unity of purpose'. In addition you have offered no evidence that much of the Bible is messianic or that Jesus is in anyway related to any of the messianic passages.
Wrong. You have given me no valid reason why I should accept your conclusions concerning the prophets, verses what an isnspired writer has claimed
First provide why I should accept your conclusions over thiers, then of course we can look at your specific reasons
Unity of purpose is signified by the Apostles designation and classification of those prophecies
Again, demonstrate why I should not accept the NT, inspired conclusions
Your probably looking for a physical king as were the Jews
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 12:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 2:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 187 of 566 (596530)
12-15-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
12-15-2010 12:37 PM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
If you think you can support those assertions there is a thread looking for Prophecy supposedly fulfilled by Jesus. Feel free to try to support your assertion there.
I dont need to do anything, the NT inspired writers have already done it for me.
Can you demonstrate why they are wrong? do you have knowledge they did not? Where you there as they were to witness these things
here is what you dont understand about critical thinking.
It comes down to me believing you or them. If you say they are wrong, then there is noway for me to know abosolutely who is right or wrong. So with the available evidence provided not only by eyewitnesses, but the rest of the evidence in the NT, I have to say I will choose them
That is unless you can provide something better
Can you?
Here is another way you fail in critical thinking. Your trying to use passages out of a book (the OT), you dont even believe to be accurate or reliable in the first place to demonstrate why the ones in the NT are wrong. Does that make sense to you?
If you have no confidence in the accuracy of the OT passages to be true to begin with, how in the world would you know that anything written anywhere else is not accurate concerning those same passages
That is you do not trust the authorship, content or accuracy, but you have no way to demonstrate that those events are not true to begin with and your using THEM to demonstrate the inaccuracy of something else
In one instance (the OT )you assume or imply that the author is accurate, for the sake of argument, to demonstrate the NT is wrong. All the while knowing to yourself and believing he is not the author and nothing he said can be trusted.
Its almost hypocrital behavoir
Strange logic and why do you care if both are untrue?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 12:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 2:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 189 of 566 (596533)
12-15-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
12-15-2010 1:05 PM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
If someone finds that evidence to be insufficient would this be a valid reason for deconversion?
Let me correct that Please. define insufficient from a evidential standpoint
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 12-15-2010 1:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 12-15-2010 1:43 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 191 of 566 (596537)
12-15-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ringo
12-15-2010 1:22 PM


Re: scriptural unity
"Spiritual" really is a useful incantation, isn't it? It can magically remove all contradictions.
Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death that same day; they died a "spiritual death". Jesus wasn't an actual king of an actual kingdom; He was/is a "spiritual king" of a "spiritual kingdom". Black isn't really black; it's "spiritual white".
One good reason for deconversion is the doubletalk and doublethink required to believe such nonsense.
This may be true and in some instances it may work. however, one would need to discard the information contained in the NTand those writers
Its no surprise that even today there are still people looking for a physical king, when that was never Gods intention to begin with
Gods words to Samuel apply.
Samuel they dont need a physical king, they have a king,. Im thier king. They have not rejected you they have rejected me
Im sorry you consider it nonesense, that is your right
read it as it was intended and the unity and purpose will be obvious
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 12-15-2010 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 12-15-2010 1:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 218 of 566 (596633)
12-16-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 6:19 PM


Re: scriptural unity
that's funny. see, one of the ways i know some authors of the NT are not inspired is because their words concerning yahweh are untrue (deuteronomy 13). the OT encourages skepticism of claimed inspiration, and for a good reason. otherwise, we might be tempted to believe everyone who comes along and claims to speak for yahweh. and since they speak for yahweh, we know they're telling the truth about speaking for yahweh.
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?
Lets see you evidence that should suplant thier conclusions
secondly, if I am not mistaken, you dont even believe the writers of the OT were inspired, do you?
so you keep repeating, yes. unfortunately, if you're going to repeatedly make claims you want us to debunk, and refuse to take said claims to the thread specifically written for them, there's nothing we can do. you're just going to look like an insolent child, and too scared to play with the big kids.
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
as of yet I been presented with no evidence as to why they are unreliable
As such, I have a simple choice. I can believe them or I can believe you.
Since they claim to be eyewitnesses to those events and the rest of the NT provides other evidences to that fact, why in the world would I believe you
You have made the claim that the NT writers are in error. Now all you need do is tell me why and How
Can you do this?
because you've read the original text they are referencing. oh, wait, no you haven't. but seriously, take it to the prophecy thread.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this aspect as you keep refering to it
Let me ask you a question Arch. were the writers of the OT inspired by God when they spoke thier prophecies, Yes or NO?
Dawn Bertot
PS Ive told you and Jar you are free to bring any argument over fromthat thread as long as we dont get to far off topic. bring your big boy arguments here if you wish
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Phat, posted 12-16-2010 10:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 233 by arachnophilia, posted 12-16-2010 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 12-16-2010 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 219 of 566 (596635)
12-16-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 6:26 PM


Re: scriptural unity
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
Correct and they are written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, unless you can demonstrate why that is not possible
considering lifespans, yes there is.
first the dates you cite are from liberal scholars (apologists). secondly, the dates do not remove them from having been eyewitnesses
yes, i did. pretty much anything evangelical is misguided. and apologetics is what he did. that's the technical and correct term.
There are none so blind as those that will not see. its humorous to watch someone claim that someone else is using an apologetic approach and not see it in themselves.
Im still waiting for clarificationon on what it is that you have textually and what we are missing
it has nothing to do with whether or not you said. it just happens to be wrong.
More assertions, with no argument
you might want to actually look at that evidence. but we can discuss that sort of thing once we established that you can even read and understand the bible.
repeating that I dont understand this or that is not the same as providing an argument and evidence to that affect
can you demonstrate or provide evidence as to why I should not trust the NT writers, while at the same time I should believe the OT writers and thier conclusion
Oh thats right, You and Jar dont believe either were inspired to begin with, correct?
Isnt it amussing that I am suppose to accept your interpretations of OT passages, without hesitation and the conclusions you draw from those prophecies as valid.
But I am suppose to reject any NT fulfillment of said prophecies, because you have decided that one is valid and one is not
Yet you wont explain how youve decided the truthfulness of one and not the other
Now, theres a fun fact for ya. explain how that works after you explain whether the OT is inspired or not
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2010 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 12-16-2010 1:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 220 of 566 (596636)
12-16-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 6:41 PM


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?
your own posts have frequently demonstrated your willingness to betray the intent and goals of scripture, in defense of your predetermined opinion on the matter. for instance, you are willing to do away with the finer points of much of the major prophets for the sake of claiming that the entire bible is about jesus. what are you doing is raping the bible of its humanity, and beauty.
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
yes. i do.
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
Can you provide a reason or argument as to why I should not accept the NT inspired conclusions? Ill be waithing
this is based on my experience in an actual bible study class. the professor asked everyone to check their beliefs at the door, and just examine the text for what it was. certain notions, some big and some very small, would arise from time to time, and we'd go and look at the text -- and the text would generally not support those notions. the majority of the class was surprised that the thing they had heard about bible were not actually in the bible.
Were the people in this class inspired writers, did they have the inspired gift of decernment (1 Cor 12)?
err, no. we have some NT authors who say that the evidence leans in their favour. but the evidence is also there to plainly check -- and we must check those assertions against the scriptures as well. for instance, if a new testament author claims that jesus is the messiah because he rode into jerusalem on a donkey, we can check that against zechariah 9, and see that the prophecy also states things like the messiah bringing world peace, ruling the world, etc. donkeys aren't especially important -- several thousand people probably rode into jerusalem on donkeys on the very same day as christ.
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"
Like the Jews of old , you are looking for what God never intended
Its interesting isnt it? you denounce the inspiration of the NT writes, using nothing more than your own opinion.
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
Or I can believe a person that said he was an eyewitness and claims inspiration
Why should I believe you more than him? Please explain
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by arachnophilia, posted 12-16-2010 1:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 221 of 566 (596639)
12-16-2010 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 6:47 PM


Re: scriptural unity
it doesn't say "spiritual", does it? adding words kind of changes things. especially considering that the context of all the messianic bits generally indicates a physical kingdom. you know, the same way that the book of revelation does.
Since you did not provide a passage, I cannot respond to it. Secondly, if inspiration in the OT was behind the prophecies, then only inspiration could explain Gods interpretations of those prophecies, correct?
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
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"
"If you knew and understood Moses, you would understand who and what Iam, because Moses testified of me"
I choose to believe Isa and Christ, unless you can provide a reason as to why I should not
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Panda, posted 12-16-2010 5:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 237 by arachnophilia, posted 12-16-2010 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 222 of 566 (596640)
12-16-2010 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by dwise1
12-15-2010 7:20 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Oh, you mean like this one?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(KJV) Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And where in the Old Testament is that prophesy located?
Wow, did you happen to see the word "spoken", in the passage. Not all things ever spoken by the prophets made it into a book. That does not mean that they did not say it out loud, or that it was not recieved by human ears.
This also a good indication of inspiration, if indeed the writer never actually heard the prophet state it, it was given to him by inspiration
here it is in reverse
amoung other indignities heaped upon my Lord, the prophets says that even the hairs of his beard would be plucked out
Isa 50:6 I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.
No NT writers references this item (the beard)specifically, but I know that it happened behind those closed doors, because this is what inspiration said would happen and inspiration gives a general discription of it Matt 26
Only another inspired writer could make it known that was a reference to Christ
Dawn Bertot
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 210 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 7:20 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 12-16-2010 10:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2010 10:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024