Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Wait a minute, wait a minute, hold the presses. Are you now claiming inspiration of and by God for Micah, or am I misunderstanding what I clearly see?Dawn Bertot

Great, I have got to take care of some RW things, but will return, thanks Dawn

As I proceed with extreme caution here and given the fact that you have atleast indirectly admitted the existence of God and inspiration of those prophets, what would prevent the writers of the NT having the same inspiration, that was characteristic of the OT prophets, especially Christ?As you have indicated the passage says nothing about Jesus directly, but then it also does not mention Cyrus by name.If indeed the writers of the NT were inspired as well, what would prevent God from giving additional and expanded information about his overall plan in the lines of the OT prophets and explained by the NT prophets?In the OT there were, priests, judges and kings. IOWs God does things differently as times passes, for the benigfit of manHebrews one, states that God in times and DIFFERENT WAYD has spoken the fathers by the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by his son Jesus ChristIn other words, do you have a reason for believing that the NT writers were any less inspired, than that which you attribute to the OT prophets?Dawn Bertot

They were fulfilled, "inspiration aside". If I can read the prophet of Old and understand his words, then view Christ as given in the NT gospels, can I not see the fulfillment. I dont need to start with an assumption, I just need to read the claims of the NTThen I can decide if inspiration is involved, between the two and against all other available evidence To some degree, yes. However, that does not mean that there is no evidence to support my beliefs before hand, it simply means that I have decided that the available evidence is suffiecient to hold on to such a beliefActually we do this everyday in lifeDawn Bertot

Ill overlook the fact that your above comment is as dogmatic as it sounds. Assuming or presuming what God has in mind, then indirectly suggesting that no one elses conclusions could be correct concerning prophecy, its meanings and its applications , is of course not sound or rationalFor example, Peter claiming that he and the other Apostles "had a more sure word of Prophecy", because they were eyewitnesses to his majesty. Probably not refering exclusiely to the transfiguration, but to thier entire journey with the ChristSo How did YOU decide that prophecy, has a single meaning? Seeing that the listeners would at that time have no way of understanding whats or who it refered to, unless its interpretation was immediately given. It wasntHow did you decide on your own that another probable inspired writer, could not give Gods meaning in another time or that another inspired writer could not explicate Gods overall intentions in the prophets/Why wouldnt you use the same criteria that lets you believe the OT prophets were "probably inspired", to decide the same for the NT prophets Never said it wasnt or couldnt be Not if there was an overall plan in Gods purposes, for humanityNot if there is reason to conclude that the NT writers, were as inspired as the OldNot unless thier claim to being eyewitnesses can be overturnedNot unless there is any reason to doubt the NT If inspiration is irrelevant and we look at what was said, that would include all that was said, which would make most of the writers, insane, liars or conterfit. At best unreliable [qs]When we look at what the writers (not prophets) of the books of the New Testament we examine what is written the same way that we do the Old Testament.[/s]Without inspiration on either side, it just ramblings. Thier meanings and predictions are not testable at all on either side, without inspiration. It would be anybodys guess, without the WRITERS claim to inspiration I can only DESRIBE what God HAS writtenIf you believe that what is written is from God, then you would know what he had in mind, on either sideIf you do not believe it is from God, then your opinion is as good or bad as anyone elses, reguardless of how one describes GodYour indirect implication and presumtion that you have a monopoly on the 'description' of God, is as silly as you presumming to know what God had in mind for the prophets, prophecy and his overall plans in that connectionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Because they said they were. we have to atleast ASSUME they were, because they make that claim, correct?If after study we decide otherwise, it matters little correct?Do you mean OLD and NEW or just the OLD? Really? can you show me a fulfillment, exact in detail in historical events, that would cooroborate your claim, that they were fulfilled in THE FIRST PLACE, TO MAKE A CLAIM TO THE SECOND?then explain how that "writer", new of such events to begin with or how they got it right First show me that Messianic prophecy has any merit to begin with. IOWs you would need to do that to substantiate your assertion concerning the NT writersDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

More attempted argument by yourself in assuming that the above writers you refer to, were reliable at all, in thier attempts to be prophectic and factual in the first place, correctYour making assumptions about the NT prophets, when you dont understand the OT onesYou would have to provide a specific example, of the above contentions for it to be taken serious, as an argumentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

B.E.A utiful. I thouroughly enjoyed your post, loved reading it. I've just got back and will get to it as soon as possibleDawn Bertot

I had made this comment under the assumption that you or Jar understood the OT prophets to have and possess inspiration, in thier prophecies. Further, the implication was that if the Old test prophets actually did predict the future by Gods direction, then it would be Gods plans that would be under consideration in either instance. In which case the NT prophets could simply be revealing Gods overall intentiionsThis being the case, one would be remise and presumptuous in assuming that God could and did not have A greater meaning and purpose, not only in the prophets, but in his overall plan for humanityOne would also need to demonstrate, given the proposition of inspiration, why the criteria for inspiration in the OT prophets would be better or different and lacking in the NT The problem that you are having here is one of extremism. Both sides want to argue for the definition of A word. It not necessary at all.The OT stories and prophecies are shadows and types of Jesus Christ. I have no problem believing or accepting that the prophet or his predictions came true at a certain time in that time. I believe every word of it.Wht you are missing Arch, is that there is a greater plan than Israel. The plan is the unity of mankind to God. The exodus is a shadow and a type to God delivering his people, even thought here is no mention of Christ. The snakes ont he pole are a shadow of Christ."Through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"Overall however it is about God and God only as a deliverer. Hosea means God is my salvation. Check out a few of the other meanings of the prophets names and see what you come up withOnly inspiration and inspiration alone could let me know Gods overall purposeIf there were no NT, then I would, like you, leave the prophets where they are at with thier simple meanings and the surrounding current eventsSo your task is to demonstrate from credentials alone why the NT prophets were any less inspired than the OldDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again, no disagreement in your interpretationHeres the kicker. If you really believe this is what happened, then you have to ask yourself, could God not have an overall and expanded plan for humanity? Could God not have inspired the NT prophets to explain a deeper meaning in any of the NT prophets by quoting the old?But thats the point isnt it, only God could make known what he wants known, correct?What criteria by criteria that you use for the Old Test prophets, would you use to discredit the NewAnd if neither were inspired, who cares anyway correctDawn Bertot

Wow your looking right at it and cant see it. The only important part in the above quote or the old testament prophets, is "God with Us" Thats how it applies to Christ. Matthew is not taking it out of context, BECAUSE THE ONLY CONTEXT IS, "GOD WITH US"the prophecy may have had nothing to do with the ministry of and about Christ directly. but because he was and is God, it applies overall. that is and only will be the point of God or his wordOnly God could reveal this by another prophet, and he didthe story about the prodigal son is not about the son, its about God waiting for his return. Its about GodThe story of the burning bush is not about Israels freedom from bondage, but the God that provides the freedomRead any story or line in the Bible and put the word God behind it. thats al its aboutWhen you have this perspective, you will then see the overal meaning of the WordChrist is the Logos (logic) of GodDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Only simplicity would argue for context and assume that the context of the prophecy you quote is limited to the prophecy area quotedOnly simplicity would argue for context and ignore that the context of the prophecy you quoted is actually the entirity of the book of Isa, which inspiration is clearly claimedThen the conclusion by yourself is that inspiration is not relevant. Does that make sense to you? the fulfilled prophecy goes hand in hand with the inspiration. Or are you now going to assert that claimed inspiration is symbolism? Nothing in the BOM can be corroborated in any fashion. There are not even scholars information that can be debated or tested. It has nothing to offer in the area of evidenceThe Koran, as I have demonstrated is nothing more than a collection of religious statements slung together with no continuity, themes or purposes. This is obvious to even the casual readerOf course we have to go by the best evidence. If we are going to compare the NT w/ the Koran or BOM, its no real contest.What other sources or writings have made claims to fulfilled prophecy that have had the impact and history as the NT and its writers. Where are the others that claimed ot be Messiahs, before and after the time of Christits no contest Arch What is the point and context of the book of Isa You know better than this Arch. "Line upon line, Precept upon Precept, here alittle there alittle" Its unfortunate that because I disagree with you and I have provided valid reason for that disagreement, you believe me to be unable to understand the facts. Its my belief that you have aquired numerous facts over the years, but I dont believe you are able to apply them in a logical fashionDawn BertotEdited 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.

Your getting angry and that is not characteristic of you . I did not take anything out of contextNor did I suggest any one shouldAs a matter of fact I said i agreed with your interpretation and that it would not affect the NT claims I have responded to this numerous times now. Does the book of Isa and Isa himself, have anything in its context about inspiration? None of the symbolism in Isa or any prophet affects a larger plan in another time. Why should it?Your assuming that God has to be limited to your exegesis and some lesson learned by the people of the time.Here is an example.What is the meaning of Gods statement to Abraham, "Through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth shall be Blessed"Since mine is a bad representation of the prophet Moses, maybe you can give a provable explanation

hardly.No place or person is even remotely verifiable. Nothing in that book has ever been verified by an INDEPENDANT sourceHere is a simple illustration. Why does no on here on this site, discuss the details of that book?Because you know instinctively it is not to be trusted or believed. In contrast we and them cannot stop discussing the Old and New Testaments Did you ever wonder why no one discuss its (BOM) content. There is a reason. There is nothing to discuss because one cannot even begin to verify anything to discussWhy would someone translate or why would God give to a guy in the 1800s a king james language translation of a new revelation?Immediately the problems startDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DB writes Dewise1 writesYou really keep enforcing the fact that you have no knowledge of any of these topics. A seventh grader would be able to understand the comment above, by myself, if he or she had knowledge of the topic and saw it in context of what had been discussed and writtenreally, Dewise1, if you have nothing to offer to the topic, you should bow outNow 400 posts into it and you have not present anything that resembles an argumentGeeezDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.