Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

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.

again, this is not a question of faith or belief. the inspiration of the OT prophets is not relevant to the debate: only the accuracy of the NT authors in representing their claims. certainly, if those OT claims are actually founded in real history, and are about things that actually came to pass (and those claims were made before the events they describe) it does lend some credibility to the idea that prophets were divinely inspired.please note that this is only one prong of the test for prophets. the other is that they speak in the name of the lord, yahweh. if the prophet speaks truly, but not in the name of yahweh, the prophet is still false. doesn't follow. and it should be easy for you see why, when we take it one step further. as i mentioned above, the quran is also just revealing god's overall intentions, as is the book of mormom. these are both simply texts that, while acknowledging the truth of the old testament, expand and provide commentary on the message. just like the new testament. why should we hold this idea about the new testament, but not the book of mormon? or the quran? oh, sure. but perhaps that meaning was about muhammad, or or moroni, or perhaps even joseph smith. i mean, who's to say? you haven't particularly given any real reason we should distinguish the new testament from either of these two other works. if we're going to stretch that "greater meaning" beyond the bounds of context, application, and logical symbolism, certainly neither the quran nor the book of mormon can be disqualified. surely, they were inspired too. the criteria for examining the veracity of prophecy is not any different. that's the whole point. but, as i mentioned above, we're not yet even at the point of examining the veracity of those NT claims. right now, we're just at the point of examining whether or not they faithfully represent their sources -- the barest bones of intellectual honesty is using your sources truthfully. i fail to see how inaccurate representation of OT claims can be compatible with accuracy, or inspiration (unless, god is a liar). if you read my post and came to conclusion that it hinged on the definition of a word, i must forcefully question your ability to read and comprehend things. this is not the first time i have done so, even in this singular post. considering that your above comments were all addressed previously in this thread, mostly in the post you are responding to, i am forced to wonder whether or not you actually read what i wrote.no, the point of the post above is that this prophecy has a very specific timeframe and topic. even if it had said "virgin" -- which it doesn't -- that virgin still would have lived 720 years before the birth of christ. the prophecy applies to the assyrian conquest of israel, and the child was the timer. the sign could have been anything. it could have been a pillar of fire in the middle of jerusalem. it could have the sun going backwards in the sky. it doesn't matter how miraculous or non-miraculous the particulars of the sign are. what matters is the timeframe, and topic.even still, words have meaning, and you can't just interchange them at will. the differences between "young woman" and "virgin", and between "the" and "a" are substantial and can drastically change the meaning. but even if it did mean that (and it doesn't) it still could not actually apply to christ, since it was already fulfilled 720 years before he was born. that's fine. the question is whether or not any of this applies to jesus christ. you might be surprised to know that moses was the first messiah. moshe (that's how "moses" is pronounced in hebrew) and moshiach (that's "messiah" or "christ" in hebrew) come from the same word. yes, absolutely, the exodus is about god deliviering his people.the question is, what does jesus have do with it? probably a bad example. the serpent on the staff was the very image of the affliction israel suffered. and when it came to be worshiped in its own right...

quote:

---

He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah; and he broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did offer to it; and it was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

---

so if that's a symbol for christ, it shows that christ worship is idolatry. you probably don't want to say that. no, this is nonsense. if the reader has to be divinely inspired -- especially if that inspiration runs contrary to the obvious and logical reading -- that negates the need for a text in the first place. why can't god just relate that overall purpose, and skip the stuff that says everything else? oh, these meanings aren't simple. the rest of isaiah 7 is filled with symbolic imagery. but note that you're not interpreting that symbolism. you're just misreading the stuff that's straightforward. the question is, why should we include the NT, since it so obviously misreads the simple parts? since the the obvious facts don't seem to phase you, perhaps, dawn, you simply have to inspired in order to see it. i think perhaps your task should be to demonstrate what makes the NT different from the book of mormon, or the quran -- why should we think they were any less inspired than the NT?

---

אָרַח

there must be, since that's reading and not "interpretation". an interpretation would be if i had discussed the symbolic imagery in the poetic prophecy that follows -- the bit i rather specifically left out. and there must a disagreement, because that reading precludes your "interpretation". it categorically rules it out. sure, he absolutely could have. there's no particular reason inspiration or scripture authorship has to have stopped at any point in history. inspired books could still be being written as week.the question is not "could". it is "did". did god inspire and the NT authors to explain a deeper meaning? but when the NT authors simply quotemine, distort, and misrepresent OT prophecy that was genuinely fulfilled over 500 years beforehand... well, it becomes sort of hard to think that they were. thus, a valid and supportable reason for "deconverting". and if those authors are inspired by god, it should relatively easy to do that in a clear and direct manner. again, we haven't gotten there yet. right now, we're merely talking about how the NT represents the OT. if it's not an honest representation, that's a pretty good argument against the NT.

---

אָרַח

god is with us in the war against israel?the child is a representation of god's destruction of the nation of israel, by handing them off to be oppressed and ultimately exterminated in the hands of the assyrian empire. this is not really a good image of christ. you don't know what "context" means, do you? sure, the same way it's about muhammad, because there is no god but allah, and muhammad is his prophet. matthew is not a prophet. he might have been recording the words of a prophet: jesus. if you look at the roles prophets play in the OT, the things that jesus says and does is very like one of the prophets.. matthew is simply one of his students. yes, it's a parable. prophecy is not parable. the things that isaiah describes are very real, and really happened. it is not a fictional story told to illustrate a point. you probably do not want to argue that it is. er, no. otherwise, a two word bible would have sufficed: "It's God." (i like "don't panic" better, personally) but clearly there are more subtle and intricate meanings. your "interpretation" is a white wash of the text, and deprives it of all its meaning and significance. logos means "word".

---

אָרַח

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.

You need to look up the following words in a dictionary:1) Demonstrated
2) Continuity
3) Theme
4) PurposeI see you did running at college.
Was that your main focus?
Did you use sports to hide your functional illiteracy?

only stupidity would argue that quotemining is a valid theological framework. for instance, you might be interested in this post in the prophecy thread. since i know you won't go look, i'll re-post it here.

quote:

---

context is everything

---

ICDESIGN writes:

​

A prophecy doesn't have to be in context with the entire paragraph it is encased in. That is one reason why so many like jar get it wrong.

​

...uh, sorry, but yes it does. you can't just bend an author's words to mean whatever you like. christians love to claim their adoration of the bible, but strangely have little issue with misrepresenting it. if you really have no problem understanding why context is important, i leave you with the following bible verses:

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Deuteronomy 32:39

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

First Kings 8:23

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Kings 1:16

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Kings 5:15

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Chronicles 6:14

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Psalms 14:1

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Psalms 53:1

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 44:6

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 44:8

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:5

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:14

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:21

---

​

i think the surrounding words are important. don't you?

---

that's funny, dawn. you are, on the one hand, arguing that we can rip things entirely out of context whenever it suits us, but on the other, arguing that we should go look at the whole book? oh, that's too funny.have you read isaiah, dawn? have you understood isaiah? since i know you haven't read the book i appealed to for historical context, the book of kings, i'm relatively certain you haven't read the rest of isaiah for the literary context either. isaiah's pretty firmly situated in pre-exile times, prophesying largely about the coming exile -- for both israel in assyria, and judah in babylon. jeremiah and ezekiel (the other "major" prophets) more so, as isaiah's a bit earlier. none of this really has anything to do with christ -- it's all about that exile as god's punishment, and then the redemption and return to the homeland that will follow it. some of (especially ezekiel) uses very poetic symbolism. but it's all about the exile. er, no. you're the one claiming symbolism where it doesn't fit. my statement was that inspiration of the OT prophets is not relevant to this discussion. it's simply about whether the NT authors represent the OT faithfully. this is a very simple question, and only relates to very basic literary analysis: the ability to read and comprehend. it has nothing to do with faith -- though the conclusions reached could cause that faith some problems. i, for one, refuse to believe that intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentation, and outright lies could be divinely inspired.

---

אָרַח

oh ho ho, you'd better ask a mormon about that one. they'll tell you all kinds of stuff about archaeology -- all of about the same calibre as your claims of biblical verification. i'm not sure what that's actually supposed to mean. what more do you need, besides the text? and if you're worried about originals (those pesky golden plates), don't worry. we don't have any for the bible, either. perhaps it's a matter of faith. you'd have to believe it's divinely inspired in order to see the inspiration, right? same as the NT. i'm still not convinced that you've read the quran. or, for that matter, the bible. i mean, the bible is just as much of a mish-mash of religious claims. have you seen proverbs? half the stuff isn't even religious. so you claim. but you have yet to show me why. i'd suggest posting passages from the book of mormon, or the quran, and comparing them to passages from the bible. you could start a new thread. i'll be happy to participate, and show you some of the absurdities. it is my belief that you have neither logic nor facts, though both have been given to you. for you, faith suffices -- which is perhaps valid. but you asked for a valid and supportable reason to deconvert. logic and facts certainly are.

---

אָרַח

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

General warning to all forum members who have their irony meters connected: Either set your irony meter to its highest range or disconnect it! The irony spike that will occur when Dawn posts will very likely burn out the meter's movement -- AKA "will peg it to oblivion". Word! But more specifically, drawing from my own Greek classes, there were two very different verbs for speaking: lego and lalao (please pardon my not knowing the bbcodes for rendering foreign alphabets). Lalao was for making the noises of speech, like fundamentalists yelling "la la la la" while plugging their ears in order to block out what they don't want to hear. OTOH, lego is related to our English verb "to lay" (Anglo-Saxon "lagan", related to modern German "legen", "to lay"), which in reference to speech is to set words in a deliberate pattern so as to make sense, hence the extension of the root to "logic", the setting of thoughts in a structured manner.The thing is that language is not only structured by thought, but thought is also structured by language, as most students of foreign languages have experienced first-hand (at least those who had made the transition to thinking in that other language). While Silly Millie (AKA "Dawn" -- if she/he feels free to frak with our names, then it's open season on hers) makes repeated claims of using logic in her/his posts, every time without any supporting documentation, we have never seen any indication that she/he even has any idea what logic is. Indeed, when she/he has been repeatedly challenged to offer any support of her/his premises, she/he has repeatedly refused to offer any such support. If Silly Millie truly believes that she should not have to ever support her premises, then truly Silly Millie has absolutely no inkling of what logic is. But then why would that surprise any of us?Structured speech should indicate structured thought processes, right? Message 390 Just what the frak is that supposed to mean? Is there an English translation pending? I would think not, since Silly Millie's goal is to generate confusion. That has always been the goal of creationists and IDists alike, to generate as much confusion as possible, so that the truth might never be able to come to light.It's late and I'm tired. Has anybody been able to find a coherent line of reasoning by Silly Millie in English? I surely haven't been able to. I doubt that anybody else has been able to either. Well, if Silly Millie has proven herself/himself incapable of generating any coherent line of reasoning in English, let alone in any other known language, then I submit that Silly Millie is incapable of logical discourse.Therefore, for Silly Millie to invoke "logic" is the height of hypocrisy. Has Silly Millie ever bothered to read the New Testament? I don't mean the Paulist crap, but rather the "Gospels." I have read it (the Paulist crap as well), even though it's questionable whether Silly Millie has. Jesus had some very definite things to say about the hypocrites. Is Silly Millie aware of those?

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.

so, here's a fun example.

quote:

---

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; (Isaiah 28:13 KJV)

---

a nice quote, okay. but just for example, let's look at it in context. now, this is a poetic section of isaiah, and my nJPS version happens to render it very poetically. so i'm going to copy it out of there. with context.

quote:

---

28

¹Ah, the proud crowns of the drunkards of Ephraim
Whose glorious beauty is but the wilted flowers
On the heads of the men bloated with rich food,
Who are overcome by wine!

​

²Lo, my Lord has something strong and mighty,
Like a storm of hail,
A shower of pestilence.
SOmething like a storm of massive, torrential rain
SHall be hurled with force to the ground.
³Trampled underfoot shall be
The proud crowns of the drunkards of Ephraim,
⁴The wilted flowers----
On the heads of men bloated with rich food----
That are his glorious beauty.
They shall be like an early fig
Before the fruit harvest;
Whoever sees it devours it
While it is still in his hand.

​

⁵In that day, the LORD of Hosts shall become a crown of beauty and a diadem of glory for the remnant of His people, ⁶and a spirit of judgment for him who sits in judgment and of valor for those repel attacks at the gate.

​

⁷But these are also muddled by wine
And dazed by liquor:
Priest and prophet
Are muddled by liquour;
They are confused by wine,
And dazed by liquour,
They are muddled in their visions,
They stumble in judgment.
⁸Yea, all tables are covered
With vomit and filth
So that no space is left.

​

[This is the drunkards' reaction to Isaiah's reproof.]

​

⁹"To whom would he instruction?
To whome expound a message?
To those newly weaned from milk,
Just taken away from the breast?
¹⁰That same mutter upon mutter,
Murmur upon murmur,
Now here, now there!"

​

¹¹Truly, as one who speaks to that people in a stammering jargon and an alien tongue ¹²is he who declarse to them, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest; this is the place of repose." They refuse to listen. ¹³To them, the word of the LORD is:

​

"Mutter upon mutter,
Murmur upon murmur,
Now here, now there."
And so they march,
But they shall fall backward,
And be injured and snared and captured.

​

¹⁴Hear now the word of the LORD,
You men of mockery,
Who govern that people
In Jerusalem!
¹⁵For you have said,
"We have made a covenant wit Death,
Concluded a pact with Sheol [Hell].
When the sweeping flood passes through,
It shall not reach us;
For we have made falsehood our refuge,
Taken shelter in treachery."

---

so what's it about? false prophets thinking their lies will protect them from the coming exile. in assyria. the "precept upon precept" business is the mockery that these false prophets are making of the word of god. this is essentially the derision the priests were making at the bible, not isaiah's approved idea of divine inspiration. isaiah is condemning this view.interestingly, this line is quoted in the book of mormon:

quote:

---

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. (2 Nephi 28:30)

---

i think it does about as good at representing isaiah as matthew does, franky. clearly, well, the message is still "It's God^TM", joseph smith just gets everything else wrong, including which side god's on.

---

אָרַח

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.

no, i genuinely think it's hilarious that you so readily contradict yourself. you're on the one hand arguing that i can't see the forest for the trees, and on the other, arguing that this one particular leaf is the forest. this is where i am forced to again to question your reading comprehension. since my reading was that matthew horribly misrepresents the context of the prophecy. you obviously cannot agree with that reading and still think it does not affect matthew's claims. not relevant to the discussion. isaiah may have been divinely inspired, as he says, or he may not have been. it really doesn't matter. all that matters is that he does not fail the test for false prophets. matthew does, on both accounts. but even still, this is not the issue. we are comparing representation. do you agree that the verse i posted from the book of mormon misrepresents isaiah? and that you just misrepresented the book of isaiah? why does the NT get a pass? you sure haven't read much prophecy. some of it's apocalyptic, you know. and a lot of the messianic prophecy is aimed at the whole world. no, i'm assuming that god doesn't doublespeak. when he says something, he means it. i am, however, honestly surprised that you used "exegesis" correctly in a sentence. clearly, the messiah will come from abraham -- and the messiah we're talking about here is not just a specific little one, but the messiah that will bring about world peace.nobody is debating that there is messianic prophecy in the bible. certainly, there is. the problem is that much of the stuff the NT quotes as messianic isn't, and even if it is, can't have been about jesus. and you can tell, from the context.and sure, maybe they're all somehow symbolic of the messiah, but that does not mean that the NT is representing them in an honest way when it tries to make them apply specifically and directly to jesus.

---

אָרַח

[qs]so what's it about? false prophets thinking their lies will protect them from the coming exile. in assyria. the "precept upon precept" business is the mockery that these false prophets are making of the word of god. this is essentially the derision the priests were making at the bible, not isaiah's approved idea of divine inspiration. isaiah is condemning this view.Without acknowledging it, the false prophets are actually demonstrating exacally how they need to be taught, as a child, line upon line, precept upon precept.This is however the method that God has chosen to teach people about himself and his plans.Example, Paul states that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ"in the fullness of time God sent forth his son into the world""God who at different times and different ways has spoken to us by the prophets, but hath in these last days spoken to us by his son, Jesus Christ"Dawn Bertot