How the NT quotes Tanach texts

Ill be helping my brother or sister Faith, here, in dismantling, the comical approach set out by secular fundamental humanists, in trying to argue from scripture, that scripture cannot have a meaning to the future

But as always Ill be doing it from a purely logical standpoint, which should quickly dismiss the nonesense, of people who do not believe in God or inspiration, that such things cannot apply

When you formulate an argument from or about scripture, you have to assume atleast the possibly, from an argument standpoint, that all its claims are valid, for it to make any sense

If you start from the proposition, that its claims to divine guidance and inspiration are not true, then there is no reason to be concerned whether the writer meant, virgin or young women

The meaning is going to be missed by the Secular fundamentalist humanist

So which is it, is it inspired or not?

I promise you Ill dismantle your misunderstanding as quickly as I did with Arch

Starting an argument in the middle of its content, (vigin or young women), is like trying to decide which flavor of cheese the moon is made of

You want to be logical and rational, please, have at it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Temper temper PaulK, you only due harm to your position and give the impression you cannot defend your position

Or was that your motive to begin with, to avoid answering questions and arguments

As Ive demonstrated by more than three thousand posts, I have a very firm and clear understanding of reality and the issues involved

So Ill ask the question again, with no hope you will attempt an answer. Lets try anyway

Since the texts clearly claims inspiration and divine guidance from God himself, could this not affect the overall picture of prophecy

Since the writer is claiming divine guidance, could there not be a bigger picture across time concerning the meaning of these passages and who they would involve?

Since you assume the writer of the Old Testament is correct in what he trying to communicate, why should we not assume, the writer of the NT would be directed by the same divine guidance

If your position is strickly a humanistic, atheistic approach to the meaning of the writers words why or how could it matter

Now, here are some questions for you to deal with, so lets see how much I dont really understand

Be a man now PaulK, dont shrink from your obligations. Step up to the plate, be a grown up

As i told you earlier, there is no task in showing the silliness of a secular fundamentalist, trying to defend, understand or explain, scripture, muchless prophecy

PaulK writes

Youve heard the expression, "Get behind me Satan". Come on Lucipher, you can do better than that

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Unbelievable

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

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

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

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

Come now PaulK you can do much better than that

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So your unwarrented and unreasonable rejection of the miraculous that is clearly a part of the 'Virgin', text we can dismiss as, Not in Context , correct

Since we can reject your non-context views, then we can assume the miraculous in the context is acceptable, believable and accurate, correct

Oh Im sorry, did I speak of turn and assume that you do not accept the miraculous, when you actually do?

Man I tell you what, it sure would help from an argumentation standpoint, to know what you fellas believe about these things. You see, this would make it much simpler to argue a position from an actual rational standpoint

Or is that simply a sloppy debating tactic, to keep someone in the dark concerning your actual views, to further confuse the issues?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hardly. Actually this is an example of divine guidance. Just like the writers of the NT record some of the same events, and some writers refer to others writing, like Peter did with Paul,Jerimiah probably spoke the same truth to others and Zachariah actually recorded it. Or some Jermiahs witings were misplaced.

Since historical finds tend always to corroborate old and NT claims, if a writing that claimed to be from Jerimiah surfaced, would you then convert to Christianity? Or would you simply just look for other minor, alledged problems?

The point is that if you dont start with the plain claim to inspiration, you can believe what ever you wish

The point is also, that only inspiration could make known to Matthew who actually made the statement

The same inspiration that revealed to any of the prophets divine truth, could only make it known to a bunch uneducated fisherman, tax collectors and otherwise disinterested people, like the disciples, that these things refered to Christ.

Seriously, why would a bunch of disinterested people, with little or no imagination, place themselves in a position of death, just to create a new story that would literally cost them thier lives

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Paulk writes

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

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

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?

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

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.

Were Isa and Ahaz real people ramoss?

There is no dishonestly at all son, where Isa does not claim to be its author primarily and intially.

You, PaulK, Jar, Arch, whoever, simply cannot excape this point. The prophecy, the meaning of the prophecy, the words used wouuld be fabrications and frauds, if only Isa was involved

Pay close attention. One of the tactics here at the forum, used by SFH and Atheists is direct you attention AWAY from the miraculous, divine guidance approach.

They do this by reinforcing and avoiding any such topic in thier discussion. The proceed as if the Bible is simply a historical document

The irony however, is that if you wish to discuss the Bible, how can you avoid that aspect. Its either all or nothing. To do anything except the all or nothing approach, makes no LOGICAL sense

It would make no logical sense to discuss some point that Zeus made, or some word he used, in or out of context, if I didnt even think he was real

you probably need to pay closer attention

Im not even sure that sentence makes any sense. If I understand it though I am begging them to respond to, not hoping they will not

Right and all I ask is that he or whoever, atleast use some sound reasoning (science) to propogate his contention. Hes not

No my answer to his contention is that he is not staying in the context as he has claimed

On top of this, if the text according to his view is unreliable, it would follow logically, the there was not an ACTUAL fulfiillment to any prophecy Old or New

So equally we cannot know whether the writer meant Virgin or young women. So we cannot know whether the guy (Isa) wasnt insane or a liar

However if Isa was inspired by God, then it can have whatever meaning God wishes it to have in whatever time period he wishes

Even if it has meaning and application in that time period, does not mean it cannot have meaning to refer to the Messiah

Now watch this. If you dont include the ENTIRE context, not only are you being unobjective, your not being accurate or logical

It would actually help to address my arguments, instead of casting dispersions

Again, it does not help you argument by attacking the person. You are welcome to address any argument I have set out.

The first one I set out is that he is not arguing within the context. Now watch pay close attention. He is assuming indirectly that FULFILLMENT of that prophecy actually happened, if only in that context. since he clearly does not believe that, he is picking out of the context, what he wants to make an argument that is not valid, according to his own principles

he is defending and supporting a text he thinks to be mythological, because he chooses from the text that which will support his strawman. Thats called unobjective and dishonestly

If you dont believe me, ask him a direct question, as to whether any prophecy actually was fulfilled by direct inspiration by God. See what kind of answer you get

When says that is not important, then ask him if he is being objective by not including the entire context, that includes a fulfilment, which he has used to support his "argument"

If an actual prophecy was not fulfilled, then there is no reason he or anyone else is correct concerning the usage of words in the text. he has simply involved himself in a contradiction from which he cannot extricate himself

If he has the right to assume that in context, the prophecy was fulfilled, then it would be equally correct to assume that divine guidance was involved, in context, because its a huge part of the context.

If divine gudance is involved and we are going to include it in the context, as it clearly is, then it can have any meaning God wishes for it. Since the Nt is set out by the same type of evidence as the Old Testament, it follows we have an actual explanation to its entended and entire meaning

Now this one really throws me for a loop. While it is always refreshing to hear someone at the forurm actually tell us what and who they are, I must say, in all my reading of your posts would I have ever come to the idea that you were a Christian.

From your posts you appeared to be just another garden varity SFH

Now I am not sure what you studied or believe, to give you the idea you are a christian, but it couldnt be the Bible. Atleast not according to the content of your posts

Consider GDR. He atleast sounds like a Christian. Hes much misguided on how to interpret the scriptures, but it atleast looks like he is giving it an attempt

Do you remember Jesus statement to the disciples when they returned and could not cast out certain demons. He said this type only comes out, with much prayer and fasting

The types of Secular fundamentalist and humanist hear already know what Jesus said, they simply dont care, nor do they believe it even if they are trying to make a point to the context

You shouldnt assume that I deal with lost people the same way I do these fellas

Most of these are not seeking the truth, the are seeking to destroy the truth at all cost

these are a different breed of cat altogether.

Let me use an illustration. You know how Gun control advocates pretend to only want to get rid of automatic weapons. When in fact thier desire is to get rid of ALL weapons

This type of humanist at this forum and in many other places, is not seeking only to take away your opinions and beliefs, but make it an actual crime for you have an opinion that say Homosexuality is immoral

So dont assume that I am accross the board a certain way, with other people, I am not

I just know what these fellas overall intentions actually are

Thats why they formulate silly organizations like the Freedom from Religion foundation. If thier only goal is to keep it out of government, why do you need an organization to get rid of it entirely

I press on them hard because I know thier actual goals

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.

How about actually setting out an objection, that involves more than, " I disagree"

Of course you did, if even only by and for argument sake. You brag and insist that the context says what it means and means what it says. You assume, if for argument sake an actual prophecy was fulfilled

You even state where and how it was fulfilled. So by direct implication, inspiration and divine guidance must be true in context and you are supporting Gods involvement in the process.

Uh yes

Paul, in context was there an actual prophecy fulfilled?

Since you have already argued in context and by indirect implication that a prophecy actually took place and a fulfillment took place, you are assuming, indirectly and for argument sake that inspiration was involved.

So if that is the case, why would you NOT assume Matthews inspiration, since the NT touts and has the same type of evidence to support its claims

IOWs, wouldnt Matthews claims and contextual statements be as valid as Isa's. Why do you assume Matthew is incorrect or a liar, when inspiration is involved, in both contexts

Really I didnt know that. Your indirect implication, for argument sake is that a prophecy took place, a fulfillment took place. Your further indirect implication is that inspiration is involved, especially since you want to be so contextual correct

Wow this is like being a teacher in a nursery room. No my argument does not rest on the assertion that Matthew is inspired. It rest on the fact that in the context of Isa you are assuming by indirect implication and argument sake Isa's claim to inspiration, because you want to be so faithful to the context and the exact meaning of words

I dont need to demonstrate Matthews inspiration in any other way, than that which you establised Isa's. Atleast not at this juncture. You did this by not paying attention to the fact that indirectly you actualized for argument sake a prophecy and a fulfillment, then insisted it must be that way because of the context

Paul in context did a prophecy and a fulfillment take place?

I called your statement a lie, because of what it indirectly implies and your inability to understand anything in context

I have read your entire post in this thread and there is NOTHING that would detract or make my arguments misguided, misdirected or invalid

Sinc you think there is, simply repeat it and quit saying I have ignored it. Please by all means I am begging you to do so. I doubt you have the courage to do it, but we will see

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.