How the NT quotes Tanach texts

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 involvedPay 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 documentThe 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 senseIt 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

quote:

---

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

---

That wasn't even trying. It's just more unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

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

---

Well that's another lie.

quote:

---

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

---

Of course you're lying again. I never said or implied that I was speaking for God at all.

quote:

---

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

---

So here we have the REAL issue: People who DON'T assume that Matthew's Gospel is unquestionably and literally correct will see the obvious fact that it takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context, and the use of it does not agree with the context. You wish to suppress this truth by calling anyone who points it out a liar.So in fact, you are a liar and a bully and an enemy of the truth.

quote:

---

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

---

And here you prove - yet again - that you have no understanding of logic. There is no LOGICAL problem in failing to make an assumption.

quote:

---

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

---

That could be more fairly said of you. Your argument rests on the assertion that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, but you have offered no reason to believe that at all. You haven't even offered any support for the idea that the Gospel of Matthew is even relevant.

quote:

---

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

---

In fact I have said that the claim that Isaiah is inspired isn't relevant to the understanding of this text. For you to claim otherwise is dishonest. Meanwhile you have failed to even show that my position is false, let alone that I could be considered dishonest for holding it.

quote:

---

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

---

In other words you don't wish to defend your false accusation, which started this subthread. You called my statement a lie without even understanding what I was referring to, which by the way shows a woeful inability to read any text in context - and proves that you are a liar.

As best as I can tell, your position is that secular fundamental humanists don't accept that Isaiah is prophecy, and thus don't deserve anything like an explanation of why you believe what you believe.That's fine, except for the fact that we are in the science forums. In particular the 'Accuracy and Inerrancy' forum is the place where questioning the accuracy of the Bible and Christians interpretations of OT and NT is the legitimate topic for discussion. That's the entire purpose of the forum.This thread was started not by Paul, but by a non Christian who is decidedly neither a secular humanist nor an atheist. Your answer, which is essentially that believers believe, and everyone else is a lying piece of scum is simply not on topic here. I don't expect or ask you to change, but I do want you to understand why your claim to be the logical person in this discussion is clearly wrong.I have no illusion that you will change your mind, or that you will make any attempt to offer an on topic answer. I expect you to do what you've always done regardless of whether the topic is evolution, Intelligent Design, or the Bible. Namely, rant, toss out illogic, and throw out insults. Your reputation precedes you whenever you post here.And for a completely off topic question, as a Christian reading your posts, I have to wonder if you have ever been involved in winning a soul for Christ. Because I cannot imagine a lost soul staying within hearing distance of you for long enough to hear about Jesus.

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 claimedOn 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 NewSo equally we cannot know whether the writer meant Virgin or young women. So we cannot know whether the guy (Isa) wasnt insane or a liarHowever if Isa was inspired by God, then it can have whatever meaning God wishes it to have in whatever time period he wishesEven if it has meaning and application in that time period, does not mean it cannot have meaning to refer to the MessiahNow 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 principleshe 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 dishonestlyIf 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 getWhen 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 himselfIf 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 SFHNow 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 postsConsider 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 fastingThe 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 contextYou shouldnt assume that I deal with lost people the same way I do these fellasMost of these are not seeking the truth, the are seeking to destroy the truth at all costthese 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 weaponsThis 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 immoralSo dont assume that I am accross the board a certain way, with other people, I am notI just know what these fellas overall intentions actually areThats 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 entirelyI press on them hard because I know thier actual goalsEdited 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.

I am trying to see how your response makes any sense, considering the thread and the arguments.It doesn't.

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 fulfilledYou 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 yesPaul, 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 claimsIOWs, 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 wordsI 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 contextI have read your entire post in this thread and there is NOTHING that would detract or make my arguments misguided, misdirected or invalidSinc 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 seeDawn 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.

quote:

---

Paul, in context was there an actual prophecy fulfilled?

---

A rational person would understand that we have to understand the prophecy before we can say that. Thus the answer to this question cannot be relevant to understanding the text of the prophecy.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is a lie.

quote:

---

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

---

Since I am not assuming inspiration of either book (and since the question of evidence is far from as simple as you claim) your question is mistaken.

quote:

---

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

---

Since you don't believe that Isaiah means what it says, why assume that Matthew means what you think it says ? If they are both inspired isn't it more likely that Isaiah means what it says and your interpretation of Matthew is wrong ?

quote:

---

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

---

Of course you didn't know that because you are completely ignorant of logic. And since your "indirect implication" is your invention you have no point.

quote:

---

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 can well believe that infants are able to see through your lies.However, if you do not assume that Matthew is inspired you do not even have a motivation to twist the text of Isaiah to match Matthew in particular.

quote:

---

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

---

That is irrelevant to the interpretation of the text as I have demonstrated with sound reasoning above.

quote:

---

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

---

You can't know what it implies without knowing what it means. So you called it a lie because you're a liar.

quote:

---

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

---

You touched off this subthread by calling one of my statements a lie. You claim to have read every post I've made in this thread, but you still don't know what that statement was referring to. If you had done a decent job of reading my posts you WOULD know. Obviously you didn't.Edited by PaulK, : fix minor errorsEdited by PaulK, : Fixed tag

as ramoss pointed out, this isn't the case:

quote:

---

ιὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

---

it uses the word "parthenos", the same word matthew uses to mean "virgin":

quote:

---

ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός

---

the problem is that the people who made the translation for the septuagint didn't seem to think that "parthenos" meant "virgin":

quote:

---

καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον καὶ ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ

---

that's genesis 34:3, describing dinah who was "defiled" in the previous verse. the mistake lies with jewish translators.

including when it's used in genesis 34:3? is dinah a virgin after she is "defiled" by shechem? (see the post above for the greek text).

i skimmed your OP a bit, i think all of those quotes are from matthew. matthew likes quoting (or rather, misquoting) the OT, and i suspect he's doing it for a reason. the whole first half of the chapter is a genealogy of christ. the cursed king, who shall have no descendants on the throne, is specifically listed. five women are listed:

1. tamar, who produces an heir by tricking and seducing her step father
2. rahab, the prostitute of jericho
3. ruth, who seduces a man to secure her inheritance
4. bathsheba, though not by name because that would be too obvious, and
5. mary, the "virgin".

he then cites a verse about her virginity that any hebrew-reading jewish person would look up and notice that it doesn't actually say "virgin" and it's obviously about something else. what do you think matthew was getting at?start looking at the matthew quotes this way -- why is he quoting something that obviously is about something else, and frequently means something completely different. why is he highlighting this predictions that obviously can't apply to jesus?because matthew's point is that jesus isn't the messiah. it's a satire of mark.

Now notice,I ask Paul a direct question and how does he answer it, like a politician. The he tells us we need to understand the "nature of the prophecy", without telling us exacally how that works or what that meansNo Paul, rational doesnt mean double talk and evasiveness. Paul did an actual prophecy take place? Did an actual fulfilment happen as a result of Gods divine guidance.?What does it mean Paul, to understand the 'Nature of the Prophecy'. Just speak plainly sonBertot writes PaulK writes Short but pointless PaulYou realize we are debating correct? Extrapolate Paul, extrapolate. How is it a lie. You claim that you are staying true to the text, keeping things in context, how is it a lie.Do you mean to tell me that if even for argument sake you are NOT assuming an actual prophecy took place, within the context. So what exacally do you believe is true about the text But you have to Paul, you have to. You assume that in context the writer is correct conerning his usage of words, how he was using them and what his exact intended meaning was correct?So the part about divine guidance, we just set it aside and assume that no one but PaulK understands, the "Nature of the Prophecy"?Please by all means tell us what the 'Nature of the prophecy', is and how exacally you determined this "in context"When I say you assume the inspiration, I mean by indirect implication, for argument sake and you assured confidence of what and how the text is to be understood. Please PaulK enlighten us uninformed individuals on the meaning of the text. Tell us the nature of the prophecy in context I am going to assume that you are actually playing the dumb card here,that you really do understand what I mean by, argument sake and indirect implication. But we will see if you get any better in this respect Thes kinds of statements are nothing more than a desperate strech. I have allowed you the luxury of believing the text to be, unreliable from the evidence standpoint. I have allowed you the luxury of ignoring, the entire context. I have allowed you the luxury of rejecting actual divine guidance and yet your position wont work even from an argument standpointWhat it does demonstrate, is that you fiddle with the text text, ignore the text, ignore the obvious implications of the text, until the text supports what you want it to mean It cant be a subthread to argue the meaning of the text from a contextual and argument standpoint.If I have purposely ignored some "point" you have made, that would alter any point I am now making, you would have already presented itPlease PaulK, present that which you thinking I am ignoring, or be quiet about that issueDawn 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.

quote:

---

It cant be a subthread to argue the meaning of the text from a contextual and argument standpoint.

---

I agree. SO I'm going to drop all the stuff off of the original topic.I said: You responded with this accusation:

quote:

---

Unbelievable

​

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

---

Please substantiate your accusation or apologise and retract it.

Before I can say 'I disagree', or give reasons for disagreeing, your argument has to make at least a bit of sense first. I do not see any sense in the argument.It looks like one giant non-sequitur that has no connection with what was being argued.

Try Message 21.