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.
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 means
No 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 son
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.
Short but pointless Paul
You 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
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.
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
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.
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
You can't know what it implies without knowing what it means. So you called it a lie because you're a liar.
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 standpoint
What 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
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.
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 it
Please PaulK, present that which you thinking I am ignoring, or be quiet about that issue