you didn't read my post. you didn't read the verse you cited. neither says what you think it says.
Wrong, Ive read the verse a thousand times and it is a claim to inspiration if even indirectly. Does Matthew say at some point God promised them inspiration, Why yes he does. Does John in 16:13, says the Spirit of promise would be sent, why yes he does?
The truth of the matter is that no matter what is presented in this context you would not believe it (or accept it even as a plain reading} anyway. Isa claims inspiration all through the book and even in the context of the prophecy and you still wont tell me if you will accept it as plain reading of the text
again, you have not shown that you have understood my rules, an are thus consistently misrepresenting them.
At its core, all your "rule" consists of is a simple and plain examination of the text. Even in the context of the prophecy Isa claims it to be from God? Your rule is simply an examination of what is says. Now all I need to do is examine what Isa says, even if I dont believe it. yet a simple examination as you suggest allows this premise
there is absolutely no misrepresentation on my part
okay dawn. let's assume that isaiah is 100% inspired by god, literally, and god himself wrote every word of it in his own hand.
why should i think the same of matthew? you have never given me a good reason to make the jump from one to the other, even if you do actually agree that one is inspired. "it says so" isn't a good reason. and it doesn't say so.
"It says so" is the exact type of rule you are employing in your own examination, of the text. Your determination of what Isa's conclusions are, are based upon the context and a plain and simple of, because Isa said so
Thats your approach without even considering Matthew
The first valid reason I have provided to make the jump as you call it, is because the prophecy, if from God, is primarily about God, not Isa, not israel, not Cyrus, nothing but God and Judge and Jury
Prophecies are much like parables, an earthly story with a heavenly meaning
Prophets represent God Arch, not themselves
The people understood it to be coming from God , not the prophet
The second is that the theme never changes from one testament to another, from one week or century to another. Its about God and Gods plans across time as revealed the scriptures
Thirdly, there are no other extensive claims that lay claim as jesus does to these OT prophecies
there is no reason to believe God did not inspire them the same way he did Isa
Fourthly, Christ meets all of the claims to prophecy
Fifthly and more importantly, in this context, you have provided no valid reason to indicate Matthew has misrepresented Isa to begin with, that is if it is inspired by God
Only inspiration could let you know who or what God had in mind through Isa
inspiration is the deal breaker for your and Jars simplistic approach to scripture and the prophecies
remove inspiration and Thus saith the Lord and your approach might make sense. Include it as it is clearly included and your approach falls to the ground
Remember even in the context of the prophecy the prophet claims inspiration about such things that were to follow. Why only examine what the prophecy has to say and NOT, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE SAID IT, if it is in the very same passage?
No inspiration by a simple examination of the text, then none of it matters to a hill of beans, muchless whether JesuS was a Messiah or Matthew misrepresents him
If it is actually inspired, it makes all the difference in the world and to claims by Jesus and his Apostles as to whether they were accurate
The problem is that your and jars approach is neither realistic or rational (logical). Your approach cant be harmonized with reason or revelation. it makes no logical sense from any angle
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
