The Tension of Faith

You're right, it does have to work as a sign to Ahaz, and I'm sure it does but I don't care to research it right now. Even so, it is definitely a prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah, because the New Testament says so, and the traditional Church says so, for a couple of millennia already, and they have a lot more authority than any unbeliever.

Matthew took nothing out of context. The New Testament is all God's word. You don't get a vote.

I don't think I've ever seen your "reading" of the Bible on any subject even once approach reasonableness. Matthew is a lot smarter and more honest than you by a long loooooooong shot. The Bible is God's word and it will be your judge in the end.

Wait and see.

Flat-out biased assertions, your M.O., aren't debate either.And again, time will tell.

You have a very strange idea of "reality." All you are doing as usual is just basically namecalling.Different canons means simply a few different books among them, what's the big deal? Various candidates for the canon were proposed down the centuries. I thik we can trust that the Protestant Reformers got it right in the end. Or if you can't, who cares anyway.Standing up to your examination is a pretty meaningless standard. Or any unbeliever's standard. The OT messianic prophecies are affirmed by the New Testament and the whole history of the Church. The Church gets the final say, and all you upstarts at EvC have nothing whatever to say about it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are not in a position to say the premise is wrong. No unbeliever can do that, you're just displaying the usual pernicious anti-Christian EvC bias, as are jar and Percy. Believers just ignore such arrogant stupidities and that's what I'm going to do now, so you all can just go on patting each other's backs and pursuing your delusions with each other.However, again, the logic is correct for the premise as given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Old Testament has the main purpose of preparing the Jews (and the entire world for that matter) for the Messiah. It's full of prophecy of the Messiah, and it was the Jews who understood their scriptures who most readily recognized him when He came. The version of Judaism that leaves out the Messiah, that is still praccticed by the Jews, is a mere shell of what God intended.

GDR, the first rule of Bible understanding is to assume if it seems to be contradictory the fault is your own. I'm serious. If you are unable to resolve it you just have to leave it for some future time when you may be able to. That's the only reasonable way one could possibly treat a communication understood to be God's own inspired Word.In this case the key is in God's "inciting" David against Israel out of wrath against Israel. And other versions say it was Satan who did the inciting. See Got questions?I'd have to spend more time researching to be sure I have the best explanation of this, but as I've understood it, the taking of a census, which is usually for the purpose of assessing the military strength of Israel against enemies, implies distrust of God, who as the leader of Israel's armies can bring victory from small numbers if necessary. See the example of Gideon. We are to commit everything to God in faith and not rely on our own judgments.But again, the best general policy is that if there is a seeming contradiction in scripture, assume there is a reasonable explanation even if you don't know what it is yet.

OK so I can say my piece again too. "Inspired by God" means it conveys what God wants conveyed, and what God wants conveyed cannot be in error, or who do you think God is anyway? You don't think He can guide the exact message He wants written? You don't think He has the power to protect it and guarantee it? We know God is all=powerful but you and others shrink Him down to something petty.

Oh it has been conveyed, to those He wants it conveyed to.I've quoted Pascal on this before: Scripture contains enough light to guide believers while enough obscurity to keep unbelievers in the dark.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith is a gift.

Yes I don't think you can believe in anything without evidence, it's simply impossible. But God gives us the ability to recognize the evidence as part of the gift of faith. There's no contradiction hard as you all try to come up with some.ABE: Evidence doesn't contradict faith. The evidence gives us good reasons for having faith in God and his word and his character and his promises and so on. Witness evidence for instance. We then have reason to believe all kinds of things for which there is no clear evidence. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen, the substance of things hoped for." But there has to have been some evidence to convince a person to put that kind of trust in things that are otherwise unevidenced but merely stated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Pascal is only known in translation of course since he wrote in French. Maybe your quote is better than my paraphrase but they amount to the same thing anyway. Pascal imputes both the light and the obscurity to the Bible by God's intention. It's pretty clear that it's true even by your own observations.

Pascal belonged to a Catholic organization that was more Protestant than Catholic. He's talking about people who actively deny God, not Protestants.