Objective morality

AmbiguousGuy · Aug 18, 2012

1robin said:
As a believer I have more reason to doubt man's heart than any other group. The bible says the heart of man is desperately wicked from God's point of view.

I wonder why God would create desperately-wicked beings... in His own image.

It seems more like demon behavior than God behavior, at least to me.

waitasec · Aug 18, 2012

1robin said:
As a believer I have more reason to doubt man's heart than any other group.

especially when horrific acts are done in the name of religion (ones understanding of god), power or greed.

ArtieE · Aug 18, 2012

1robin said:
ArtieE said:

Then you should understand that when you make a claim you should expect people to ask you for evidence of that claim. If you can't provide this evidence it was your claim that was unreasonable and unsupportable. I hope you will stop making them from now on.

Click to expand...

I see my doubts were justified. You ask for a source and I provide it. You ignore it and claim to have accomplished something. If you will not utilise the source then why ask for it?

Click to expand...

I expected a source where the prophecies were explained so that we can see that these are actual prophecies, not just a list that explains nothing.

As usual a critics preference trumps obvious truth. It has little to do with the virgin birth nor should it. It is a prediction that Christ will conquor satan. Just as always the critic asks for the things he doesn't actually want and clings to any shred of information wrong on right that gets them out of the perdicament and ignores reasonable explenations because they do not allow you to maintain your point of view.

Click to expand...

The critics don't do that Christians do that. That is why there are critics.

You linked to a site with supposedly fulfilled Biblical prophecies. This one:
Prophecies

Now if you had actually bothered to look at this list before you sent it you would have seen that the first prophecy said:

Prophecy 1. Gen. 3:15 Seed of a woman (virgin birth)
Prophecy fulfilled Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18

Gen. 3:15 says "New International Version (©1984)
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

and

Matt. 1:18 says "New International Version (©1984)
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

How can this be a prophecy of a virgin!

1robin · Aug 20, 2012

ArtieE said:
1robin said:

I expected a source where the prophecies were explained so that we can see that these are actual prophecies, not just a list that explains nothing.The critics don't do that Christians do that. That is why there are critics.

Click to expand...

I provided that source. The bible. It contains all prophecies and fulfillments. There are others but none that contain all of them in one place. That satasfied your requirement. Why are you not utilising the source you requested.

You linked to a site with supposedly fulfilled Biblical prophecies. This one:
Prophecies

Now if you had actually bothered to look at this list before you sent it you would have seen that the first prophecy said:

Click to expand...

I gave that site in answer to a request. Your request did not state that I was to read all 350 prophecys contained there. Nor should it have. I have checked enough prophecies out that I no longer am insecure that one will be found that is actually incorrect and so have not read all 2,500.

Prophecy 1. Gen. 3:15 Seed of a woman (virgin birth)
Prophecy fulfilled Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18

Gen. 3:15 says "New International Version (©1984)
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

and

Matt. 1:18 says "New International Version (©1984)
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

How can this be a prophecy of a virgin!

Click to expand...

Ok this was my fault initially. I was familiar with the part of these verses that predict Christ's defeat of satan and never reviewed the virgin birth issue. However the issue is very simple. In the context of the language use of the time all children were referred to as the seed of their father. The ancient middle eastern / oriental culture was extremely partiarchial. This became even more formalised in the Hebrew culture later on than Adam's time. Since these verses use the very unorthedox seed of a women (which meant that only genetic material from the mother) instead of seed of the man then this is reference to a birth without a human father.

Gen.3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This is the only place in the Bible where it is called her seed and not his seed. The lineage was never attributed to the woman but the man, this is why when we read the genealogies the women are not included in the records, it was the men who begat.
The virgin birth

I do not regard this as a very strong prophecy but reasonable and suffecient, especially when coupled with Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [ALMA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)

As I am sure this will ignite the famous deperate attempt to cobble up anything that will allow a prophecy to be dismissed, in this case that Alma does not mean strictly virgin. This is a tired old contention has been shown false a thousand times but here is 1001:
Virgin Birth of Christ: Prophecies in Genesis and Isaiah
Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth of the Messiah
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ? : ChristianCourier.com

So what is next, this one is case closed unless you are still not satasfied.

1robin · Aug 20, 2012

AmbiguousGuy said:
I don't know much about Descartes or any of the others. My preference is to avoid reading philosophers.

That explains much. I thought you said you could run circles around Descartes. How do you know that if you do not know much about him?

ArtieE · Aug 21, 2012

1robin said:
I do not regard this as a very strong prophecy but reasonable and suffecient, especially when coupled with Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [ALMA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)

Who calls him Immanuel? There are only three places in the Bible with that name and they all are prophecies, but nowhere can I find anyone actually calling him Immanuel?

So what is next, this one is case closed unless you are still not satasfied.

Perhaps it might be more interesting for you to read somebody writing from the opposite perspective? Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

AmbiguousGuy · Aug 21, 2012

1robin said:
That explains much. I thought you said you could run circles around Descartes. How do you know that if you do not know much about him?

I can run circles around all those whom you declare to be my intellectual superiors.

Just as I speak more truly for God than do those whom you declare to be superior prophets.

1robin · Aug 21, 2012

ArtieE said:
Who calls him Immanuel? There are only three places in the Bible with that name and they all are prophecies, but nowhere can I find anyone actually calling him Immanuel? Perhaps it might be more interesting for you to read somebody writing from the opposite perspective?

ArtieE said:
Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

Artie I am sorry. The air-force test set I work on is falling apart faster than I can put it together. Without time to research I will tell you what I have understood about this. Immanuel is more of a descriptive title rather than a personal name as we think of it. It means God with us as you know. That is a title that no human who has ever lived qualifies for except Christ. That is also why Mathew refered to Isaiah and applied that term to Christ (which is pretty close to calling Christ that, in fact I do not know what the difference would be). He was and is in fact referred to as God with us. This prophecy as many are can become quite complicated if you start attempting to incorporate many other things based on preference without sufficient justification. I did have time to go to the site that you provided. I found an argument there for this prophecy that I have seen before and have looked up the refutation to before. However I do not have the time right now and I am quite sure you do not wish to go through the complex task of deciphering all the things rightly or wrongly that are used to complicate this simple prophecy. If you do wish to do that I am game but it will have to wait a few days.

Actually it makes me mad to give insufficient answers so I will add a bit more.
One thing to consider is language use. If I say that in 30 years my son will be the fastest 100m guy in the world and will be known as a lightning bolt. Does that actually mean that I think they will literally call him lightning bolt? Maybe but it could also mean that they will say he is fast as lightning. Does that make my prophecy any less remarkable?
I predicted that a son that isn't born yet will defy every odd and become a world class sprinter. He will be the fastest 100m sprinter ever. He will be referred to by terms that invoke lightning. If in fact he does then that is three things I should not have been able to predict. Just guessing but the odds are probably more than 10 million to one, probably much higher.
Lets say I did that another 2,500 times, most with far greater detail and much worse odds.
Is it a reasonable contention to haggle about what I meant by lighting bolt and leave the actual meat of the issue (all the obvious things that defied every odd and that they were predicted beforehand) ignored.
For the needs of my faith I look at a prophecy and if the explanation and claim are reasonable, appropriately remarkable, require no denial of known facts, and there is no better fit, then I believe it. Of course my perspective includes a born again experience with God and so is probably not as critical as some and years spent unraveling what at the start many times I thought would be a bible mistake only to find that 98% of the time the bible was astonishingly accurate. I understand that if your desire was to dismiss the bible or something similar then some (but not even close to a meaningful percentage) of prophecy can be dissected and purposely complicated until a single contention can be found in order to dismiss the whole, which is a fallacy but very common. I am not saying that the contentions are legitimate (and most times the critic doesn’t care) and if you actually want the full discussion in detail we can pursue it in depth as I have already dug deep into this one before. It is your choice. When I say critic I am not specifically refering to you. You have appeared very sincere so far.

By the way are we done with the seed of a women thing? I would prefer you to pick the worst one you got and we can exhaustivly cover it and let that settle the issue. It is however your choice, you could even use this one if you desire. An endless progression of questions and contentions that no answers are sought or suffeciently given (based on the amount of time spent on any single one) is not very helpful. Anyway Peace,

1robin · Aug 21, 2012

AmbiguousGuy said:
I can run circles around all those whom you declare to be my intellectual superiors.

Just as I speak more truly for God than do those whom you declare to be superior prophets.

I wish you would either drop the arrogant superlatives or justify them. Why don't you without looking state the fundamental definition of a limit? Let's see if you can run circles around even my unimpressive mathematic ability. You never even attempted my paradox. Tell me if a set that contains sets of things that are not members of themselves would it be a member of it's self. If you can answer that I could give you some sort of credability. I figured it out after about two months of banging my head on the wall but as you can run circles around everyone it should take no more than an hour.

By the way as for your second point how many dead have you raised, or how many blind have you healed? My prophets came with proof, yours sent you with the ability to make a self contradictory statements 50% of the time. Do not take any thing I say personally I actually like you but you have yet to prove a single point.

waitasec · Aug 21, 2012

1robin said:
I wish you would either drop the arrogant superlatives or justify them.

:biglaugh:
the irony

camanintx · Aug 21, 2012

1robin said:
Artie I am sorry. The air-force test set I work on is falling apart faster than I can put it together. Without time to research I will tell you what I have understood about this. Immanuel is more of a descriptive title rather than a personal name as we think of it.

Redefining the meaning of words is one way to fulfill ancient prophecy. :facepalm:

By the way are we done with the seed of a women thing? I would prefer you to pick the worst one you got and we can exhaustivly cover it and let that settle the issue. It is however your choice, you could even use this one if you desire. An endless progression of questions and contentions that no answers are sought or suffeciently given (based on the amount of time spent on any single one) is not very helpful. Anyway Peace,

Since there is no agreement as to what Genesis 3:15 is prophesizing, I doubt you get agreement that it was ever fulfilled.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted.../Text/Articles-Books/Woudstra_Gen3_15_CTJ.pdf

AmbiguousGuy · Aug 21, 2012

waitasec said:
:biglaugh:
the irony

Nothing to do with anything currently before us, but I just wanted to mention one of the most curious things I've ever seen.

I once saw a man standing in front of a store window cursing his own reflection. He didn't recognize it as himself but he could see that it was behaving very badly indeed.

AmbiguousGuy · Aug 21, 2012

1robin said:
I wish you would either drop the arrogant superlatives or justify them.

Rubber, glue. Remember?

Why don't you without looking state the fundamental definition of a limit? Let's see if you can run circles around even my unimpressive mathematic ability.

Math? What's math got to do with God? I'll bet I could trounce you at Scrabble, and God is way more about words than about mathematics.

By the way as for your second point how many dead have you raised, or how many blind have you healed?

The exact same number as every other prophet, including Jesus.

My prophets came with proof, yours sent you with the ability to make a self contradictory statements 50% of the time.

If your prophet came with proof, why can't you show me that proof? Why claim it exists while refusing to present it?

Anyway, I predicted that you would drop the examination of the word 'fact' and you have certainly done that. Verily, I am a mighty prophet indeed.

Do not take any thing I say personally I actually like you but you have yet to prove a single point.

Here's an even scarier question for you. Trust me, you will avoid even looking at it closely, much less will you actually try to address it.

To whom must a thing be proven in order for it to be proven?

That's about the scariest question I have. Try it. Don't be afraid of God. Face Him. Charge Him. Try to answer my red-lettered question.

I have proven all of my points here. You have proven none of your points here.

And that's a fact.

1robin · Aug 21, 2012

camanintx said:
Redefining the meaning of words is one way to fulfill ancient prophecy.

You are begining to sound like a person who wishes a problem to exists and resists any answer to interfere. I did not redefine the term. The definition of the term is in the same verse. It is also perfectly consistent with the dozens of titles and names given to God the father and Christ as well. They are meant to be descriptions and are usually very specific. Mathew applied both the name and the definition to Christ specifically and so there is no issue even if inconvenient.

Since there is no agreement as to what Genesis 3:15 is prophesizing, I doubt you get agreement that it was ever fulfilled.

Is perfect agreement the test for biblical truth. There is no meaningful alternate interpretation I am aware of. The bible contains the most fantastic and contentious claims in man's history, and God says that the natural man is an enemy to God and so fights him at every turn. If there was agreement that would be weird. It all comes down to who you trust and what you desire has an input. As I have said if you are open to faith there is more than enough evidence. If not there is always something that can be found or invented to justify it. The stakes can't get any higher and so we better be right. My acrobat program is screwed I will have to look at the link tomorrow.

Peace,

1robin · Aug 21, 2012

AmbiguousGuy said:
Rubber, glue. Remember?

What is this third grade?

Math? What's math got to do with God? I'll bet I could trounce you at Scrabble, and God is way more about words than about mathematics.

I never claimed anything concerning board games. You however did claim you could run circles around any scholar I chose. I see you can not even run circles around me. Pretty unimpressive for a prohet and self proclaimed language expert. Try this one without looking what does the word Arabic signify concerning language?

The exact same number as every other prophet, including Jesus.

The most cherished and respected book in history disagrees with you. Some of the most respected evidence experts in history have vouched for the suffeciency of it's claims in any modern courtroom. How many world leaders defend your claims? How many churches are dedicated to your acts of self sacrifice? How many people today revere your name as holy? How many songs are sung in tears in rememberance of your great works? Can you match my prophets in any verifiable category at all?

If your prophet came with proof, why can't you show me that proof? Why claim it exists while refusing to present it?

The fact that there are billions of Christian witnesses to an experience with a risen Christ exceeds any meaningful standard of evidence requirements. Usually court cases are decided by less than a dozen witnesses.

Anyway, I predicted that you would drop the examination of the word 'fact' and you have certainly done that. Verily, I am a mighty prophet indeed.

False and contradictory prophet. You said that prophets don't predict, then you falsely predict and claim prophet hood. Amazing. You are personally an incoherent paradox. There has been little examination of anykind on any subject with you. It has mainly been you making silly claims and me pointing out the contradictions in every other sentence you make. Anyone who says: There is no such thing as a fact (which means that statement is not a fact) or who says: that his point can't be refuted unless someone attempts to refute it. Is probably not going to offer any challenging discussion on the word fact which apparently isn't understood by you. However what was the issue or question anyway?

Here's an even scarier question for you. Trust me, you will avoid even looking at it closely, much less will you actually try to address it.

To whom must a thing be proven in order for it to be proven?

That's about the scariest question I have. Try it. Don't be afraid of God. Face Him. Charge Him. Try to answer my red-lettered question.

It's a little interesting but hardly scary. I have a necessary question before I can answer. for it to be proven to whom?

I have proven all of my points here. You have proven none of your points here.

I must have missed it. No kidding what single point did you prove since we started talking? Seriously post a single one that was proven.

And that's a fact.

I guess it is only necessary for it to be proven to you in order to make it a fact. You answered or contradicted your primitive question.
I notice for the third time you demonstrated you superiority to not answer my paradox for the third time. Hardly convincing. Maybe you will have better luck with the Arabic question being a language expert and all.

waitasec · Aug 21, 2012

AmbiguousGuy said:
Nothing to do with anything currently before us, but I just wanted to mention one of the most curious things I've ever seen.

I once saw a man standing in front of a store window cursing his own reflection. He didn't recognize it as himself but he could see that it was behaving very badly indeed.

what gave you that idea?

ArtieE · Aug 22, 2012

1robin said:
You are begining to sound like a person who wishes a problem to exists and resists any answer to interfere. I did not redefine the term. The definition of the term is in the same verse. It is also perfectly consistent with the dozens of titles and names given to God the father and Christ as well. They are meant to be descriptions and are usually very specific. Mathew applied both the name and the definition to Christ specifically and so there is no issue even if inconvenient.

About Immanuel. Matthew just quoted the prophet. There is no record of anyone actually calling him Immanuel. And of course this cannot possibly be a prophecy. If I write down that someone will call someone else something tomorrow and this someone reads my note which I have made accessible to everyone and calls someone else what I have written it's not much of a prophecy on my part is it?

How to become a prophet:

1. Write down that someone wil call someone else potatoe in the future.
2. Make sure as many people as possible read what you wrote.
3. Tomorrow someone calls someone else potatoe because he read what you wrote.
4. Congratulations. You have the same qualifications as a Biblical prophet.

Just throwing in another "prophecy" for fun:

Matt. 2:23 New International Version (©1984)
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

You won't find the word Nazareth nor the word Nazarene anywhere in the Old Testament.

ArtieE · Aug 22, 2012

1robin said:
Artie I am sorry. The air-force test set I work on is falling apart faster than I can put it together. Without time to research I will tell you what I have understood about this.

Of course. I've started working after the summer holidays so I don't have as much time either on forums.

Immanuel is more of a descriptive title rather than a personal name as we think of it. It means God with us as you know.

Nobody calls him "God with us" either.

That is a title that no human who has ever lived qualifies for except Christ.

But nobody ever calls him Immanuel or "God with us".

That is also why Mathew refered to Isaiah and applied that term to Christ (which is pretty close to calling Christ that, in fact I do not know what the difference would be). He was and is in fact referred to as God with us.

He was never referred to as "God with us" or Immanuel. Christ means "the anointed one".

This prophecy as many are can become quite complicated if you start attempting to incorporate many other things based on preference without sufficient justification.

Justification meaning how to try to explain away that it was foretold he would be called Immanuel when in fact nobody called him that in the entire Bible. The only way you can make that complicated is to try to justify this to be prophecy.

I did have time to go to the site that you provided. I found an argument there for this prophecy that I have seen before and have looked up the refutation to before. However I do not have the time right now and I am quite sure you do not wish to go through the complex task of deciphering all the things rightly or wrongly that are used to complicate this simple prophecy. If you do wish to do that I am game but it will have to wait a few days.

No that's not necessary. I just wanted you to read the link and see how many problems there are with prophecy.

Actually it makes me mad to give insufficient answers so I will add a bit more.

For the needs of my faith I look at a prophecy and if the explanation and claim are reasonable, appropriately remarkable, require no denial of known facts, and there is no better fit, then I believe it.

For the needs of your faith and your needs to have the Bible be true you are ready to twist any fact in order to fit your beliefs. Such as saying that a prophecy that he would be called Immanuel is a prophecy even though nobody calls him Immanuel in the entire Bible except in the prophecy.

Of course my perspective includes a born again experience with God and so is probably not as critical as some and years spent unraveling what at the start many times I thought would be a bible mistake only to find that 98% of the time the bible was astonishingly accurate.

So you have a born again experience with God and suddenly the Bible becomes accurate? Could it possibly be that you can't see all the problems with the Bible because of this born again experience? If you had an alien abduction experience you could read all kinds of aliens and ufos into the Bible couldn't you and use it to prove ufos and aliens exist?

I understand that if your desire was to dismiss the bible or something similar then some (but not even close to a meaningful percentage) of prophecy can be dissected and purposely complicated until a single contention can be found in order to dismiss the whole, which is a fallacy but very common.

I only want to dismiss those things in the Bible that go against logic, reason and common sense.

I am not saying that the contentions are legitimate (and most times the critic doesnt care) and if you actually want the full discussion in detail we can pursue it in depth as I have already dug deep into this one before. It is your choice. When I say critic I am not specifically refering to you. You have appeared very sincere so far.

Thanks. But that is not necessary. If you can justify calling it a prophecy that he would be called Immanuel when nobody in the entire Bible actually calls him Immanuel then I know you can wring a lot more than 2500 prophecies out of the Bible.

By the way are we done with the seed of a women thing? I would prefer you to pick the worst one you got and we can exhaustivly cover it and let that settle the issue. It is however your choice, you could even use this one if you desire. An endless progression of questions and contentions that no answers are sought or suffeciently given (based on the amount of time spent on any single one) is not very helpful. Anyway Peace,

There's no need. Not when your definition of prophecy is interpreting any word or collection of words in such a way that they coincide with your interpretation of any other word or words in such a way that it appears that the first word or words prophesy the second word or words.

1robin · Aug 22, 2012

ArtieE said:
About Immanuel. Matthew just quoted the prophet. There is no record of anyone actually calling him Immanuel. And of course this cannot possibly be a prophecy. If I write down that someone will call someone else something tomorrow and this someone reads my note which I have made accessible to everyone and calls someone else what I have written it's not much of a prophecy on my part is it? {/quote] I understand the point you are bringing up. I would have no problem with removeing from any list any prophecy that could even be possible to self fulfill. There would still be thousands left. I do not think this one is a perfect fit for your claim. The meaning of the name or title is the most important part. If you make the easy connection between Immanuel and God with us then this does not equal your contention. Since people at the time as well as people since Christ time through even today refer to just as God being with them there is no real contention that this prophecy does indeed fit only Christ. It is only someone who will stress any contention and dismiss any harmony that could have any meaningfull isuue with this prophecy. That being said even after you remove the prophecies that contain contention or semi-reasonable contentions can be invented there is still quite a large number of point blank ones where no meaningful contention can even be invented, which of course has not deterred terrible attempts to do so. A great philosopher Ravi Zacharias said that intent determines content. In other words your precommitment to prophecy being false is coloring everything you see. It is complicating the obvious and trivialising the momentous.

How to become a prophet:

1. Write down that someone wil call someone else potatoe in the future.

Click to expand...

The particular person was even idicated in the original bible verse. The one who would crush Satan is the one who would be referred to as God with us. Hardly what this says.

2. Make sure as many people as possible read what you wrote.

Click to expand...

This has no relevance to anything.

3. Tomorrow someone calls someone else potatoe because he read what you wrote

Click to expand...

. Exactly how many people running around in Israel crushed Satan and could have been called God with us? There is no comparison here it is an appeal to obsurdity that has nor realation to the subject and is a common critic tactic. When you can't actually prove something wrong compare it to something absurd even if that comparison is meaningless and bang the denial train can keep chugging.

4. Congratulations. You have the same qualifications as a Biblical prophet.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with reality. Your bias is really starting to emerge. This stuff doesn't even apply to the verse.

Just throwing in another "prophecy" for fun:

Matt. 2:23 New International Version (©1984)
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

You won't find the word Nazareth nor the word Nazarene anywhere in the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Another tactic, just keep throwing up contentions. Never actually get to the bottom of anything just keep contending things because the contentions are far more valuable than the solution.

Mathew's use of Prophets instead of a single prophet, book, or verse indicate that this is a reference to something contained in many books and made by many prophets (or at least more than one) and is so a cumulative case.

There are two other minor interpretations or explenations that most scholrs reject. The one they always decide as the correct understanding follows:

1. He does not say "by the prophet," as in Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15, but "by the prophets," meaning no one particularly, but the general character of the prophecies.
2. The leading and most prominent prophecies respecting him were, that he was to be of humble life; to be despised and rejected. See Isaiah 53:2-3, Isaiah 53:7-9, Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 22.
3. The phrase "he shall be called" means the same as he shall be. 4. The character of the people of Nazareth was such that they were proverbially despised and contemned, John 1:46; John 7:52. To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as to be despised, or to be esteemed of low birth; to be a root out of dry ground, having no form or comeliness. This was what had been predicted by all the prophets. When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were "fulfilled," his meaning is, that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such.
Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
I belive all 8 or 9 respected commentaries at this site claim the same thing.

I found the same understanding and explenation on every trusted site I searched.
I was going to grant you that this one is not good enough to be used for as proof of the divine but the cosistency of scholars is enough to give it credence. However even if I did so that means we have about 4 or 5 I have explained suffeciently, one that I hate the explenation for to the extent I gave you a draw without even contending it. That leaves about 343 on Christ alone to go.

You are making an understandable but unjustifiable error. The bible must define it's own terms, and be consistent with it's self. You can't apply secular definitions for biblical words or declare the symbolic is literal and the literal is symbolic. The methods used to understand the bible developed over thousands of years are what the standards are. This is not circular reasoning since the rules and definitions must be consistent and reasonable and follow the same guidelines. It is the same principle used when studying the texts of any culture different from our own. It must be so and without nothing meaningful could be gained.

You are imposing standards and expectations on the bible that you have no justification for demanding. It is not meaningful to dismiss something because you wished it was different. It must be reasonable, consistent, and violate no known facts. So far they have with the exception of the one I gave you a draw on. That is not to say it is incorrect, just that I do not like the answer.

ArtieE · Aug 22, 2012

1robin said:
In other words your precommitment to prophecy being false is coloring everything you see.

Nope. I am actually neutral. I have nothing to gain or loose or any beliefs to defend. It is your precommitment to prophecy being true that's coloring everything you see.

Mathew's use of Prophets instead of a single prophet, book, or verse indicate that this is a reference to something contained in many books and made by many prophets (or at least more than one) and is so a cumulative case.

There are two other minor interpretations or explenations that most scholrs reject. The one they always decide as the correct understanding follows:

1. He does not say "by the prophet," as in Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:15, but "by the prophets," meaning no one particularly, but the general character of the prophecies.
2. The leading and most prominent prophecies respecting him were, that he was to be of humble life; to be despised and rejected. See Isaiah 53:2-3, Isaiah 53:7-9, Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 22.
3. The phrase "he shall be called" means the same as he shall be. 4. The character of the people of Nazareth was such that they were proverbially despised and contemned, John 1:46; John 7:52. To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as to be despised, or to be esteemed of low birth; to be a root out of dry ground, having no form or comeliness. This was what had been predicted by all the prophets. When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were "fulfilled," his meaning is, that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such.
Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
I belive all 8 or 9 respected commentaries at this site claim the same thing.

I found the same understanding and explenation on every trusted site I searched.
I was going to grant you that this one is not good enough to be used for as proof of the divine but the cosistency of scholars is enough to give it credence.

Except that this must be ruled out as a prophecy because it's self-fulfilling. He went to Nazareth so that the prophecy could be fulfilled. Not that he was born or went there without knowledge of the prophecy. Then it would have been a proper prophecy. Simply reading an old prophecy and copying what it says he's supposed to do can't possibly be counted as a fulfilled prophecy at all.

You are making an understandable but unjustifiable error. The bible must define it's own terms, and be consistent with it's self.

Of course not. The Bible must be consistent with logic, reason and common sense and history and the sciences and reality. Otherwise you could say that the Harry Potter books are true because they define their own terms and are consistent with themselves. What nonsense.

Objective morality

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member