Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

They were fulfilled, "inspiration aside". If I can read the prophet of Old and understand his words, then view Christ as given in the NT gospels, can I not see the fulfillment. I dont need to start with an assumption, I just need to read the claims of the NTThen I can decide if inspiration is involved, between the two and against all other available evidence To some degree, yes. However, that does not mean that there is no evidence to support my beliefs before hand, it simply means that I have decided that the available evidence is suffiecient to hold on to such a beliefActually we do this everyday in lifeDawn Bertot

Dawn, I am a Christian. I have not questioned the existence of GOD in this thread.The answer is that we look at what was said. It is irrelevant whether or not someone was inspired. When we look at what the writers (not prophets) of the books of the New Testament we examine what is written the same way that we do the Old Testament.The second issue is that I do not believe God is as stupid as most Christians describe Her to be.Prophecy is as I have said before, a Godly Dope Slap. It is God sending a message to the people that hear that message. It is immediate, meant for the audience of the time, not for those living hundreds or thousands of years later.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

and then compare the two. but chances are you haven't gotten past step 1, "read the prophet[s] of the Old [Testament]", nevermind step 2, "and understand [their] words".

---

אָרַח

trap.jpg nothing, in principle. the real question is why should anyone assume that they are? well, when they falsely claim fulfillment of prophecies that have nothing to do with what they're talking about, and that were already fulfilled some 500-600 years earlier... that's a pretty good indication that they're less than honest.in fact, matthew in particular is so bad about this, there's a thought that he did it on purpose, so that the readers who were actually educated in messianic prophecy would have a laugh at jesus's expense, and come away with the impression that he was not the messiah.

---

אָרַח

When I look at the claims of the New Testament, and see the original context of the 'prophecies' that Jesus was supposed to have fulfilled, I find that each and every prophecy falls into some specific categories.1) Out of context quotes.
2) Passages that are written to that are not prophecies.
3) After the fact claims.
4) Passages that are written to.
5) Mistranslations.I consider those deceit. And , the creditlity of the message gets destroyed when I been lied to.

Ill overlook the fact that your above comment is as dogmatic as it sounds. Assuming or presuming what God has in mind, then indirectly suggesting that no one elses conclusions could be correct concerning prophecy, its meanings and its applications , is of course not sound or rationalFor example, Peter claiming that he and the other Apostles "had a more sure word of Prophecy", because they were eyewitnesses to his majesty. Probably not refering exclusiely to the transfiguration, but to thier entire journey with the ChristSo How did YOU decide that prophecy, has a single meaning? Seeing that the listeners would at that time have no way of understanding whats or who it refered to, unless its interpretation was immediately given. It wasntHow did you decide on your own that another probable inspired writer, could not give Gods meaning in another time or that another inspired writer could not explicate Gods overall intentions in the prophets/Why wouldnt you use the same criteria that lets you believe the OT prophets were "probably inspired", to decide the same for the NT prophets Never said it wasnt or couldnt be Not if there was an overall plan in Gods purposes, for humanityNot if there is reason to conclude that the NT writers, were as inspired as the OldNot unless thier claim to being eyewitnesses can be overturnedNot unless there is any reason to doubt the NT If inspiration is irrelevant and we look at what was said, that would include all that was said, which would make most of the writers, insane, liars or conterfit. At best unreliable [qs]When we look at what the writers (not prophets) of the books of the New Testament we examine what is written the same way that we do the Old Testament.[/s]Without inspiration on either side, it just ramblings. Thier meanings and predictions are not testable at all on either side, without inspiration. It would be anybodys guess, without the WRITERS claim to inspiration I can only DESRIBE what God HAS writtenIf you believe that what is written is from God, then you would know what he had in mind, on either sideIf you do not believe it is from God, then your opinion is as good or bad as anyone elses, reguardless of how one describes GodYour indirect implication and presumtion that you have a monopoly on the 'description' of God, is as silly as you presumming to know what God had in mind for the prophets, prophecy and his overall plans in that connectionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Because they said they were. we have to atleast ASSUME they were, because they make that claim, correct?If after study we decide otherwise, it matters little correct?Do you mean OLD and NEW or just the OLD? Really? can you show me a fulfillment, exact in detail in historical events, that would cooroborate your claim, that they were fulfilled in THE FIRST PLACE, TO MAKE A CLAIM TO THE SECOND?then explain how that "writer", new of such events to begin with or how they got it right First show me that Messianic prophecy has any merit to begin with. IOWs you would need to do that to substantiate your assertion concerning the NT writersDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

More attempted argument by yourself in assuming that the above writers you refer to, were reliable at all, in thier attempts to be prophectic and factual in the first place, correctYour making assumptions about the NT prophets, when you dont understand the OT onesYou would have to provide a specific example, of the above contentions for it to be taken serious, as an argumentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You really haven't read the Bible have you? The Bible tells us how to test prophecy.And claiming inspiration or having had a more sure word of Prophecy has NO value until the actual prophecy is tested.This isn't dogmatic, it is simply making the assumption that GOD is not as stupid as you claim.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

no, absolutely incorrect. otherwise, we'd have to assume that everyone who claims divine inspiration is. that includes muhammad, joseph smith, and at least one person contributing to this thread. the fact that you realize that study can show that the authors of the new testament were not divinely inspired sort of explains why you haven't tried to study the bible. frankly, both. but the very least the new testament could do is not misrepresent the old. we haven't really even gotten to the basic question of whether or not something is actually true -- we're just at the level of "is it intellectually honest?" sure, but you're not going to like it. let's start here. i'll go bit by by and break it down for you, even.

quote:

---

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. (Isaiah 7:1)

---

so, you need to know the historical context, here. it helps if you've read (and understood) the book of kings. but i'll assume that you haven't done either, and i'll go over it again.after king solomon (remember solomon? david's son?) dies, there's a dispute over the throne, and this throws israel into civil war. the country literally splits in two, a northern half ("israel") and a souther half ("judah"). most of the old testament was written in judah, and the kingdom of israel is looked upon very unfavorably, due in large part to idolatry and alliances with foreign nations. in this instance, pekah, of israel (the bad guys) and rezin of aram are literally at war with judah (the good guys). this passage tells us that the war was not going well.

quote:

---

And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind. (7:2)

---

so, there's some coded language here, that you need to know. "house of david" nearly always means the son (descendant) of david that rightfully sits on the throne in jerusalem. sometimes it can be messianic, when it's referring to the messiah as the descendant of david that will rightfully sit on the throne in jerusalem. here, it's just referring to king ahaz of the southern kingdom of judah. "ephraim" here is one of isaiah's ways of referring to israel, the northern kingdom.

quote:

---

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah: 'Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field; nd say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel; (7:3-6)

---

so israel (the northern kingdom) and aram are trying to get into jerusalem and depose ahaz, to setup a king they might have better relations with. ready for the prophecy?

quote:

---

thus saith the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people; And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not have faith, surely ye shall not be established. (7:7-9)

---

god is not going to let them take over, because they have not been faithful. further, god is going to destroy israel, and send their people into diaspora. and it's going to be done within 65 years. right, get that? that's the prophecy. god goes on to say,

quote:

---

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.' (7:10-11)

---

god really doesn't want ahaz to worry, after all, the war is literally at his doorstep. so he asks ahaz to determine a sign, so that ahaz might know this isaiah guy is for real. god is literally asking ahaz to test his prophet, and prove that his prophet is not false, and that he really speaks for god. remember when i said the old testament was serious on this stuff? i'm not lying. it really does not request that you just take prophecy at its word. but ahaz has faith, and wants to show it:

quote:

---

But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.' (7:12)

---

perhaps he read deuteronomy 6:16, and knows better than to question god, even at god's own request. what a smart-ass reply, right?

quote:

---

And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: (7:13-14a)

---

"he" in this case being isaiah, talking to ahaz, is basically saying that god just facepalmed. perhaps the appropriate response to such a smartass remark, quoting scripture back at god. so god will provide the sign, through isaiah. now, remember, this is not the prophecy -- the prophecy is that israel will fail in their attack, and then be utterly destroyed, within 65 years. this is the sign from god that the prophecy will come true, and the isaiah genuinely speaks for yahweh. ready for the sign?

quote:

---

behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. (7:14b-16)

---

i know, i know. that's not what you think it says. but i assure you, that's what it says. look, here's the original.

quote:

---

הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

---

"behold, the young woman will conceive, and bear a son, and will call his name imanu-el." now, i understand this is going to be a sticking point here, so i'm going to spell this one out very carefully for you.

1. that's what hebrew looks like. isaiah was written in hebrew.
2. some of us here can read a bit of hebrew.
3. the word used doesn't have anything to do with any sexual status, it just means "young woman". had isaiah wanted to say "virgin" he would have used בְּתוּלַת
4. further, it has a definite article in front of it, the young woman. which young woman? since she was not previously introduced, ahaz must have known the specific person isaiah was referring to. she was likely in the same room.
5. the name literally means "god is with us". not "a god that is with us" or "god with us" as if the person himself was god. this is a standard naming convention in the bible -- look at, well, israel. many, many names contain "-el" or even portions of the proper name of god. isaiah himself is actually named yeshayahu in hebrew, the "yahu" portion coming form "yahweh", the name of god.
6. the name itself, "god is with us", is meant to remind ahaz that the god is on their side. not with in a physical, personal, corporeal sense, but protecting judah from israel and aram. remember the prophecy?

further, as you go on reading the verse, it sets another clock. before the child can tell good from evil (ie: before he becomes a man), the prophecy will be fulfilled. this bumps the date up to about 13 years from the prophecy. okay, ready for the really fun part? here's how it's going to happen.

quote:

---

The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.'(7:15)

---

the king of assyria's going to do it. now, i'll let you read the rest of the chapter yourself; it's got some nice poetic imagery. but let's instead review the important points.the child is:

• not the prophecy
• not the messiah (there is no need for one here, with a king on the throne)
• not divine
• not born of a virgin
• perhaps not even particularly special
• specified and known to ahaz personally, to reassure him of god's prophecy

the prophecy is that:

• israel and aram will not succeed in their efforts to overthrow ahaz (king of judah)
• israel will be completely dissolved, and its people dispersed, within 65 years
• assyria will invade, and destroy and carry off israel, within about 15 years

ready for the the fun part? now we turn to history.

quote:

---

Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day. So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying: 'I am thy servant and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise up against me.' And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. (2 Kings 16:6-9)

---

so, that takes care of aram. what about israel?

quote:

---

In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria. (2 Kings 15:29)

---

okay, so far so good, the first bit of the prophecy is working just fine. sure ahaz bribed his way into it, but he always was a smart ass. what about the diaspora business? well, here's how wikipedia states it:

quote:

---

In c. 732 BCE, Pekah of Israel allied with Rezin, king of Aram, threatened Jerusalem, and Ahaz, king of Judah, appealed to Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, for help. After Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser Tiglath-Pileser sacked Damascus and Israel, annexing Aram and territory of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh in Gilead including the desert outposts of Jetur, Naphish and Nodab. People from these tribes including the Reubenite leader, were taken captive and resettled in the region of the Habor river system. Tiglath-Pilesar also captured the territory of Naphtali and the city of Janoah in Ephraim and an Assyrian governor was placed over the region of Naphtali. According to 2 Kings 16:9 and 15:29, the population of Aram and the annexed part of Israel was deported to Assyria.

​

Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom until around 720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, becoming known as The Ten Lost Tribes, leaving only the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Simeon (that was "absorbed" into Judah), the Tribe of Benjamin and the people of the Tribe of Levi who lived among them of the original Israelites nation in the southern Kingdom of Judah.

​

Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) - Wikipedia

---

basically, israel goes away, and is never heard from again. note that i've bolded the dates for you -- the time span from the first invasion, which defeats israel and aram, to the second invasion, is roughly 12 years, exactly as the prophet stated. prophecy fulfilled.now, what does any of this have to do with jesus, exactly? the child is the clock for the prophecy, which was fulfilled 720 years before christ was born. the child would have had to have been known to ahaz, for the sign to even make sense. there's nothing about virgin birth, nothing about the child being the messiah (indeed, the king of assyria saves the day, here), and no way it could apply to anything after the assyrian empire ceased to exist. so what exactly is matthew talking about when he says,

quote:

---

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:22-23)

---

this actually manages to cover almost all of ramoss's categories of misrepresented prophecy. it's out of context (quotemined), not the actual prophecy, after the fact, and a mistranslation (through greek). there's no way it can even remotely apply to christ, and yet here is matthew supporting jesus as the messiah with it. this is just dishonest. why should i believe what he wrote?this is not dogma, nor is it religious, nor is it based on any particular belief in inspiration or non-inspiration. it's reading comprehension. i'll let you figure that one out. perhaps the author of isaiah (or isaiah himself) was divinely inspired. perhaps the author simply wrote after those events occurred. perhaps both. but at least it's (mostly) internally consistent with the rest of the old testament, and is talking about things that actually happened, that we know about from archaeology and histories. we can discuss prophecy that has something to do with the messiah later. but let's start with the above, which has nothing to do with any messiah.Edited by arachnophilia, : *crickets chirp*

---

אָרַח

Dawn: What would prevent the writers of the NT having the same inspiration
Arachnophilia: Nothing, but why should anyone assume that they are inspired?
Dawn: Because they said they were.Why should we believe their claims to be inspired?
Because they are inspired.
How do we know they are inspired?
Because they claim to be inspired.
Why should we believe their claims to be inspired?
Because they are inspired.
How do we know they are inspired?
Because they claim to be inspired.
Why should we believe their claims to be inspired?
Because they are inspired.
How do we know they are inspired?
Because they claim to be inspired.Wow - it seems almost...circular.

B.E.A utiful. I thouroughly enjoyed your post, loved reading it. I've just got back and will get to it as soon as possibleDawn Bertot

Hi, Dawn. Perhaps all we need to discuss is how to recognize this witness, and what to do if one does not feel that they have had such a witness. The exact nature of the witness hardly matters unless it's your intention to try to deal with my specific concerns about religion.If someone is not convinced that they have had such a witness, then the witness either didn't happen or was not "sufficient enough for belief to conversion," and I cannot find a reason to call this an invalid reason to deconvert.----- Lacking, as in non-existent. I have not yet encountered any piece of evidence that convincingly indicates the existence of any sort of deity or higher power.Further, my experience tells me that people who have encountered such "convincing" evidence have artificially lowered their thresholds of "convincing-ness" for this, and only this, subject matter, while requiring a much higher threshold to be breached by the evidence before being convinced of anything else.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I had made this comment under the assumption that you or Jar understood the OT prophets to have and possess inspiration, in thier prophecies. Further, the implication was that if the Old test prophets actually did predict the future by Gods direction, then it would be Gods plans that would be under consideration in either instance. In which case the NT prophets could simply be revealing Gods overall intentiionsThis being the case, one would be remise and presumptuous in assuming that God could and did not have A greater meaning and purpose, not only in the prophets, but in his overall plan for humanityOne would also need to demonstrate, given the proposition of inspiration, why the criteria for inspiration in the OT prophets would be better or different and lacking in the NT The problem that you are having here is one of extremism. Both sides want to argue for the definition of A word. It not necessary at all.The OT stories and prophecies are shadows and types of Jesus Christ. I have no problem believing or accepting that the prophet or his predictions came true at a certain time in that time. I believe every word of it.Wht you are missing Arch, is that there is a greater plan than Israel. The plan is the unity of mankind to God. The exodus is a shadow and a type to God delivering his people, even thought here is no mention of Christ. The snakes ont he pole are a shadow of Christ."Through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"Overall however it is about God and God only as a deliverer. Hosea means God is my salvation. Check out a few of the other meanings of the prophets names and see what you come up withOnly inspiration and inspiration alone could let me know Gods overall purposeIf there were no NT, then I would, like you, leave the prophets where they are at with thier simple meanings and the surrounding current eventsSo your task is to demonstrate from credentials alone why the NT prophets were any less inspired than the OldDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again, no disagreement in your interpretationHeres the kicker. If you really believe this is what happened, then you have to ask yourself, could God not have an overall and expanded plan for humanity? Could God not have inspired the NT prophets to explain a deeper meaning in any of the NT prophets by quoting the old?But thats the point isnt it, only God could make known what he wants known, correct?What criteria by criteria that you use for the Old Test prophets, would you use to discredit the NewAnd if neither were inspired, who cares anyway correctDawn Bertot