Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring it as part of the context, as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairificationits evasion and not going by your own rulesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.

---

אָרַח

I like what Kyle Butt said in the Barker/Butt debate about you fellas, Its always, just show me one more piece of evidence, then Ill believe.Like that sign that says "free beer tommorrow"God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthewdawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

again, Message 524, the post that grants the title to this whole sub-thread, i wrote:

quote:

---

my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it. they two do not go hand in hand, as i keep trying to explain to you. i do not know why you cannot grasp this concept. the accuracy of the source is irrelevant to concerns about how someone represents it. that includes me, my points do not have to be correct for your misrepresentation of them to be incorrect. at this point, i am forced to believe that you are doing this on purpose; that you are intentionally intellectually dishonest.

---

you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.

---

אָרַח

I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rulesAre the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they arenow should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I canDawn bertot

matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:

quote:

---

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

---

now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,

1. why "speaking" the testimony in the specific instances of being brought before tribunals (and potential martyrdom) is the same thing as authoring a gospel
2. why you think matthew the disciple wrote this book
3. why you think even a direct claim of inspiration that actually says what you want it to would mean the author actually is inspired

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

which you have consistently misrepresented, regardless of the fact that i keep restating the clarification between reading the words and believing every claim indiscriminately. completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not matthew misrepresents isaiah. you've got to be kidding me. i've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Let's see if you are judging me by your own standards...So...the question you were asked was: Your answer was 20 lines long.
It is 20 lines long because you can't answer the question.
Yes, your dishonest debating tactics are that obvious.But, I waste my time reading 20 lines of text and there is no mention of god telling the author what to write.
Which is strange, since that is what the question clearly asked for.Still, I expected you to not be able to answer arachnophilia's question.
How did I know you couldn't answer it?
Because you avoiding addressing it the first time around.
Yes, your dishonest debating tactics are that obvious.If you could answer the question then you would have quoted just one or two lines.Clearly "you are nothing but a filthy immoral little person, intent on confusion rather than understanding" - as I expected.

I don't deny that nor do i deny that there are parts of the Illiad or Gone with The Wind that are evidenced. The point I using in response to Dawn was virtually that. Just because there is some evidence that the person, place or thing occurred, it doesn't necessarily make the entire story true, which is the lack of evidence I was speaking of.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

of course. i was just attempting to clarify that idea a bit with some added detail. not that this will help dawn. we can't get past "claims" vs "is", nevermind the subtle difference between embellished history, historically set fiction, academic history, and real events.

---

אָרַח

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 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 premisethere is absolutely no misrepresentation on my part "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 soThats your approach without even considering MatthewThe 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 JuryProphecies are much like parables, an earthly story with a heavenly meaningProphets represent God Arch, not themselvesThe people understood it to be coming from God , not the prophetThe 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 scripturesThirdly, there are no other extensive claims that lay claim as jesus does to these OT propheciesthere is no reason to believe God did not inspire them the same way he did IsaFourthly, Christ meets all of the claims to prophecyFifthly 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 GodOnly inspiration could let you know who or what God had in mind through Isainspiration is the deal breaker for your and Jars simplistic approach to scripture and the propheciesremove 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 groundRemember 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 himIf 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 accurateThe 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 angleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.