Ignorant from the start

[Tart]

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton


These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...


Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..


Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...


I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

[Danmark]

So here we are getting into scripture interpretation... Hermeneutics... Where

"Only one who possesses a rational method of interpretation (i.e., a hermeneutic) could determine the truth or falsity of the message."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Sorry man, you guys are failing at this one... Atheism attempts to make nonsense out of scripture, not to make sense out of it... Just like this "ruler or Israel" remark, as if Jesus doesnt fit....

Jesus fits the Messiah perfectly, and i think any rational method of interpreting the scripture would show that.

Yes, traditionally scriptural interpretation requires a hermeneutic; however you have suggested none. You've mentioned no method. The four traditional approaches are the literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical. You have suggested none of these.

But let's look at the 'argument' you make.

1st, you suggest that finding fault with an interpretation automatically invalidates it, claiming the only way to interpret the Bible is to "try to make sense of it." In other words, according to you if the interpretation disagrees with the one you want, it must be wrong. Obviously this 'argument' is both circular and self serving.

2d, you simply make a claim, "Jesus fits the Messiah perfectly," without demonstrating HOW you got there [again, no hermeneutic at all], with no argument.

3d, you allude to the personal, with "Sorry man, you guys are failing at this one... Atheism attempts....," as if only theists can properly interpret.

In any event, you make no argument for why Micah 5:2 is necessarily a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

In contrast, my argument followed the literal hermeneutic since the text refers to a 'ruler over Israel,' and Jesus was not a ruler over Israel. The text even confirms this ruler will be a military/political ruler:

"Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us."
_ Micah 5:1

[Tart]

Wow, to be honest. this is really powerful prophecy.

A Promised Ruler From Bethlehem
5 Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.�

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses.
We will raise against them seven shepherds,
even eight commanders,
6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword,
the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders.

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel"

That is where Jesus was born

"He will stand and shepherd his flock"

Jesus reference


" in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth."


That is prophecy.

Which Jesus was quoted saying
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"



" And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses."


This is true, Jesus is our peace


I dont think this prophecy gives reference to any kind of military force... Jesus submitted, and prayed for the forgiveness of those


"He will deliver us from the Assyrians
when they invade our land
and march across our borders"


This is most likely a reference to Jesus, i think any kind of ration method of scripture interpretation would show that this scripture is likely prophecy of Jesus, the Messiah.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 191 by Tart]

This is most likely a reference to Jesus, i think any kind of ration[sic] method of scripture interpretation would show that this scripture is likely prophecy of Jesus, the Messiah.

Only if you ignore all the references which are contradictory or clearly not about Jesus, as you have done. Nothing rational about that.

[Danmark]

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel"

That is where Jesus was born

So were thousands of others over the years.

"He will stand and shepherd his flock"

Jesus reference

Really? You have to be kidding. Jesus was the son of a carpenter, not a shepherd. Also, how many shepherds were born in Bethlehem? You talk as if Jesus was the only one, when in fact he wasn't a shepherd at all. He simply used shepherds as analogies in some of his parables.

" in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth."

Again, no reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Which Jesus was quoted saying
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"



" And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses."


This is true, Jesus is our peace

Again, there is no reason to assume this is a reference to Jesus.

I dont think this prophecy gives reference to any kind of military force... Jesus submitted, and prayed for the forgiveness of those

Really? Micah plainly refers to military force:

Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.

In addition to the lack of evidence, textually, that any of your arguments have anything to do with Jesus, you forget [if you ever knew] that NT writers wrote with OT passages in mind, TRYING to fit them into a Jesus narrative. As many others have remarked, this is like shooting an arrow into a barn, then years later painting a bullseye around the arrow and claiming "Bullseye!"

[Clownboat]

B) Prophecy, as "the Word of God is alive an active"

So you can't answer WHO wrote them and you certainly haven't established the accuracy of 'prophecy' or that "the Word of God is alive an [sic] active."
'
This is a debating site, not a "This is my unsupported opinion" site.

You claim Micah 5:2 is prophecy about Jesus. Let' see:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel....

Nope. Jesus was not a "ruler in Israel."

Just the opposite, he was a victim of the rulers of Israel.
He never ruled at all.

It never ceases to amaze me that obscure passages that talk about facts that are dissimilar to the facts about Jesus' life, are trotted out as prophecy fulfilled.

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom�
Matthew 16:28
"I say to you that this generation will not pass away until all these things happen."
Matthew 24:34

Yet when the gospels give a clear account about this failed apocalyptic prophet saying he will return within 40 years, yet 2000 have passed since he supposedly said that, THAT gets twisted beyond all recognition to mean something completely different to try and support the myth.


This is why critics laugh at apologists who, no matter what the plain meaning of their scriptures, insist on coming up with a completely opposite meaning consistent with their cherished beliefs.

So here we are getting into scripture interpretation... Hermeneutics... Where

"Only one who possesses a rational method of interpretation (i.e., a hermeneutic) could determine the truth or falsity of the message."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Sorry man, you guys are failing at this one... Atheism attempts to make nonsense out of scripture, not to make sense out of it... Just like this "ruler or Israel" remark, as if Jesus doesnt fit....

Jesus fits the Messiah perfectly, and i think any rational method of interpreting the scripture would show that.

Your ignorance of atheism is starting to hurt my head.

You need enemies to unite against, I get it as it helps to maintain a belief. However, you really need to learn what atheism is. You are arguing against an invention of your mind.

Atheists are not out to get you and most I would think care as much about your religion as they do any other religion. Don't think that yours is special and is being singled out. To an atheist, it is just one of hundreds of false religions. It's special to you of course, but I don't see why it would be special to an atheist.

I'm not an atheist myself, yet that hasn't stopped you from pretending that I am so you can then paint me with some broad brush where you claim atheism attempts to make nonsense out of scripture. In your mind you have likely written me off (just some atheist), but readers will not be fooled because your aguements need to be better than "you're just an atheist and an enemy of my religion".

[Tart]

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel"

That is where Jesus was born

So were thousands of others over the years.

"He will stand and shepherd his flock"

Jesus reference

Really? You have to be kidding. Jesus was the son of a carpenter, not a shepherd. Also, how many shepherds were born in Bethlehem? You talk as if Jesus was the only one, when in fact he wasn't a shepherd at all. He simply used shepherds as analogies in some of his parables.

" in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth."

Again, no reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Which Jesus was quoted saying
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"



" And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses."


This is true, Jesus is our peace

Again, there is no reason to assume this is a reference to Jesus.

I dont think this prophecy gives reference to any kind of military force... Jesus submitted, and prayed for the forgiveness of those

Really? Micah plainly refers to military force:

Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.

In addition to the lack of evidence, textually, that any of your arguments have anything to do with Jesus, you forget [if you ever knew] that NT writers wrote with OT passages in mind, TRYING to fit them into a Jesus narrative. As many others have remarked, this is like shooting an arrow into a barn, then years later painting a bullseye around the arrow and claiming "Bullseye!"

It looks like the verse you quoted is talking about a military force against the ruler of Israel... Do you agree?


"They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod"

That happened to Jesus...

[Tart]

B) Prophecy, as "the Word of God is alive an active"

So you can't answer WHO wrote them and you certainly haven't established the accuracy of 'prophecy' or that "the Word of God is alive an [sic] active."
'
This is a debating site, not a "This is my unsupported opinion" site.

You claim Micah 5:2 is prophecy about Jesus. Let' see:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel....

Nope. Jesus was not a "ruler in Israel."

Just the opposite, he was a victim of the rulers of Israel.
He never ruled at all.

It never ceases to amaze me that obscure passages that talk about facts that are dissimilar to the facts about Jesus' life, are trotted out as prophecy fulfilled.

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom�
Matthew 16:28
"I say to you that this generation will not pass away until all these things happen."
Matthew 24:34

Yet when the gospels give a clear account about this failed apocalyptic prophet saying he will return within 40 years, yet 2000 have passed since he supposedly said that, THAT gets twisted beyond all recognition to mean something completely different to try and support the myth.


This is why critics laugh at apologists who, no matter what the plain meaning of their scriptures, insist on coming up with a completely opposite meaning consistent with their cherished beliefs.

So here we are getting into scripture interpretation... Hermeneutics... Where

"Only one who possesses a rational method of interpretation (i.e., a hermeneutic) could determine the truth or falsity of the message."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Sorry man, you guys are failing at this one... Atheism attempts to make nonsense out of scripture, not to make sense out of it... Just like this "ruler or Israel" remark, as if Jesus doesnt fit....

Jesus fits the Messiah perfectly, and i think any rational method of interpreting the scripture would show that.

Your ignorance of atheism is starting to hurt my head.

You need enemies to unite against, I get it as it helps to maintain a belief. However, you really need to learn what atheism is. You are arguing against an invention of your mind.

Atheists are not out to get you and most I would think care as much about your religion as they do any other religion. Don't think that yours is special and is being singled out. To an atheist, it is just one of hundreds of false religions. It's special to you of course, but I don't see why it would be special to an atheist.

I'm not an atheist myself, yet that hasn't stopped you from pretending that I am so you can then paint me with some broad brush where you claim atheism attempts to make nonsense out of scripture. In your mind you have likely written me off (just some atheist), but readers will not be fooled because your aguements need to be better than "you're just an atheist and an enemy of my religion".

Well i do sometimes speak of atheism in general, refuting widely held atheist beliefs... So if i painted you with that brush, im sorry, it is just how i debate sometimes...

But i think we can judge this interpretation thing from atheism... Making nonsense out of the scripture... I mean if we look to my post above, it seems like this is just bad interpretation about this prophecy of the Ruler of Israel using military force... It doesnt look like it says that at all..

Or like when atheist say the Bible tells us the earth is flat... This is nonsense... Or the Bible gets Pi wrong, with it equaling 3... That is what Pi equals...

I see this all the time, atheist read the Bible in order to prove it wrong... They often cant get done with the first few chapters without a list of nonsense they compiled against it...

It is because they want to make nonsense out of the Bible... Any chance they get... They dont want to understand it...

Now dont get me wrong, some times they have reasonable points in interpretation, but most often, its nonsense...

[Clownboat]

Well i do sometimes speak of atheism in general, refuting widely held atheist beliefs... So if i painted you with that brush, im sorry, it is just how i debate sometimes...

But i think we can judge this interpretation thing from atheism... Making nonsense out of the scripture... I mean if we look to my post above, it seems like this is just bad interpretation about this prophecy of the Ruler of Israel using military force... It doesnt look like it says that at all..

Or like when atheist say the Bible tells us the earth is flat... This is nonsense... Or the Bible gets Pi wrong, with it equaling 3... That is what Pi equals...

I see this all the time, atheist read the Bible in order to prove it wrong... They often cant get done with the first few chapters without a list of nonsense they compiled against it...

It is because they want to make nonsense out of the Bible... Any chance they get... They dont want to understand it...

Now dont get me wrong, some times they have reasonable points in interpretation, but most often, its nonsense...

And yet here you have a former tongue talking, drunk in the holy ghost street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades that lost his beliefs while truly wanting nothing more then for them to be true.

You have failed to address my actual points and instead focus on some imaginary form of atheism.

If you had rebuttals, I would think you would list them. Instead, crying 'atheist' seems to be your way of going about protecting the beliefs you desire to maintain. Great for holding a belief, not so much for being convincing though.

[Tart]

Well i do sometimes speak of atheism in general, refuting widely held atheist beliefs... So if i painted you with that brush, im sorry, it is just how i debate sometimes...

But i think we can judge this interpretation thing from atheism... Making nonsense out of the scripture... I mean if we look to my post above, it seems like this is just bad interpretation about this prophecy of the Ruler of Israel using military force... It doesnt look like it says that at all..

Or like when atheist say the Bible tells us the earth is flat... This is nonsense... Or the Bible gets Pi wrong, with it equaling 3... That is what Pi equals...

I see this all the time, atheist read the Bible in order to prove it wrong... They often cant get done with the first few chapters without a list of nonsense they compiled against it...

It is because they want to make nonsense out of the Bible... Any chance they get... They dont want to understand it...

Now dont get me wrong, some times they have reasonable points in interpretation, but most often, its nonsense...

And yet here you have a former tongue talking, drunk in the holy ghost street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades that lost his beliefs while truly wanting nothing more then for them to be true.

You have failed to address my actual points and instead focus on some imaginary form of atheism.

If you had rebuttals, I would think you would list them. Instead, crying 'atheist' seems to be your way of going about protecting the beliefs you desire to maintain. Great for holding a belief, not so much for being convincing though.

What is your points that i havent addressed?

[Danmark]

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel"

That is where Jesus was born

So were thousands of others over the years.

"He will stand and shepherd his flock"

Jesus reference

Really? You have to be kidding. Jesus was the son of a carpenter, not a shepherd. Also, how many shepherds were born in Bethlehem? You talk as if Jesus was the only one, when in fact he wasn't a shepherd at all. He simply used shepherds as analogies in some of his parables.

" in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth."

Again, no reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Which Jesus was quoted saying
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"



" And he will be our peace
when the Assyrians invade our land
and march through our fortresses."


This is true, Jesus is our peace

Again, there is no reason to assume this is a reference to Jesus.

I dont think this prophecy gives reference to any kind of military force... Jesus submitted, and prayed for the forgiveness of those

Really? Micah plainly refers to military force:

Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.

In addition to the lack of evidence, textually, that any of your arguments have anything to do with Jesus, you forget [if you ever knew] that NT writers wrote with OT passages in mind, TRYING to fit them into a Jesus narrative. As many others have remarked, this is like shooting an arrow into a barn, then years later painting a bullseye around the arrow and claiming "Bullseye!"

It looks like the verse you quoted is talking about a military force against the ruler of Israel... Do you agree?


"They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod"

That happened to Jesus...

This is an incredibly obtuse response. The issue is that the passage in Micah refers to a military leader of Israel. Please show somewhere in the Gospels where Jesus is referred to as a 'military ruler.' You keep claiming the passage in Micah refers to Jesus being the military ruler. Please show were Jesus was a military "ruler over Israel."