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.

[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...

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."

"You keep claiming the passage in Micah refers to Jesus being the military ruler."
Either this is a very poorly worded sentence, or its a complete straw-man.. I never made that claim, neither do i believe it

I see no need for me to justify your interpretation, when i dont even believe it...

[Tart]

I mean, do you guys have any better points you'd like to make? Any better debates? This is so incredibly petty... We are taking a passage, and has a pinpoint prophecy on the same place Jesus was born. That says "his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.", which is nearly equivalent to a quote from Jesus, and not to mention a reality we live in today by Jesus... It says "They will strike Israel’s ruler on the cheek with a rod.", which happened to Jesus...

And you guys claim this quote ("Marshal your troops now, city of troops") Contradicts it becuase Jesus wasnt a military leader!?

I mean the same passage even goes to the lengths of saying "And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land"...

Its just amazing what you guys will say... I see no need to justify Jesus as a military leader, and I think my interpretation is a rational one.

So, dont bother asking anymore, i will not rationalize your guys nonsense...

[Danmark]

"You keep claiming the passage in Micah refers to Jesus being the military ruler."
Either this is a very poorly worded sentence, or its a complete straw-man.. I never made that claim, neither do i believe it

I see no need for me to justify your interpretation, when i dont even believe it...

A. Jesus was not a 'ruler' of any kind.
B. Micah refers to a military 'ruler:'

"Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops;
siege is laid against us;
....
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel...."

From this you claim Micah is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

That you cannot figure out how and why this passage refers to a military ruler, is hardly an argument for your false claim. Rather, it is an argument for your incompetence in reading the written word.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 195 by Tart]

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

That happened to Jesus...

Please explain when Jesus, as ruler over Israel, was struck on the cheek with a rod.

[Tcg]

Please explain when Jesus, as ruler over Israel, was struck on the cheek with a rod.

Well... it wasn't a real rod. Jesus wasn't actually struck on the check with it. Jesus wasn't literally a ruler over Israel.

Other than that, it's a perfect match!

[JehovahsWitness]

"You keep claiming the passage in Micah refers to Jesus being the military ruler."
Either this is a very poorly worded sentence, or its a complete straw-man.. I never made that claim, neither do i believe it

I see no need for me to justify your interpretation, when i dont even believe it...

A. Jesus was not a 'ruler' of any kind.
B. Micah refers to a military 'ruler:'

"Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops;
siege is laid against us;
....
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel...."

From this you claim Micah is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

That you cannot figure out how and why this passage refers to a military ruler, is hardly an argument for your false claim. Rather, it is an argument for your incompetence in reading the written word.

Well the Jehovah's Witness interpretation is that Jesus is a spiritual not a physical ruler.

come forth for us means exist.


JW

[rikuoamero]

"You keep claiming the passage in Micah refers to Jesus being the military ruler."
Either this is a very poorly worded sentence, or its a complete straw-man.. I never made that claim, neither do i believe it

I see no need for me to justify your interpretation, when i dont even believe it...

A. Jesus was not a 'ruler' of any kind.
B. Micah refers to a military 'ruler:'

"Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops;
siege is laid against us;
....
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel...."

From this you claim Micah is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

That you cannot figure out how and why this passage refers to a military ruler, is hardly an argument for your false claim. Rather, it is an argument for your incompetence in reading the written word.

Well the Jehovah's Witness interpretation is that Jesus is a spiritual not a physical ruler.

come forth for us means exist.


JW

And this interpretation means it cannot be accepted by someone like myself approaching the question of "did Jesus fulfil prophecies like Micah 5:2" neutrally...since it requires me to believe there is a spiritual crown beforehand. It's putting the cart before the horse.
What about the rest of the verses? The ones about armies and conquests? What about the mention of Assyria which had ceased to exist long before Jesus?

[JehovahsWitness]

quote="rikuoamero"]
What about the rest of the verses? The ones about armies and conquests? What about the mention of Assyria which had ceased to exist long before Jesus?[/quote]

- spirititual armies
- spirritual conquests
- spiritual "Assyrian"

And this interpretation means it cannot be accepted by someone like myself ...

Well then my advice would be ... then don't!

I don't care either way (I'm not suggesting you said or are implying that I do), I'm just making a statement of fact. Each person must reason and come to the conclusion they are happy with. If you are happy with your conclusions then that's great.

Enjoy!


JW

[rikuoamero]

quote="rikuoamero"]
What about the rest of the verses? The ones about armies and conquests? What about the mention of Assyria which had ceased to exist long before Jesus?

- spirititual armies
- spirritual conquests
- spiritual "Assyrian"

And this interpretation means it cannot be accepted by someone like myself ...

Well then my advice would be ... then don't!

I don't care either way (I'm not suggesting you said or are implying that I do), I'm just making a statement of fact. Each person must reason and come to the conclusion they are happy with. If you are happy with your conclusions then that's great.

Enjoy!


JW[/quote]

Except...i remember in the past debating you on the topic of "fulfilled prophecies", with the one from Micah among them and you arguing they had been fulfilled.
Is the word spiritual your get out of jail free card when it comes to this topic? Any time it is clear Jesus couldn't have fulfilled a given prophecy, you just stick the word spiritual in there as if that solves anything? Gives credibility to the claim?

[JehovahsWitness]

Except...i remember in the past debating you on the topic of "fulfilled prophecies", with the one from Micah among them and you arguing they had been fulfilled.

Well I do believe that, that's what we call "faith". You as you said need more, so I appreciate you won't be satisfied with anything i have to say so that's fine. I'm just expressing my faith (not implying you are interested I'm just making a statement of faith ie what I believe).

JW