The Purpose of Prophecy

[Nihilist Virus]

The way you handled my text says it all and then you lecture me on how the text should be handled.

But I can break this down:

Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin bearing a child called Emmanuel meaning God with us. As with many prophetic words there is an immediate fulfilment and context and there is echo in eternity which refers to the Messiah himself.

Isaiah 52-53 refers to the Suffering servant initially interpreted as Israel by many Jewish interpreters but more clearly and fully fulfilled in the life of the Messiah as really how have the sufferings of Israel benefitted the rest of us.

NT authors are not reading OT passages exegetically in original context, but they are pointing to the deeper significance of these passages as fulfilled in Christ, they are articulating the deeper fulfilments and typologies these passages allude and which are now unlocked in the life of Christ.

Again, I'm sorry but I don't care about how you fluff this issue up. The reality is that the passage was taken out of context, and that Isaiah did not intend to predict what Matthew has stuffed into his mouth. There is no genuine prediction of the far future here.

 

[Resha Caner]

My point is that 'victory' is already had, by anyone, whom poses the unfalsfiable claim. The fact that you bowed out, in acknolwedgment of that, is a testament to this reality

No, I honestly meant your behavior makes me sad. We’re done until your behavior changes, and I would recommend others do the same.

My summary of our conversations would be:
C: hgfrtfdrffgghhgtf?
R: That’s not a valid question.
C: Yea, I win!

C: You like to drink vinegar.
R: No, I don’t.
C: Yes you do. Yea, I win!

R: Would you like to discuss sports?
C: Do you advocate rape?
R: What does that have to do with sports?
C: Yea, I win!

1.R: Do you oppose crime?
2.C: Do you?
3.R: Why didn’t you answer?
4.C: Stop avoiding my question.
5.R: Yes, I oppose crime. Do you?
6.C: Opposing charity is bad.
7.R: That isn’t what I said. Answer the question.
8.C: You avoided in post 3, opposed charity in post 5, and broke the rule that I don’t have to answer questions. Yea, I win!

 

[cvanwey]

No, I honestly meant your behavior makes me sad. We’re done until your behavior changes, and I would recommend others do the same.

My summary of our conversations would be:
C: hgfrtfdrffgghhgtf?
R: That’s not a valid question.
C: Yea, I win!

C: You like to drink vinegar.
R: No, I don’t.
C: Yes you do. Yea, I win!

R: Would you like to discuss sports?
C: Do you advocate rape?
R: What does that have to do with sports?
C: Yea, I win!

1.R: Do you oppose crime?
2.C: Do you?
3.R: Why didn’t you answer?
4.C: Stop avoiding my question.
5.R: Yes, I oppose crime. Do you?
6.C: Opposing charity is bad.
7.R: That isn’t what I said. Answer the question.
8.C: You avoided in post 3, opposed charity in post 5, and broke the rule that I don’t have to answer questions. Yea, I win!

Looks as though you missed the point of this exercise, i.e. my responses. I could also name a few fallacies you committed, but it does not change or derail away from what I initially responded to....

You speculate that the devil has/had his hand in Mormonism, the JW's, etc...

I have demonstrated that your statement is unfalsifiable, on more than one level. And rather than concede, you instead attempt to reduce my intelligence.

And while we are at it, and since I'm now responding, two can play these 'games'. How is what you stated, from which I responded, not "fwffwqfewfewq"? (i.e.)

"What I do know is that altered versions exist: Jehovah's Witness, Joseph Smith's (Mormon), Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, etc. I'm allowing the possibility Satan could have been involved."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I honestly meant your behavior makes me sad. We’re done until your behavior changes, and I would recommend others do the same.

My summary of our conversations would be:
C: hgfrtfdrffgghhgtf?
R: That’s not a valid question.
C: Yea, I win!

C: You like to drink vinegar.
R: No, I don’t.
C: Yes you do. Yea, I win!

R: Would you like to discuss sports?
C: Do you advocate rape?
R: What does that have to do with sports?
C: Yea, I win!

1.R: Do you oppose crime?
2.C: Do you?
3.R: Why didn’t you answer?
4.C: Stop avoiding my question.
5.R: Yes, I oppose crime. Do you?
6.C: Opposing charity is bad.
7.R: That isn’t what I said. Answer the question.
8.C: You avoided in post 3, opposed charity in post 5, and broke the rule that I don’t have to answer questions. Yea, I win!

You do avoid questions. I don't think we've had a single exchange yet in which you've answered every question I asked.

 

[Resha Caner]

You speculate that the devil has/had his hand in Mormonism, the JW's, etc...

Why I follow Confessional Lutheranism and not JW's or Mormons has nothing to do with Satan (as far as I know). I was simply allowing the possibility.

​

 

[Resha Caner]

You do avoid questions. I don't think we've had a single exchange yet in which you've answered every question I asked.

I suppose I tire easily. If you want to keep it simple for me and ask just one of the questions I missed, we'll see if I can make it through to an answer.

 

[cvanwey]

.

 

[cvanwey]

These two do not align.

You stated:

"I'm allowing the possibility Satan could have been involved."

You essentially made two assertions, as if they are 'fact'.

1. Satan exists
2. That he has the ability to do what you say he may have did.

I then asked how you know your belief structure is excluded/exempt from Satan's plan?

You claimed 'the Matrix."

I stated yes/no, then proceeded to explain the 'no' part...

I again asked how you know your belief structure is excluded?

You then claimed I was trying to tear your belief system down (i.e.)

"not when one is proposing ways to tear down my position"

I then responded by stating all 'conclusions', for their theological beliefs, are essentially met, using basically identical criteria.

This went on for a couple of posts. You then shifted gears in post #52.

In post #55, you realized I was [also] issuing unfalsifiable claims, and then opted to decline continuation.

And now, here we are

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suppose I tire easily. If you want to keep it simple for me and ask just one of the questions I missed, we'll see if I can make it through to an answer.

Basically if you could just answer @cvanwey that'd be great. If it helps, I'll phrase it my way:

Suppose you're Satan in the year 10BC. You have some goals:

1.) Convince God's chosen people to worship you
2.) Convince God's chosen people to worship a false god
3.) Convince God's chosen people to stop following the covenant

In what way would you fail to achieve these goals by incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did?

 

[Resha Caner]

Basically if you could just answer @cvanwey that'd be great. If it helps, I'll phrase it my way:

Suppose you're Satan in the year 10BC. You have some goals:

1.) Convince God's chosen people to worship you
2.) Convince God's chosen people to worship a false god
3.) Convince God's chosen people to stop following the covenant

In what way would you fail to achieve these goals by incarnating yourself as a man and living the life that Jesus did?

Sigh. What I hear in this question is: Which of Jesus' goals would you fail to accomplish if you were exactly like Jesus? Umm … well … if you're exactly like Jesus, then you'll accomplish what Jesus did. In fact, if you're exactly like Jesus, then you essentially are Jesus.

So, the answer to your question would be: You wouldn't fail.

But the question is so fractally bad, I don't see how you can be anything but embarrassed to ask it.

Did I pass the test?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sigh. What I hear in this question is: Which of Jesus' goals would you fail to accomplish if you were exactly like Jesus? Umm … well … if you're exactly like Jesus, then you'll accomplish what Jesus did. In fact, if you're exactly like Jesus, then you essentially are Jesus.

So, the answer to your question would be: You wouldn't fail.

But the question is so fractally bad, I don't see how you can be anything but embarrassed to ask it.

Did I pass the test?

No, you failed it miserably. This conversation is obviously a waste of time.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, you failed it miserably. This conversation is obviously a waste of time.

Rats. I had such high hopes.