What if...

[throughfiierytrial]

NV-
I did read every single word of ALL your answers...what I did not do is put every word of your answer into my reply to you...the one which you quote (and you know it or surely should).
I wanted to expand on the discussion of Israel the unique nation as was being discussed above where I first began to comment on this thread...as crucial God evidence...not b/c you ever mentioned it.
You appear to be uptight about our discussions so I will end here...this post is only meant to convince you that you are in error on your judgement of my motives and intentions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

NV-
I did read every single word of ALL your answers...what I did not do is put every word of your answer into my reply to you...the one which you quote (and you know it or surely should).
I wanted to expand on the discussion of Israel the unique nation as was being discussed above where I first began to comment on this thread...as crucial God evidence...not b/c you ever mentioned it.
You appear to be uptight about our discussions so I will end here...this post is only meant to convince you that you are in error on your judgement of my motives and intentions.

Ok. What part of my original argument is inaccurate? Do emperors not negotiate and take vassal kings? Do barbarian armies not seek war only for the sake of war?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Huh???

They only survived the ancient world BECAUSE they were surrounded by enemies.
Look at an ancient world map. See that blank area of land? It's quite dangerous. It's filled with barbarians. You see, if an emperor marches on your city, you can usually avoid the fight entirely by paying him tribute. He taxes you. If you are marched on by a barbarian army, you win or you are annihilated. Period. Jewish kings survived by bowing down and touching head to the ground.

NV-
I began to comment directly after this post I believe and this is what I take exception to:

You offered a conclusion as to why Israel was able to stand among her enemies as a counter-comment of AV1611VET. Now we as Christians have the Bible account of the formation of the nation of Israel and their conquests of the heathen nations of the land of Canaan and as Christians we know God is real and Almighty, all-knowing, omnipotent and the author of all Truth...that doesn't mean our attempts to explain to an unbeliever or outsider aren't at times feeble in their eyes...their eyes have not yet had the "veil removed". However, there is considerable archaeological evidence to substantiate the Biblical account.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Ok. What part of my original argument is inaccurate? Do emperors not negotiate and take vassal kings? Do barbarian armies not seek war only for the sake of war?

You see here how you are not addressing my objection...my objection is that you have drawn a final conclusion...seemingly final conclusion at least...with no support. I disagree with your conclusion and can offer Biblical support...that doesn't carry much weight with you right now (though I do hope your views will change in the future) but at least it is a source...I can also point to some archaeological evidence which shows Israel to be the powerhouse and names Joshua as Israel's commander. Nation after nation fell...moving right through the lands in the same order the Bible describes.
God had commanded that Edom was to be treated as a brother and there was so conciliatory measures were taken by Israel's in their dealings with that land.
Get back with you soon.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You see here how you are not addressing my objection...my objection is that you have drawn a final conclusion...seemingly final conclusion at least...with no support. I disagree with your conclusion and can offer Biblical support...that doesn't carry much weight with you right now (though I do hope your views will change in the future) but at least it is a source...I can also point to some archaeological evidence which shows Israel to be the powerhouse and names Joshua as Israel's commander. Nation after nation fell...moving right through the lands in the same order the Bible describes.
God had commanded that Edom was to be treated as a brother and there was so conciliatory measures were taken by Israel's in their dealings with that land.
Get back with you soon.

The original claim that I responded to is something along the lines of,

Israel could not have survived as long as it did without divine protection because it was surrounded on all sides by enemies.

As the claim is formed, I do not even have to present evidence of anything but rather give a plausible alternative explanation. I did just that from the start and he hasn't even replied. I also explained why I came to this conclusion. I could find a source but I'm not going to bother. I've already given up on you due to your counterproductive contributions to one of my other threads, so my effort on your behalf will be limited. If you are truly interested, look up college staffs online, email hundreds of history professors with a copy/pasted question, and compare the responses.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The original claim that I responded to is something along the lines of,

Israel could not have survived as long as it did without divine protection because it was surrounded on all sides by enemies.

As the claim is formed, I do not even have to present evidence of anything but rather give a plausible alternative explanation. I did just that from the start and he hasn't even replied. I also explained why I came to this conclusion. I could find a source but I'm not going to bother. I've already given up on you due to your counterproductive contributions to one of my other threads, so my effort on your behalf will be limited. If you are truly interested, look up college staffs online, email hundreds of history professors with a copy/pasted question, and compare the responses.

Ooooh yes, that other thread, yes, yes...you certainly showed your religion! And as you state here about your handling of my posts, my efforts are likewise very limited as to handling of your posts...all quite counter-productive...seemingly...though the Lord's arm is not too short for you still and I always hold out hope for people and may God's will be done in the end.

I do have respect for your intellect, though I am not unaware that your debate skills are not honest...you expect sooo much from others and forget to look at your own shortcomings.

 

[Butch5]

There's a great quote by Crossan "We began [with the Enlightenment] to think that ancient peoples ("other" peoples) told dumb, literal stories that we were no smart enough to recognize as such. Not quite. Those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stories that we were now dumb enough to take literally." The point of Genesis 1, for example, was never to lay down a historical, scientific account for the origin of creation. That's not what Ancient Near-Eastern creation stories did, their point was to talk about what kind of god created the world. Furthermore, that world was not nearly as factual, processed-driven society, historians of that day were not concerned with getting all the facts right, whereas we are concerned with getting all of the facts right.

How do you know that?

 

[radhead]

How do you know that?

To be fair, you would have to ask yourself the same question. How do you know that your own doctrine is true?

I tend to believe the more likely scenario, which is what I described in my original post.

 

[Butch5]

To be fair, you would have to ask yourself the same question. How do you know that your own doctrine is true?

I tend to believe the more likely scenario, which is what I described in my original post.

I know it's true because of prophesy. No human can prophesy things that will happen in the distant future and then bring them to pass. That's history, not opinion. What reason do you have to believe what you stated in the OP?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I know it's true because of prophesy. No human can prophesy things that will happen in the distant future and then bring them to pass. That's history, not opinion. What reason do you have to believe what you stated in the OP?

Matthew lied about the virgin birth prophecy so I think that casts doubt over the validity of the other prophecies.

 

[Butch5]

Matthew lied about the virgin birth prophecy so I think that casts doubt over the validity of the other prophecies.

That's a non sequitur. I'd bet you've lied in you life, does that mean everything you say is suspect? What evidence do you have that Mathew lied?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's a non sequitur. I'd bet you've lied in you life, does that mean everything you say is suspect?

No, what it means is that I'm not speaking for God.

What evidence do you have that Mathew lied?

Have you read Isaiah 7?

 

[radhead]

I know it's true because of prophesy. No human can prophesy things that will happen in the distant future and then bring them to pass. That's history, not opinion. What reason do you have to believe what you stated in the OP?

Give an example of this so-called prophecy!!

 

[Butch5]

Give an example of this so-called prophecy!!

You can read of Cyrus the great in the Scriptures and you can confirm what you find in secular writings.

 

[Butch5]

No, what it means is that I'm not speaking for God.

In order to be consistent you'd have to say the same for Mathew. However, I'm still not sure how you think he lied. How do you know his motives? If you think what he said is incorrect it could be a mistake which is not a lie.

Have you read Isaiah 7?

Yes, I have. What is the point you're trying to make?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In order to be consistent you'd have to say the same for Mathew. However, I'm still not sure how you think he lied. How do you know his motives? If you think what he said is incorrect it could be a mistake which is not a lie.





Yes, I have. What is the point you're trying to make?

Read Isaiah 7. The king of Judah is worried about an invasion, Isaiah says one won't happen and that the king should seek a sign, the king declines (likely out of reverence for Deuteronomy 6:16), then Isaiah says that a sign will be given anyway: that a virgin will give birth to a child, and that before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies will be destroyed.

So can you explain how the birth of Jesus 500 years later is in any way relevant?

 

[Butch5]

Read Isaiah 7. The king of Judah is worried about an invasion, Isaiah says one won't happen and that the king should seek a sign, the king declines (likely out of reverence for Deuteronomy 6:16), then Isaiah says that a sign will be given anyway: that a virgin will give birth to a child, and that before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies will be destroyed.

So can you explain how the birth of Jesus 500 years later is in any way relevant?

Isaiah said, 'hear O Isarael'. The prophecy, the sign, was to the house of David. The land was forsaken of both her kings before the virgin gave birth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Isaiah said, 'hear O Isarael'. The prophecy, the sign, was to the house of David. The land was forsaken of both her kings before the virgin gave birth.

So... how does it relate to something 500 years later then?

 

[juvenissun]

What if the stories and legends of the Bible were actually written as religious fables? But they were so well written that the people of the day believed they were true. They contained very real and human behavior, interacting with God the way that real people do. Even hearing what they thought was his audible voice at times. Having dreams and visions.

The theology presented in the Bible is not reasonable and is illogical. Human will NOT try to figure out such kind of doctrine. Any other religion is more reasonable than Christianity. For example, Islam got rid of those unreasonable parts of the Bible and adopted the rest of it to be part of the Islamic doctrine.

Human wisdom could never dream out the Christianity.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I think when people start thinking about the biblical world as a web of intertextuality rather than a linear thread of events then the texts can make considerably more sense. Then one is able to look at Isaiah 7 and consider it part of the Jesus story as much as one can look at it in terms of stories about Ahaz and the child born of a young woman.