(November 5, 2009 at 6:37 pm)solarwave Wrote: And it is totally impossible that the prophecy could be talking in a non-literal sense? That the meaning of the name (which would be well known) could be the focus not the name itself?
Interpreting prophecies or any other scripture in a non-literal sense is an invitation to spin it into anything you want to spin it into, especially if you are not happy with what it says. That alone is the reason for so many different interpretations of scripture.
One might argue that some scriptures are obviously not intended to be taken literally. And that is true to some extent. But agreeing to allow the picking and choosing of which scriptures to take literally and which not to take literally is basically giving license to spin scripture and then allow flim-flam arguments to support it. I insist on literal interpretations unless it is fairly obvious the writer of the scripture didn't intend one.
Quote:Why is it a poor interpretation? Because Jesus was in fact 'God with us'?
No! That's not the reason. The reason is as I stated before. If we use your argument we could claim anyone to be the person the prophet was referring to. If we use the literal interpretation, the scripture only applies to the person actually called "Immanuel." The question you should ask yourself is this, "Did the prophet mean to make this prophecy apply to anyone or did he intend that it should only apply to one person, specifically the person called Immanuel? If it can be made to apply to anyone, it's worthless as a prophecy.
Quote:Explain how it could make anyone the messiah when considering all the other prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?
Each prophecy must be evaluated on its own merit. If time and opportunity permits, I will be happy to critique any prophecy you wish to present and show you why it has problems being a prophecy of Jesus.
Quote:So are you saying with critical thinking you should try to disprove a belief and not try to defend it from the possible evidences against that belief? If that is true I can single handedly tear down all of science since its not allowed to defend itself.
Yes, you should consider all evidence, and do so with an open mind. If the evidence against a belief is a well-substantiated fact or sound, you should not try to nullify that evidence with apologetic flim-flam. Here is where integrity figures into the process. Anyone can construct plausible arguments in an attempt to nullify valid evidence they don't like. But in doing so, is it their agenda to pursue the truth or defend a lie?
Likewise, just as some people use flim-flam arguments to defend lies, some will use flim-flam arguments to tear down the truth. They don't have integrity either. So, sorting out who is honest and who is unscrupulous is not easy. That is why you cannot depend on others to feed you the truth. You have to do a lot of work yourself. And you have to be very thorough and objective in your search for evidence or else you'll find you're your own worst enemy.
And no, you cannot tear down all of science. In fact, you can't tear down any science. Scientific theories are well-substantiated through rigorous standards of testing, peer review and validation. All the flim-flam in the world, whether it sounds plausible or not, cannot fool the scientific community.
Quote:Christians believe what they do for good reason that practically works out in their lives. Why then should they disregard that belief because of abstract reasoning when their belief in God so clearly is evidenced in their daily lives. Well that’s just one argument.
One should not disregard their beliefs simply because of abstract reasoning. Only well-substantiated evidence and sound reasoning should be capable of dislodging a belief. Equally important, one should not resist sound reasoning and well-substantiated evidence no matter how much they love their beliefs.
I am not asking you to abandon any belief, I am asking you to think critically with an open mind about your beliefs. I am asking you to stop trying to prop them up when it is clear they are riddled with problems.
