Question for Christians Only - Where's Emmanuel?

[Secularone]

You asked for an explanation, I gave it to you, if you want to disagree with me, just to try to disprove Christianity wrong in some dodgy way that no expert would accept (theist or atheist) then go ahead.

No expert would accept? Sorry. Not so. There are many Bible scholars that reject Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for Jesus. Do a little homework outside of your church and you might learn volumes.

Seriously there are much better reasons not to believe in God than this.

Is this supposed to be a reason not to believe in God? I never said that. It is supposed to be a reason to question the inerrancy of religious dogma. And maybe a good reason to start thinking critically about all the other problems with religious dogma as well.

The name Immanuel was obviously used because of the meaning. If you know anything about language you will know how I explained it is a possible explanation.

Whether it was used because of its meaning is irrelevant. I don't have a problem with it being used. I have a problem with the fact that the prophecy says this child will be "called Immanuel" and "Jesus was never called Immanuel," by anybody. Big difference that you keep ignoring. The very idea that your so called prophecy can be blatantly false and still correct is absurd. You know as well as I do that such flim-flam interpretative manipulations like yours could be used to make anybody the messiah.

(I give a capital letter to words referring to God)

Well the scripture doesn't use capital letters, so by your standard that child was not God.
But of course, lacking the use of a capital letter really implies nothing. But the complete absence of Jesus ever being called "Immanuel" does.

A core principle of critical thinking is the continuous effort to prove a belief wrong. If you honestly try to find such evidence and cannot, you're justified in your faith. But if you can find such evidence and do everything in your power to disregard it... well, you know what that means. You should give critical thinking a try.

For anyone seeking to get to the truth of any issue, it is far wiser and honest to look for evidence that a lie is false than it is to look for plausible arguments to maintain a lie is true. If one knows anything at all about apologetics, one should know there are millions of ways to make lies sound like they're plausible.

The problem with Christianity is that Christians are taught to disregard any evidence that something they believe might be false. As a result, they never find any.

This explains why there are thousands of contradicting teachings taken from the same so-called inerrant scripture. Nobody is willing to admit that there might be error in their thinking.

[solarwave]

No expert would accept? Sorry. Not so. There are many Bible scholars that reject Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for Jesus. Do a little homework outside of your church and you might learn volumes.

Ok fair enough I was wrong.

Seriously there are much better reasons not to believe in God than this.

Is this supposed to be a reason not to believe in God? I never said that. It is supposed to be a reason to question the inerrancy of religious dogma. And maybe a good reason to start thinking critically about all the other problems with religious dogma as well.

Ok, there are better reasons to question the inerrancy of religious dogma.

Whether it was used because of its meaning is irrelevant. I don't have a problem with it being used. I have a problem with the fact that the prophecy says this child will be "called Immanuel" and "Jesus was never called Immanuel," by anybody. Big difference that you keep ignoring. The very idea that your so called prophecy can be blatantly false and still correct is absurd. You know as well as I do that such flim-flam interpretative manipulations like yours could be used to make anybody the messiah.

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? Why is it a poor interpretation? Because Jesus was in fact 'God with us'? Explain how it could make anyone the messiah when considering all the other prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

A core principle of critical thinking is the continuous effort to prove a belief wrong. If you honestly try to find such evidence and cannot, you're justified in your faith. But if you can find such evidence and do everything in your power to disregard it... well, you know what that means. You should give critical thinking a try.

For anyone seeking to get to the truth of any issue, it is far wiser and honest to look for evidence that a lie is false than it is to look for plausible arguments to maintain a lie is true. If one knows anything at all about apologetics, one should know there are millions of ways to make lies sound like they're plausible.

The problem with Christianity is that Christians are taught to disregard any evidence that something they believe might be false. As a result, they never find any.

This explains why there are thousands of contradicting teachings taken from the same so-called inerrant scripture. Nobody is willing to admit that there might be error in their thinking.

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 had single handedly tear down all of science since its not allowed to defend itself.

Christians believe what they do for good reason that practically works out in their lives. Why then should they disreguard that belief because of abstract reasoning when their belief in God so clearly is evidenced in their daily lives. Well thats just one arguement.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Sorry,

not one of those child abusing/ abuser covering christians but there is also the fact that the name should be Joshua in the hebrew Jesus in the Greek

So how do they explain that?

A

'Jesus'' is from the Latin, Iesus, the Greek is Iesous

Vowels are implied by context in Hebrew and there is no letter 'j'


No one can say with certainty what the name 'should be" .The two most popular Hebrew contenders 'Yeshua" and' Yehoshua'.

To discover the actual biblical prophecy about the Messiah,have a chat with a [Jewish] Talmudic scholar.It will soon become evident why the Jews never accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The first and most obvious: The Messiah is above all a warrior king,like David. Christian apologists try weasel their way out of this ,and are quite inventive, but Jews will have none of it; because Jesus simply does NOT meet prophecy..

[Secularone]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[solarwave]

[/quote]

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.

Ok, I'll give you that looking at only that one prophecy with no knowledge of christianity you would think it ment the messiah was going to be called Immanuel. I would like to point out we are looking at this from the modern west perspective. Good job one verse isn't why I think Christ was the messiah hey.

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.

Of course it is on its own, I just assumed we were considering other things at the same time too.

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.

Right now I cant be bothered to go find every prophecy cos its late here. You can google it or I'll find them tomorrow if you want.

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.

The question then becomes, is the evidence against my belief well-substantiated and not 'flim-flam' itself. I call your reason on Immanuel 'flim-flam' in light of what I know of Jesus other than that one verse. I give good reason to believe in Jesus/God sometimes and atheists try to dismiss it with 'flim-flam' reasoning. Its not as if you can try to apply it to only me with each side of the line sees the other side that way. I know truth takes alot of work yourself, my beliefs now are getting further from the church I am brought up in.

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.

That is fair enough since partly the reason I am here is to open my mind up (which it is fairly already). You may disagree since I have a different belief to you which you think is wrong. The thing is I dont see problems though, you do. Not all things that look like problems really are so have to reasoned through. If we didn't do that we would lose all our beliefs in anything the first time a 'problem' came up.

[Secularone]

Ok, I'll give you that looking at only that one prophecy with no knowledge of Christianity you would think it meant the messiah was going to be called Immanuel. I would like to point out we are looking at this from the modern west perspective. Good job one verse isn't why I think Christ was the messiah hey.

I have not found faith in Christianity aiding in understanding scripture. It creates a bias that hinders our ability to let the scriptures tell us what they are saying. If we approach scripture with this prejudice, we tend to insist on telling the scriptures what they are saying, instead of letting them tell us.

For example: If you knew nothing of Christian dogma... and studied the Bible objectively from cover to cover, what beliefs would you have by the time you finished? Well, probably your knee jerk reaction would be to say that you would have the exact same faith that you have now. But, I submit to you that is not the case.

One of the greatest obstacles we have to overcome in searching for the truth is that we have allowed others to manipulate the way we read and understand scripture. This is done in order to nurture a bias in us so we will never interpret scripture any other way. (Thus, Baptists will not get out of scripture what a Pentecostal would. And the theist does not get out of scripture what a atheist would.)

Truth seekers must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking... "My truth is inerrant. Therefore, even if there looks like there might be a problem, there cannot be a problem with my truth. And since there is no problem with my truth, my truth is inerrant." or

"This prophecy cannot have a problem even if it looks problematic, because other prophecies do not have a problem. Therefore, no prophecy can have a problem."

I just assumed we were considering other things at the same time too.

Actually not. My agenda in raising this one question was hopefully to find a Christian willing to have a reasonable dialogue. Once found, it was my intent to simply encourage them to take a well thought out approach in the way they handle problems, interpretations and beliefs.

You and I both agree that this one scripture is not a reason to abandon your faith in Jesus. But, after this dialogue is finished, I hope to point out other issues with respect to Jesus that are far more problematic and compelling. And I hope you will approach them objectively.

Right now I cant be bothered to go find every prophecy because its late here. You can google it or I'll find them tomorrow if you want.

Not necessary. I only offered to critique a prophecy if you thought you had one that doesn't have problems. We can talk about prophecies anytime.

According to the Christian community, there are over 300 alleged prophecies that supposedly foretell Jesus. And according to the skeptical community, there are zero prophecies that foretell Jesus. Wait! How can this be? Both cannot be true. Which is correct?

I hope that you will agree that if Jesus is not the Messiah, then zero Messianic prophecies foretell him.
And since you are not familiar with the reasons of these skeptics, you cannot be expected to make a wise judgment, assuming they are correct.

The question then becomes, is the evidence against my belief well-substantiated and not 'flim-flam' itself. I call your reason on Immanuel 'flim-flam' in light of what I know of Jesus other than that one verse. I give good reason to believe in Jesus/God sometimes and atheists try to dismiss it with 'flim-flam' reasoning. Its not as if you can try to apply it to only me with each side of the line sees the other side that way. I know truth takes a lot of work yourself, my beliefs now are getting further from the church I am brought up in.

You are correct in asking yourself this important question. I could very well be attempting to deceive you with flim-flam. And sadly, as a Christian, I had a long history of deceiving people with flim-flam. Nobody likes to lose arguments... so we all have a tendency to try to prop up our bad arguments, especially when it might prove embarrassing. So, it is prudent of you to not automatically assume that my intentions are honest. And likewise, I hope you do not assume the many Christian peddlers of truth are any better.

So, that leaves us with a bit of a problem. No one can be trusted to help us ferret out the truth. About the only person we can trust is ourselves and that won't be true either, especially if we don't have critical thinking skills, don't have objectivity, but do have a bias.

That is fair enough since partly the reason I am here is to open my mind up (which it is fairly already). You may disagree since I have a different belief to you which you think is wrong. The thing is I don’t see problems though, you do. Not all things that look like problems really are so have to reasoned through. If we didn't do that we would lose all our beliefs in anything the first time a 'problem' came up.

That depends on the problem. I didn't lose all my beliefs the first time a problem came up either. It took a long time and a lot of soul-searching (so to speak). But it wasn't one problem. The moment I made up my mind to get objective in my handling of problems, I stopped being dismissive of them and started taking them seriously. And the more I admitted there were real problems, the more real problems I discovered.

If our conversation continues, you may discover that I have no agenda to convince you to believe as I do. Instead, you will find that my emphasis will be on the credibility of the analysis rather than on the conclusion.

[fr0d0]

---

I have not found faith in Christianity aiding in understanding scripture. It creates a bias that hinders our ability to let the scriptures tell us what they are saying. If we approach scripture with this prejudice, we tend to insist on telling the scriptures what they are saying, instead of letting them tell us.

For example: If you knew nothing of Christian dogma... and studied the Bible objectively from cover to cover, what beliefs would you have by the time you finished? Well, probably your knee jerk reaction would be to say that you would have the exact same faith that you have now. But, I submit to you that is not the case.

One of the greatest obstacles we have to overcome in searching for the truth is that we have allowed others to manipulate the way we read and understand scripture. This is done in order to nurture a bias in us so we will never interpret scripture any other way. (Thus, Baptists will not get out of scripture what a Pentecostal would. And the theist does not get out of scripture what a atheist would.)

---

Absolutely we should be as open minded as possible. The Rabbinical tradition is to 'vet' other rabbi's to keep some coherence to the logic. Denominations often get together and exchange understanding. I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive. Comparing an atheistic viewpoint to a denominational one is too wide. I've heard many people come to believe in God through solely reading the bible, so your conclusion isn't accurate.

---

Truth seekers must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking... "My truth is inerrant. Therefore, even if there looks like there might be a problem, there cannot be a problem with my truth. And since there is no problem with my truth, my truth is inerrant." or

"This prophecy cannot have a problem even if it looks problematic, because other prophecies do not have a problem. Therefore, no prophecy can have a problem."

---

Those truth seekers aren't truth seekers. That's why there's the requirement to test and question.

Of course there are scholars who disagree with the conclusions of Christians.

---

Skeptic

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

---

How would a skeptic do any other?

[solarwave]

I have not found faith in Christianity aiding in understanding scripture. It creates a bias that hinders our ability to let the scriptures tell us what they are saying. If we approach scripture with this prejudice, we tend to insist on telling the scriptures what they are saying, instead of letting them tell us.

For example: If you knew nothing of Christian dogma... and studied the Bible objectively from cover to cover, what beliefs would you have by the time you finished? Well, probably your knee jerk reaction would be to say that you would have the exact same faith that you have now. But, I submit to you that is not the case.

One of the greatest obstacles we have to overcome in searching for the truth is that we have allowed others to manipulate the way we read and understand scripture. This is done in order to nurture a bias in us so we will never interpret scripture any other way. (Thus, Baptists will not get out of scripture what a Pentecostal would. And the theist does not get out of scripture what a atheist would.)

Truth seekers must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking... "My truth is inerrant. Therefore, even if there looks like there might be a problem, there cannot be a problem with my truth. And since there is no problem with my truth, my truth is inerrant." or

"This prophecy cannot have a problem even if it looks problematic, because other prophecies do not have a problem. Therefore, no prophecy can have a problem."

I think its a nice idea to try to read the bible without using what the church has taught us, but I think that has problems since the knowledge of the church is greater than my own. I can read the bible and understand it so far, but I don't know hebrew or greek, I havn't studies theology my self fully and Im not an expert on hebrew history/culture. I can read books on these of course, but it would take a long time to build up that sort of knowledge. I know you may think this an easy way out but for practical purposes (especially for those of lower intelligence) to assume that the better informed preist or pastor knows better generally than you is a fair bet. From there one can tackle the issues one most cares about (ie: I disagree with most people in my church on creationism). I accept that I may be wrong about a number of things, but I will find that out in time.

Actually not. My agenda in raising this one question was hopefully to find a Christian willing to have a reasonable dialogue. Once found, it was my intent to simply encourage them to take a well thought out approach in the way they handle problems, interpretations and beliefs.

You and I both agree that this one scripture is not a reason to abandon your faith in Jesus. But, after this dialogue is finished, I hope to point out other issues with respect to Jesus that are far more problematic and compelling. And I hope you will approach them objectively.

Well I'll carry on with this discussion and see where it goes.

You are correct in asking yourself this important question. I could very well be attempting to deceive you with flim-flam. And sadly, as a Christian, I had a long history of deceiving people with flim-flam. Nobody likes to lose arguments... so we all have a tendency to try to prop up our bad arguments, especially when it might prove embarrassing. So, it is prudent of you to not automatically assume that my intentions are honest. And likewise, I hope you do not assume the many Christian peddlers of truth are any better.

So, that leaves us with a bit of a problem. No one can be trusted to help us ferret out the truth. About the only person we can trust is ourselves and that won't be true either, especially if we don't have critical thinking skills, don't have objectivity, but do have a bias.

It's not that I dont think you are honest, its just that your arguements may just not be very good. I've also learnt that obviously christians get it wrong even if I like the sound of what they are saying.

That depends on the problem. I didn't lose all my beliefs the first time a problem came up either. It took a long time and a lot of soul-searching (so to speak). But it wasn't one problem. The moment I made up my mind to get objective in my handling of problems, I stopped being dismissive of them and started taking them seriously. And the more I admitted there were real problems, the more real problems I discovered.

If our conversation continues, you may discover that I have no agenda to convince you to believe as I do. Instead, you will find that my emphasis will be on the credibility of the analysis rather than on the conclusion.

Let me ask you something then. When you were being objective did you also stop having a relationship with God and turned Him more into an idea than a person? (Assuming you knew Him personally before).

Also, would you say wanting escape from the christian morals had something to do with your losing faith? I mean you may have good reason to reject God, but do you think wanting moral freedom could have driven it more? Thats a test of objective openess about yourself

Just wondering[/quote]

---

fr0d0: How do you hide content?

[fr0d0]

You use hide tags like this:

Code:

[hide] peepo [/hide]

produces this:

---

peepo

---

Check out Eillonwy's guide here

[solarwave]

---

Thanks!!

---