StewartP

Very well. Which is the specific OT prophesy that states "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew 2:23 (NIV) and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." Note that he uses the plural. This was apparantly said by more than 1 prophet. I tried a search on BibleGateway.com and cannot find any OT reference. The point is that Matthew makes stuff up. We have here a claimed prophesy not that does not exist. I am NOT saying Jesus was not born/lived in Nazareth. I am saying there is no such prophesy in the OT. Where did Matthew get it from? How can we be sure that Matthew's source for this prophesy was "God breathed"? Let's look at another bit of cherry-picking by Matthew: Matthew 1: 21. The virgin birth. Matthew claims it is to fullfil Isaiah7:14 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." We will ignore the issues of translation of the word "virgin" or that Jesus was never called Immanuel. I want to point out that prophesy fulfillment from Isaiah is cherry-picking because there is so much of it. This same child, Immanuel, according to the next verse in Isaiah - "But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." "In that day" Isaiah writes, meaning, sometime during the lifetime of the boy Immanuel - "In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River

I was referring to: Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." Matthew is saying it was to fulfill a prophesy. But there is no such prophesy in the OT. Thus I conclude Matthew took a scattergun approach to prophesy regarding Jesus No, I believe that this account is only in Matthews's Gospel and not the others because Matthew has taken the Romulus and Remus myth and added it in. It all takes us back to your original Post about fulfilled Isaiah prophesies in the Gospels. If you are a Christian then it is a wonderful affirmation of the Word of God. However just 2 of many examples to me indicate that there are many fulfilled prophesies because: a: The OT is CHOCK FULL of prophesies. Some will come to pass because there are just so many. We count the hits and ignore the misses. b: Many prophesies are not. For example in John's gospel he says that jesus legs were not broken to fulfill a prophesy. But the wholness of the Passover lamb isn't a prophesy, it's a correlation. c: The Gospel writers added stuff to make Jesus a more credible Messiah.

You've lost me there. Was that an insult?

There are many instances in the Gospels when Jesus does something or says something and the writer adds "This was done to fullfil the prophesy...." And yet there is no equivalent prophesy in the OT. Example Matthew 2:23 ""He shall be called a Nazarene." This prophesy does not exist. Matthew was writing his gospel some 70 years after the birth of Jesus. He was convinced Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, and so added things to his Gospel to support that view. It is thought too, that as Matthew was writing for a Roman, gentile audience, he embillished his gospel with details that would appeal to them, like virgin birth, guiding star, Herod killing the male babies. Another example of Matthew "making stuff up" are in the details he gives about the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus. In Matthew there is an earthquake, and dead people coming alive again out of their tombs and wandering around the city.

My apologies for replying as if I speak for Fletch. I don't. But in his post below he seemed to be speaking for me. Would you believe even with Him in front of you? There were many who saw Jesus, saw His miracles, and refused to believe in Him. Well of course. Any one would. How do you propose he appear to me? Shining in His Glory? OK, I'd believe but . . . in an anecdote about a girl who recovers from cancer because her church prayed? or the glory of a sunset in autumn? or the wonder of childbirth? no, those won't do. Because . . the issue at stake here is ETERNAL DAMNATION!! God is supposed to love me. but he'll have me suffer in torment FOR ETERNITY rather than show himself. Exactly. I don't think he's done very well at all actually. For any of us. This is the omnipotent eternal God, who loves me so much he sent his Son to die for me. And how does he choose to communicate this to us? Through a book full of mystery and double meaning. Through a church that has iundergone centuries of schisms and splits over the interpretation of same book. It's like the aliens that have the technology to cross stellar distance and then try and communicate through corn circles. It's just not good enough.

These are interesting cj, and its good to define the terms in question before any debate. However I disagree with the definition of atheism being a doctrine. It assumes that all atheists hold the same beliefs. They don't. They beleive all sorsts of differing and conflicting stuff. The only thing they have in common is that the don't believe in any gods. My father said a similar thing to me in a mail yesterday. He said I am not yet ready to understand these spiritual matters. he says I'm not ready, you say I'm deaf. Neither seem to be prepared to consider that there is nothing to hear. I agree, it is very important to not shrink from debate or to be scared of confronting the controversial. There have been many excellent christan apologists, men of genius, who have defended their faith. Unfortunately there is an unending supply of counter argument and continuous de-conversion of christians like myself. Does my lack of faith blind me and stop me from accepting the truth? or is it your misplaced faith that is preventing you from seing it? If only god would be so accomodating! Yes I have faith that the light will come on. Because it has done so many times. God, however has not proved himself to be quite so dependable. At least, not to me. there is also evidence on atheist boards of lives and happiness recovered out of the church. If we are going to use personal anecdotes as evidence for the existance of God, then there will be many personal anecdotes (like mine) to counter them. This is why so many christian ministries are based around hospitals, and soup kitchens. Because the vulnerable are most open to the message. Don't be a sheep cj!! Sheep don't think, they follow. Your post is an exhortation to use our critical capabilities. You feel that by considering the arguments rationally, we will see the logic of God and redemption through Jesus. You also feel that if our critical faculties let us down, then perhaps faith is the next step to resolving the problem. And yet I find the more I study the bible, the worse it gets. The more I read through Genesis the more appalling the God of Abraham and Moses appears. The more I study the 4 gospels the more I find flaws. Some of these flaws are morally reprehensible. I cannot put my faith in the God of the bible, it is a lightbulb that won't switch on when I pull the cord.

Sure, if I woke up, one day tens of thousands of people have disappeared, and the signs all point to rapture (empty churches?) then that'd be a big wake up call. I'd dig out the bible and start doing some Ezekiel and Revelations reading, see what my options are. What a relief it's not going to happen tho!

You're right to bump this post back to the front cj. I haven't forgotten it, it's just that there's a lot to it and it's not going to be a one liner that will sort it out!!

Nice post cj Bring a bit of balance to the Apologetics. There's lots to mull over in that lot. I'll give it a good think and get back to you. And since I'm an "ism" I want to choose my own: Contraryism. or maybe ismshmism!

Deleted by user - posted in wrong thread - doh!

What? No moccha latte with extra toppings? Gone off your coffee Arthur?

Very non-existant, from my experience. Harnessing energy? I presume it can be measured then. Whenever I meet someone who claims to be wiccan or into whitchcraft I dare them to prove it. Do something to me. Curse me, or something. Change something. C'mon, good old traditional witchcraft - change this mouse into a frog. No can do? Ok, I've got something simpler and even more trad witchcraft. See this wart on my leg? charm it away. No? oh dear. Seems whitchypoo can't get his magic to work in the face of a skeptic. Witchcraft! Ha! I laugh at it.

Ok. So . . . because people are not smart . . . God exists? So . . . because we've done stupid silly things in our past . . . we must trust in God? So . . . because our intellect is sometimes faulty in some areas, it must also be faulty in matters spiritual? The alleged weakness of our intellect bears no relation to anything really. The fact that you are willing to accept your intellect as the final authority on a matter tells me volumes about the height that you place yourself in the heirarchy of things. Atheists do believe in God, they just think they are him Nice one.

Ovedya - I agree with you. My choice of phrase "big deal" may have sounded sarcastic, but it wasn't meant that way.

I think our consciousness forever isolated from others. It is why we feel fundamentally lonely, because we can never truly get into anyone's head to understand them like we know our own selves. This is why the Christian experience of "a personal relationship with God" is such a big deal for them. They feel that God knows them and understands them intimately. God is fused with their thoughts, and prayers and feelings and it is very comforting to feel that your creator/father/guide/redeemer is so close. Apologies for the flood of replies but I felt that each one was dealing with the quoted paragraph in a unique way and should be read seperately