JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[DesireTruth]

@Jodi,

In the following “You” being myself and the “Me” being yourself continued from post #946829:

YOU: NO, I meant IMPROVABLE; because you cannot prove “in vitro” fertilization is what happened. This is a creation of your mind and is the most “logical” solution for you because we cannot have God impregnating mortal women because that’s what happened in the pagan religions of the day (Roman and Greek).

You go on to quote Is 7:14 as proof; yet, when one reads this chapter and the next, it has nothing to do with any messianic prophecy.

ME: You seem to have left out that my proof begins with how Matthew directly tells us that he is giving us the genetic line of Jesus to show how he is a genetic son of Abraham and David, where that genetic line that connects Jesus to Abraham and David, according to Matthew, is through Joseph, who was betrothed to Mary. Now if there were no further scriptures given about the conception of Jesus what is common sense? That Joseph and Mary would have come together so that Jesus could be exactly what the scripture say, a genetic son of Abraham and David through Joseph. But it turns out that there is more scripture about Jesus’s conception, do those details change at all the truth given in the prior scriptures? NO No matter how Jesus is conceived exactly, we are given that he is a genetic son of Abraham and David through Joseph. You and others just want to flat out ignore this fact directly provided from Matthew, you because you want to discredit Jesus as the Messiah and others because they want to make Jesus into a false god and some sort of hybrid one of a kind being. According to Matthew God didn’t impregnate Mary like that of a pagan god of mythology and impregnate her with His seed to create another god, some sort of hybrid being. God performed a miracle, where without Joseph and Mary coming together, He made Jesus a bio son of Joseph through the power of His Spirit, making him as Matthew tells us, a bio son of Abraham and David through Joseph.

Were do I begin? Your genealogical “proof” isn’t “proof” as it falls flat when Jechoniah was added into the line since his kingship was removed by God and there are no passages that state he was ever restored as a king (prediction: your entire focus in a response); so could any of his descendants have been inline to become king?

You go on to say “You and others just want to flat out ignore this fact directly provided from Matthew.” Who are the “others” and what “fact” of the lineage account am I ignoring? What’s being ignored is Jechoniah’s kingship was revoked and a revoked kingship means their descendants can’t be king either. Besides, how can I or anyone trust what the writer of Matthew says when they misuse Isa 7:14; do you trust those who distorts the truth?

Continuing on, you talk about Jesus’s conception and you “believe” the spirit took the biological “seed” from Joseph and planted it in Mary to impregnate her to connect the Jesus back to David, because Joseph “planting” his seed himself wouldn’t have been good enough? God had to have a “miraculously conception” and couldn’t wait a few more months for the two to come together? Why would God have to have the Jesus conceived supernaturally verses letting the two of them come together and make a baby the “old fashion” way? What would the significance of the “virgin” be? We can’t say purity, because we have “original sin” and no one is “righteous”, not one according to Paul.

Reading Isa 7:14 “Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

To whom has this sign been given? The answer is found in verse 10, King Ahaz.

“The young woman is with child.” So this woman is pregnant and standing with King Ahaz and Isaiah.

“she shall call his name Immanuel.” When was the Jesus ever called “Immanuel”; the angel told Mary to name the child “the Jesus.”

This verse speaks in their time and is a prophecy given to King Ahaz; why would Ahaz care about an event that is happening 700 years into the future when he’s about to be invaded. The fact the writer of Matthew hijacks this verse to say what it was never intended to say, makes the writer of Matthew a liar. What is sad is the modern church doubles down on the “virgin birth” lie (especially at Christmas) and calls it truth. Need more proof the writer lied, look at chapter 2:15 “out of Egypt I called my son”; this comes from Hosea 11:1 and explicitly states the “son” is Israel and not a “messianic figure” being called out of Egypt. Exo 4:22 further confirms Israel is God’s son AND HIS firstborn. Please explain how these passages from the Tanakh and their usage in the NT aligns!

Did you ever look up the difference for the Hebrew words “almah” and “betulah”?

[Jodi]

Hi DT,

Just a little recap.

We had been discussing Isaiah 53, where you specifically gave me points for me to respond to and instead of replying back to my direct counter points you completely ignored them and went with, “There is only one thing that matters in your response and it has to do with whether the Jesus is the true Messiah or not and every response that doesn’t resolve this is pointless.” So I should have just ignored your previous points and questions, got it, lol.

YOU:

For your reading enjoyment here is what I posted originally posted concerning the Jesus being the true Messiah:

He must be Jewish
“…you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)

ME: You say that Jesus does not meet the requirements of the Messiah and you give me the list of the requirements established from the OT. 

You later in another post from the one I provided above added that to be Jewish his mother needs to be Jewish. Jesus’s mother according to the NT was Jewish. By your own admission the first requirement you gave, Jesus indeed meets that criteria.

Regarding Deut 17:15, this is the specific verse you gave of proof that the OT requires the Messiah to be a Jew. If you would have said the requirement of the Messiah is that he be of Israel this would have made sense, but you didn’t and nothing in this passage says that the Messiah must specifically be a Jew.

Looks like you should have just left out your first requirement and the passage all together.

[Author]

Posts