- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 17 2009,17:45) Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 17 2009,12:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,08:10) Hi CA,
No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.
So his mother was Mary and he was conceived of her and yet somehow he was the God of whom he was conceived?
How about this verse in Eph 5:1 brother Nick?“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”
Do you think our N.T is compatible with your views?
That is the paradox of our N.T. But you don't agree with the descripencies that are in our N.T.
What contradiction do you see in that verse?If you are speaking of this sentence of Nick's that goes
“No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.” then I am going to just say he worded his thoughts poorly.
I believe he was trying to say the only way to follow God is through obeying the teachings of Jesus the Anointed One.
I believe he appreciates your correcting his error as I hope he does not want to lead anyone astray.
Hi brother Kerwin,
You seem to keep your mind always to point out my errors instead of poinitng out the errors of N.T writers. Brother Nick told that you can not follow God whereas the writer of Ephesians says you have to follow God. Which is correct? You don't accept the blunder of Matthew the way he applied O.T scriptures to prove his dogma. One can not learn the truth unless he criticizes the errors.Sorry for the strong words I used.
AdamJesus in Isaiah 7.14?: Messiah in the Making:
Here is how a genuine Christians answers the query.
Before we turn to Matt 1.22-23, where Isaiah 7.14 is actually connected with the virgin birth of Jesus, we must first look at Isaiah 7.14 in its original context. What did Isaiah mean when he wrote,
לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃
“For this reason, the sovereign master himself will give you a sign for confirmation. Look! This young woman is about to conceive (or possibly, “is pregnant”) and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will call his name, Immanu-El.”
Along with most (all?) critical scholars, I do not believe that Isaiah has the virgin birth of a future eschatological deliverer in mind. Though it is traditionally translated as “virgin,” the Hebrew העלמה (‘almah), which usually means “young woman,” is used here. The normal term for “virgin” is בתולה (betulah), which is not present here. More telling than lexicographical data is the context itself. The child to be born is said to be given as a sign. A sign for what? The child is to be a sign that God will deliver the people of Israel from Syria in the very near future. The child is not a sign for posterity. The child is a sign for King Ahaz and there must take place his lifetime. For, according to Isa 7.16, before the child even reaches adolescence Syria will be taken out of the picture. This child will be born into a time a distress to represent the fact that “God is with us,” and will not abandon his promise to David.
What then is Matt 1.22-23 doing? The author of the first gospel is using the LXX, which translates העלמה as παρθένος, which by the Koine period, usually means “virgin” in the most basic meaning of the word, a female who has not had sexual intercourse. Thus, some have put forth that the author of Matthew is simply in error to have interpreted Isaiah 7.14 messianically. Yet, I am not so sure. First, if the author of Matthew is as Jewish as we tend to think he is, would he not have been aware that this child is, according to Jewish tradition, none other than Hezekiah? Second, such an approach misunderstands a normative Jewish hermeneutic known as midrash.
What I believe is more likely is that the author of Matthew has the tradition of the virgin birth and finds in Isaiah 7.14 a parallel concept where a special child is born in a time of great distress for Israel. Like Immanuel, Jesus will be a sign that “God is with us.” That, in my opinion, is why the author of Matthew cites Isaiah 7.14.
So, does Isaiah 7.14 prophesy the virgin birth of a future eschatological deliverer? No, I don’t think so. But does the birth of the sign-child in Isaiah 7.14 mirror the birth of Jesus inasmuch as both children were to be signs for their generation that God was indeed with Israel in her suffering? Yes, absolutely.
Hi GM,
So this is how doubt manifests?
You will never understand it all but faith takes a part.
The synagogue of satan will not offer you any hope in the long run.Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 18 2009,12:42) Jesus in Isaiah 7.14?: Messiah in the Making: Here is how a genuine Christians answers the query.
Before we turn to Matt 1.22-23, where Isaiah 7.14 is actually connected with the virgin birth of Jesus, we must first look at Isaiah 7.14 in its original context. What did Isaiah mean when he wrote,
לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃
“For this reason, the sovereign master himself will give you a sign for confirmation. Look! This young woman is about to conceive (or possibly, “is pregnant”) and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will call his name, Immanu-El.”
Along with most (all?) critical scholars, I do not believe that Isaiah has the virgin birth of a future eschatological deliverer in mind. Though it is traditionally translated as “virgin,” the Hebrew העלמה (‘almah), which usually means “young woman,” is used here. The normal term for “virgin” is בתולה (betulah), which is not present here. More telling than lexicographical data is the context itself. The child to be born is said to be given as a sign. A sign for what? The child is to be a sign that God will deliver the people of Israel from Syria in the very near future. The child is not a sign for posterity. The child is a sign for King Ahaz and there must take place his lifetime. For, according to Isa 7.16, before the child even reaches adolescence Syria will be taken out of the picture. This child will be born into a time a distress to represent the fact that “God is with us,” and will not abandon his promise to David.
What then is Matt 1.22-23 doing? The author of the first gospel is using the LXX, which translates העלמה as παρθένος, which by the Koine period, usually means “virgin” in the most basic meaning of the word, a female who has not had sexual intercourse. Thus, some have put forth that the author of Matthew is simply in error to have interpreted Isaiah 7.14 messianically. Yet, I am not so sure. First, if the author of Matthew is as Jewish as we tend to think he is, would he not have been aware that this child is, according to Jewish tradition, none other than Hezekiah? Second, such an approach misunderstands a normative Jewish hermeneutic known as midrash.
What I believe is more likely is that the author of Matthew has the tradition of the virgin birth and finds in Isaiah 7.14 a parallel concept where a special child is born in a time of great distress for Israel. Like Immanuel, Jesus will be a sign that “God is with us.” That, in my opinion, is why the author of Matthew cites Isaiah 7.14.
So, does Isaiah 7.14 prophesy the virgin birth of a future eschatological deliverer? No, I don’t think so. But does the birth of the sign-child in Isaiah 7.14 mirror the birth of Jesus inasmuch as both children were to be signs for their generation that God was indeed with Israel in her suffering? Yes, absolutely.
That sounds a lot like what I have been stating though I am not sure the Hebrew version we have now is the more reliable version since it is a later version than the Greek version.Hi brother Kerwin,
That's why I even quoted you as honest Christian than the writer of Matthew. There was no virgin birth in whole O.T but two of the Gospel writers included them to attract pagan gentiles into Church. It was not required to believe in the alleged virgin birth for our salvation. Its importance is zero as per epistles of Paul and other N.T writers. The virgin birth created pagam myths in Roman Catholc Church like perpetual virginity. It did not help any Christian to get salvation as I believe. I want to end this discussion on virgin birth here and reserve for its own thread and change the concentration to Jewish Messiah.Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 18 2009,23:33) Hi brother Kerwin,
That's why I even quoted you as honest Christian than the writer of Matthew. There was no virgin birth in whole O.T but two of the Gospel writers included them to attract pagan gentiles into Church. It was not required to believe in the alleged virgin birth for our salvation. Its importance is zero as per epistles of Paul and other N.T writers. The virgin birth created pagam myths in Roman Catholc Church like perfetual virginity. It did not help any Christian to get salvation as I believe. I want to end this discussion on virgin birth here and reserve for its own thread and change the concentration to Jewish Messiah.
Jesus was the Jewish Messiah the proof is in the aftermath:They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
Deuteronomy 32:20-22But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Romans 10:18-20Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psalm 2:7-9Hi brother Nick,
Jesus did not choose the writer of Matthew personally as he was not an eye witness as per many N.T scholars.Here is the challenge on virgin birth;
“What I will prove is that IF Yeshua was born of a “virgin” mother he is NOT the Messiah of Scripture. Note that I said Messiah “of Scripture”. I will show that the “Christ” of traditional Christianity and counterfeit Messianism is actually derived from pagan mystery sun-god religions from which many traditional Christian teachings originate…”I read your source and as I pointed out “lack of evidence in certain areas does not prove anything”.
I have told you before and I will again that I do not believe belief in the virgin birth of Jesus is important except in how it bears on the credibility of the writings of Matthew and Luke. I have since come on another reason and that is if Jesus is the begotten by Joseph he cannot be the Messiah as Joseph comes from the line of Solomon that was cut off from the throne after one of the later kings. I suppose that cut off may have only applied to that king and his children but that is a weak argument.
You are merely speculation without evidence that Matthew is not the Matthew chosen by Jesus. You still do not understand Jewish theology.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2009,01:48) I read your source and as I pointed out “lack of evidence in certain areas does not prove anything”. I have told you before and I will again that I do not believe belief in the virgin birth of Jesus is important except in how it bears on the credibility of the writings of Matthew and Luke. I have since come on another reason and that is if Jesus is the begotten by Joseph he cannot be the Messiah as Joseph comes from the line of Solomon that was cut off from the throne after one of the later kings. I suppose that cut off may have only applied to that king and his children but that is a weak argument.
You are merely speculation without evidence that Matthew is not the Matthew chosen by Jesus. You still do not understand Jewish theology.
Hi Adam and Kerwin:The virgin birth is not only very important but is true.
The scripture states that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus is God's gift of love to humanity, and was not born of the sperm of man but conceived of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary.
Quote Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Quote 1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.Love in Christ,
MartyHi GM,
If you have fallen in step with the synagogue of satan then you will try to discredit the disciples of Jesus because they do not believe in him or the Spirit of God that indwells him and the brothers. They follow tradition, God is not their father, and they killed the prophets and then the son of God.942767 wrote:
Quote The scripture states that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Scripture also states Jesus is a man. I assume he is an exception to that scripture as are children before a certain stage of development though for a different reason.
Never the less his exceptions has nothing to do with how he was conceived. It is not hard to believe that due to technology we may have other children who are conceived without male gametes being used. It is called cloning. Do you think such children will be free from sin?
Greetings G…… This is a question that many a Jew is struggling with today….I alway refer back to ISA:53 and say to my self who is this person the prophet is speaking of and you have consider this passage was written almost seven hundred years before the birth of Christ….Yet it describes his trials and events accurately……( if it looks like duck,quacks like a duck and walks like a duck)there is a pretty good chance it is a duck…
Adam………I went and read the site you posted and I do agree with His findings, the Matt, and Luke, accounts are contradictory. And that it dose not necessitate that Jesus have a Virgin berth to qualify as the Messiah. But according to Scripture He (MUST) be of the SEED of KING DAVID, through a MALE Offspring. Mary would not qualify Him for this. This i completely agree with Jesus also said He was the root and offspring of DAVID.
To All…….Go and read the complete article Posted on the site Adam posted, read it completely and study it , another good point the author brought out was where is say about the Bureans Searching the Scriptures to see if these thing were so or not. The only Scriptures they had was the OLD testament to search, good point. So everything that they were hearing had to meet the old testament readings or they would not accept it. IMO
peace and love to you and your ADAM………………….gene
Gene wrote:
Quote But according to Scripture He (MUST) be of the SEED of KING DAVID, through a MALE
Really! I don't remember reading that. Please quote the scripture.
Here is one that contradicts it.
Numbers 27:1-7(NIV) reads:
Quote The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, “Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives.” So Moses brought their case before the LORD and the LORD said to him, “What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.
So an inheritance can pass through the daughter's line.
Kerwin…………..Scripture say Jesus was the root and offspring of King DAVID. An inheritance can be passed to a daughter, As in the case you stated however there were (NO) Sons to inherit anything if there were the inheritance would have went to them and not the daughters, This is not the case with David, because he had many sons and so did Solomon that could have been Heirs of his and were of His offspring. How was the Messiah not also a direct decedent of David through Joseph as scripture shows. We are told He would be from the root of David and scripture only gives Josephs linage link to Jesus as source of His inheritance of the King linage, it does not give Marys as that link.
Luk 1:27…> To a Maiden espoused to a man whose name was Joseph of the (HOUSE) of DAVID.
Luk 1:32….> He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord GOD shall give unto him the throne of His (FATHER) David.
Luk 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the SON of Joseph, the son son of Heil,——–the son of David……all the way to ADAM. Both Luke and Matthew accounts give Joseph as the Linage from King DAVID to JESUS.
There are not other links given to David other than through Joseph. Jesus' FATHER could not have been through MARY it is shown to be through Joseph not Mary. All linages are recorded through the Males no the females. Do you disagree with what was written in Showing His linage to DAVID then. So if the Messiah was of the HOUSE of DAVID His linage had to come through Joesph as it shows it did.
The whole immaculate conception may have been a addition to the original text, it certainly appears so. Because another reason is why is it not repeated anywhere else in New Testament scriptures, no where, not by Paul or any others If this account was true it would obviously been a big deal and all the apostles would have committed on it wouldn't you think?
I ideology of a Man GOD Creation is found in many ancient pagan teachings, the son of the gods, and seen that many false teachings have sprung from Pagan influences what would make the (Immaculate conception) any different from the rest. I would think differently if we had other scriptures that would support it, but there seem to be none that do. I agree with the article there is strong evidence the whole immaculate conception thing may have crept into the original text. IMO
gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
