Virgin birth

Participant

Hi KW,
So his physical sonship to God does not comprise an anointing.
You have no other anointing to single out?

June 10, 2009 at 10:23 am#151624

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 10 2009,13:47)

Hi KW,
So his physical sonship to God does not comprise an anointing.
You have no other anointing to single out?

Are you stating that Jesus was not the Son of God before he was baptized by John in the Jordon? If so then I have not read it in scripture. On the other hand I did read that an angel called him Anointed on the day of his birth.

This is what scripture states about his anointing by God.

Acts 10:26-39(KJV) reads:

Quote

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Luke 4:18(KJV) reads:

Quote

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

June 10, 2009 at 10:41 am#151625

Participant

Hi All,
Here are few thoughts on Isa 7:14 how a Jew views the interpretation of Christians;

“The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Old Testament verse Isa 7:14 as validation that Jesus would be born of a “virgin” and that Jesus was referred to and predicted in the Old Testament.
The author of Matthew claimed that the events surrounding the birth of Jesus fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah.
Part of this prophecy by Isaiah stated that the child born to the woman would be called the name Immanuel.

One problem with this alleged fulfillment is that Jesus was never called or named Immanuel by anyone in the New Testament.
This problem is deemed insignificant to most Christians.
One line of rationalization they use is that the child didn't really need to be named Immanuel because the author of Matthew shows that the child would be called Immanuel by many people who he refers to as “they” instead of she(meaning the mother).
In other words, “they” could apply to anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people in the flesh. Since John chapter 1 portrays Jesus as God being made flesh, the stipulation of the prophecy that the child be called the name Immanuel(which means “God is with us”) is satisfied.
In other words, anyone acknowledging Jesus as God incarnate is sufficient to fulfill the prophecy, and because this was done in the New Testament, the prophecy was fulfilled.

According to Isaiah, someone was to call the child's name Immanuel as part of the sign. The logical choice would be the parents, perhaps instructed by God to do so.
As the KJV Bible reads, it implies the mother would do so.
Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Whether the child was named by she, he, or they, the child was to be called the name Immanuel. The name is part of the sign stipulated in the prophecy.

Immanuel is supposed to mean “God with us” or “God is with us”, and the context of Isa 7:14 indicates that God is showing through the sign that he is on the side of the House of David regarding the matter of the two rival kingdoms ready to invade Judah.
The child being born and named Immanuel was part of a prophetic sign promised. The defeat of these kingdoms as described by 2 Kings 16:9 indicates that God kept his promise to Ahaz and his people.
God was with the House of David/Judah in this case. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew came along and created another fulfillment.

The author of Matthew says that all of the events surrounding the pregnancy of Mary and birth of Jesus by Mary were done to fulfill the prophecy made by Isaiah, which includes the child being named Immanuel, which means “God with us”.

Matt 1:22-23
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

If the claim by the author of Matthew is to be recognized as the valid fulfillment of Isa 7:14, then the stipulations of the prophecy must be met.
Matthew does not say that the events of the birth of Jesus “fulfilled again”, or “partially fulfilled”, or only “symbolically fulfilled” Isa 7:14.
He specifically says “all this was done, that it might be fulfilled”. There is no indication of anything less than a proper and complete fulfillment of the spoken words of Isaiah.

The name Immanuel does not mean “God has become a man and walks among us” nor does it mean “God has become flesh and is with us as a man”. Such assertions contradict the word of God.
According to God, he isn't a man.
Num 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Also according to God, he does not change.
Mal 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

And according to God, there are none like him.
Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

God is not a man, God does not change, and there are none like God.
While turning a man into God himself through a “virgin” birth may be valid within the confines of the New Testament and trinitarian Christianity, it violates the premises of the Old Testament and God's prior declarations about himself.

Isa 7:14 says nothing about God becoming a man as a sign for Ahaz and his people(the House of David).
The sign of the child being born and named Immanuel was to reassure Ahaz and his people that God was on their side and that the two rival kingdoms would be defeated.
If Isaiah meant that God would become a man as a sign for Ahaz and his people, then he did so hundreds of years before Jesus was born.
The child was promised as a sign for Ahaz and his people and as 2 Kings 16:9 indicates, God made good on the promise.
If the name Immanuel really means,”God will become a man and walk among us”; as some Christians assert, then God promised to do that for Ahaz and his people in those days.
Jesus would be the second incarnation of God rather than the first.
The child Immanuel who was born in the days of Isaiah was the first incarnation of God born to the first virgin.
That would make Jesus just a rerun of a prophecy that was already fulfilled long before he was born.

Also note that some Christians have mentally changed Isa 7:14 to suit their whims regarding prophecy fulfillment by Jesus.
This is what they want Isa 7:14 to mean:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel OR shall acknowledge the child as God in the flesh, walking among his people.

By mentally inserting this qualifier that anyone acknowledging Jesus as God in the flesh provided fulfillment of the prophecy, the actual events required for fulfillment have been circumvented.
Mentally revising the text means that the child doesn't need to be called the name Immanuel after all. According to this rationalization, anybody calling or acknowledging this child as God in the flesh will be sufficient to fulfill the prophecy.

However, there is no qualifier in the actual text of Isa 7:14 which states the child only had to be “acknowledged” as God in the flesh to be fulfilled.

The text does not say:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and he shall be acknowledged as God himself, walking among his people.”

That qualifier is mentally inserted into the text by some Christians to redefine the actual prophecy so that fulfillment could be achieved under Christian terms and not the original ones of Isaiah.
Isaiah said nothing about this child being God in the flesh, and as already noted in Num 23:19, God is not a man.

The Gospel of John does claim that God became man and dwelt among the people.
John 1:1,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Claiming God is a man is quite different than claiming God is on your side.
The issue of whether Jesus was God in the flesh isn't even clear according to John.
John later has Jesus claiming that he wasn't really God after all.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

As this verse shows, Jesus had a God and it wasn't himself.
And as already noted, Num 23:19 stat
es that God is not a man.

Note that John 1:1 is also a twist of Psa 33:6 and there's a distinction to be made.
John 1:1 says the Word was God:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Psa 33:6 says the Word was of God.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

If the word of God creates as Psa 33:6 indicates, then Adam was also the word made flesh. Did that make Adam God?
No it did not. The word becoming flesh doesn't establish that the word was God himself. If word made flesh was simply the product of his creation, Jesus was no more God himself than Adam was, and Jesus even admitted as much in John 20:17.

The process of the Christian rationalization used here is to first remove the stipulation of the original prophecy in Isa 7:14, which states that the child would be named Immanuel. The next step is to insert a new stipulation which says that all anyone had do was to acknowledge that the child was God in the flesh. According to some Christians, this produces a proper and valid fulfillment.
Christians have actually created their own prophecy using only a small piece of Isa 7 as a springboard for their validation of a virgin birth story. However, creating a new modified prophecy doesn't make it the word of God.
But in the end, the Bible will always mean whatever a believer wants it to mean”.

Please gothrough and comment on that.
Thanks
Adam

June 10, 2009 at 4:10 pm#151626

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Adam………..Right on brother. The Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah has long been misapplied. Scripture plainly says GOD is not a MAN> in any form, Jesus was a Man, in the form of flesh and blood. Good Post brother.

peace and love to you and yours Adam……………………………..gene

June 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm#151627

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ June 10 2009,22:23)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 10 2009,13:47)

Hi KW,
So his physical sonship to God does not comprise an anointing.
You have no other anointing to single out?

This is what scripture states about his anointing by God.

Acts 10:26-39(KJV) reads:

Quote

Luke 4:18(KJV) reads:

Quote

Hi KW,
He was not a reborn son till the Jordan.
We follow him.

June 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm#151628

Participant

Hi GM,
You say
“One problem with this alleged fulfillment is that Jesus was never called or named Immanuel by anyone in the New Testament. “
Nonsense.
It means GOD WITH US.

” God has visited His people”

God was IN HIM reconciling the world to Himself.[2cor5]
etc

June 10, 2009 at 10:30 pm#151629

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2009,01:04)

Quote (kerwin @ June 10 2009,22:23)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 10 2009,13:47)

Hi KW,
So his physical sonship to God does not comprise an anointing.
You have no other anointing to single out?

This is what scripture states about his anointing by God.

Acts 10:26-39(KJV) reads:

Quote

Luke 4:18(KJV) reads:

Quote

Hi KW,
He was not a reborn son till the Jordan.
We follow him.

Where is your evidence? I ask this because scripture does not say he was reborn the Son at the Jordon and we know John did not baptize with power.

The only testimony we have that you might consider confirmation of your belief is that God declares that Jesus is is Son and that he, the Father, is please with him. My father can declare I am his son but that does not mean that that is when I became his son.

In fact scripture states that Jesus called God his Father when he was but 12.

We also know that before he was baptized by John, John stated:

Matthew 3:13-14(KJV) reads:

Quote

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

June 10, 2009 at 10:31 pm#151630

Participant

Hi KW,
Please yourself but I follow him.

June 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm#151631

Participant

Why do you think “Immanuel” is a name and not a title that God is with us in our actions when Jesus leads us?

June 10, 2009 at 10:34 pm#151632

Participant

Hi KW,
History shows it is not a personal name but a descriptive one.
God can also be at work in us to will and to do.

June 11, 2009 at 11:09 am#151633

Participant

Hi brothers Nick and Kerwin,
Jesus was never named as Immanuel in N.T except by the so called prophetic application of Matthew. Even he himself never mentioned Jesus as Immanuel in his Gospel in the later chapters. You know for sure if you see with Jewish eyes both the infant narrations of Matthew and Luke were developed stories rather than historical happennings even the earliest N.T writer, Paul never gave importance to Virgin birth or mentioned it in his epistles. They were developed from Jewish Midrash at about 60 to 65 years after the actual conclusion of historical Jesus' story. There are many holes in these stories of Jesus in all those four Gospels which were written much later than Paul's epistles. We can not take these stories literally to prove the historical life of Jesus. They are developed by the believers who had understood risen and exalted Lord with a different perspective. To prove his divinity they developed these stories of which some times I find many holes in putting them together. They are not so much important for anybody who can be saved but only by the grace of God through faith. I hope all brothers and sisters will see these stories in Gospels with critical mind.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

June 11, 2009 at 11:10 am#151634

Participant

Quote (Gene @ June 11 2009,04:10)

peace and love to you and yours Adam……………………………..gene

Thank you very much brother Gene.

Peace and love to you
Adam

June 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm#151635

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ June 11 2009,23:09)

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

Hi GM,
So God did not speak though these men but He does through you?
They told lies but you are of truth?

June 12, 2009 at 5:13 am#151636

Participant

I am not telling that the historicity of Jesus life is wrong but I want to say that we can not make these Gospel stories historical in full which were written decades of years after they actually taken place. Some of these narrations mostly developed from the tradition taken from the Jewish scriptures which can not be proved by anybody with literal application.

June 12, 2009 at 6:22 am#151637

Participant

gollamudi wrote:

Quote

Some of these narrations mostly developed from the tradition taken from the Jewish scriptures which cannot be proved by anybody with literal application.

I am still of the opinion you are thinking like a Greek and not like a first century Jew.

Ancient Hebrew Research Center reads:

Quote

Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word אף (awph) which literally means �nose�, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as �the flaring of the nose (nostrils)�. If the translator literally translated the above passage �slow to nose�, it would make no sense to the English reader, so אף, a nose, is translated to �anger� in this passage.

Here is the rest of my source.

I want to point out when the armies of Israel face their opponents then they declare that God is with them and if they obtain victory they know God is with them. Jesus is the reason that God is with us in our fight against Satan and his host and the temptations they inflict us with. So yes TheLordSaves is also Emanuel. TheLordSaves is Jesus or Joshua in English.

June 12, 2009 at 8:35 am#151638

Participant

Hi brother Kerwin,
The same thing I am advising many here in this forum to see like a first century Jew who never interpreted scriptures with Greek ontological way. They should come out of fundementalism which spoils the real Gospel on which the writers of N.T based. The Gospel stories can not be taken literally whereas their message has to be taken by us than trying to prove their historicity. I am trying to say that the Gospels were written not to be objective vignettes, describing things that occured in literal history. Rather they represent the attempt by Jewish people to enter into and to interpret the God experience encountered in Jesus of Nazareth.

What the Gospels were designed to do was to measure the impact of this Jesus on a community of believers by using the content of the sacred past of that community to describe the reality they were experiencing in the present. So the Gospels were not written to be history. The Jews who created the Gospels knew they were not history, but they also knew that their experience was true.- not literally true, but profoundly true. The Gospels were midrashic interpretations of the meaning of Jesus told in the traditional way of the Jews. The great pity is that later non-jewish readers had no idea what that meant, and so they literalized these texts.

Therefore I request all of you here not to literalize the stories of Gospels but to see their meaning from the Jewish perspective.

Thanks and peace
Adam

June 12, 2009 at 10:36 am#151639

Participant

My point here is really the same one I strove to make in my thread asking if scripture writers made errors. I urge you to consider that the writers just looked at the situation different than we and applied scriptures which described the events that happened though perhaps were not about the events.

Here is the link.

June 12, 2009 at 10:54 am#151640

Participant

Thanks for such honest agreement brother Kerwin. I do see the stories of Jesus in the Gospels in a similar way including the birth, bodily resurrection and ascention narrations are not to be taken literal happennings but were developed from the Jewish scriptures by the Jewish writers for understanding the risen and exalted Lord.

Peace to you
Adam

June 12, 2009 at 7:06 pm#151641

Participant

I am not agreeing with you. I am pointing at the way Matthew chose to use scripture with his Hebrew audience. From what I have seen the writer of Hebrews also uses scripture in a similar way. Both books share in common that their audiences are rumored to be Jews.

I believe that Matthew is a honest telling of Jesus' life told from Joseph's point of view. You can see this in the genealogy which is Joseph's and in that fact we have an accounting of the angel appearing to Joseph in Matthew 1:20 and again in Matthew 2:13. Luke on the other hands appears to be told from Mary's point of view as we have an account of an angel appearing to her and her visit to her cousin Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist.

The question then becomes how solid is the rest of the story? Is Joseph acting like a Jewish man of the First Century? Did Mary act like a Jewish woman of the First Century.

June 14, 2009 at 9:25 am#151642