Who is this Jesus?

Participant

Quote

Nick,

I know what your conclusions are, but where is your proof? Luke 1:5,36 seem to suggest that Mary was most likely of the house of Aaron. Do you have a reference that suggests otherwise?

By the way, I have read the posted sites, and I would have the same question for the authors of those papers.

November 17, 2004 at 10:20 pm#4544

Participant

Hi Whatistrue,
i am relatively ignorant in this area. Lk 1.5 says that Elizabeth was a 'Daughter of Aaron” so form that line and v 35 says that she was a relative of Mary's.
Joseph went to register in ch 2 to Bethlehem as he was “of the house and family of David” .One other link suggested that Mary would have registered somewhere else if she also was not of the House of David.
So does the relationship of Mary to Elizabeth prove her house was that of Aaron?
Hope this helps?

November 18, 2004 at 7:05 am#4552

Participant

To WhatIsTrue,

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 18 2004,10:09)

Considering how quickly, and forcefully, you rebuked RamblinRose for bringing this question to light, don't you think that you owe her, and all of us who read this forum, more studied answers than the ones you have given thus far?

I base my belief that Jesus is the son of David and also the Son of God who was conceived through Mary but was Fathered by the Spirit, from scripture. Not one scripture but many.

If I do not understand it technically, then do I have the right to preach this truth? Yes I do and I also have the right to rebuke anyone who preaches otherwise or against those scriptures. For how the the Spirit of Truth reside in a person who denies this truth?

Isaiah 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.

Matthew 1:23
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.

Matthew 1:20
18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

As far as I can see, Ramblinrose rejects both the prophecy and the fulfillment of the prophecy. That is her choice and who can take that from her?

But I say, how can we throw those scriptures away on account of genealogies and certain cultural understandings. Throughout the NT we do not see anyone denying that Jesus was the son of David. But we do see some people denying that he was the son of God.

If we accepted RRs take on this, then do we not help to leave the the door wide open to those who could say Jesus wasn't fathered by Joseph and therefore he cannot be the messiah on account of certain cultural understandings and the law.

November 18, 2004 at 7:59 am#4553

Participant

To Adam Pastor,

Quote (Guest @ Nov. 18 2004,07:46)

Sadly, another example, of erroneous trinitarian-biased translating … the word returning is not based on the Greek text. The Greek word used does not mean to return
Don't take my word for it … get a Strong's & check for yourself!

John 13:3 is simply saying that he had come from GOD (being begotten of him of course, )
and that he was to go to GOD. That's all!
Coming & Going not Coming & Returning

I am assuming that it is a verse from the NIV. Am I right?)

John 13:3 (NIV)
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;

John 13:3 (NASB)
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that (2) He had come forth from God and was going back to God,

John 13:3 (MSG)
Jesus knew that the Father had put him in complete charge of everything, that he came from God and was on his way back to God.

John 13:3 (AMP)
[That] Jesus, knowing (fully aware) that the Father had put everything into His hands, and that He had come from God and was [now] returning to God,

John 13:3 (NLT)
Jesus knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would return to God.

John 13:3 (KJV)
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

John 13:3 (ASV)
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all the things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God,

So yes it appears that some translations do not use the word returning but departing and others say returning.

The word according to Strongs as you suggested I look it up is 'hupago' which means the following: to lead under, bring under, to withdraw one's self, to go away, depart.

So does this mean that I think that your stance is correct. No it doesn't. For this word doesn't rule out 'returning' does it.

E.g. If I say “I came from England and I am going to depart for England”. Can this not be construed as 'returning' even though the word depart is used. So the word depart and return are not always in conflict and can mean the same thing.

E.g. If I say I came from God and I depart for God, then by reason of God's dwelling place, we would assume that Jesus came from Heaven and is returning to Heaven as other scriptures say. After all we both know that he went to Heaven and if he says that God is the person that he both came from and departed to, then it also certainly reasonable to assume that he came from Heaven and returned to Heaven where God is.

When we use the word depart, it can also have the meaning return and therefore both are correct. We know it can mean return when we understand the context. However as a side issue, I think that the verse should use the word 'depart' if the Greek word for 'depart' is used. But in this case we get return from the context of the verse itself.

The only way I can see John 13:3 to not mean 'return' is if you believe that the 'come from God' quote is talking about the Holy Spirit fathering his humanity through Mary and the 'depart to God' quote means that he for the first is now going to enter Heaven. Surely the going to God part is literal, so why can't the coming from God part be too.

But if your stance were true, then one could also argue that that Jesus came from God (existed for the first time) and then depart to God (back to being the Logos in God's mind. If we were going to be consistent, otherwise we have to say that coming from God and going to God is talking about 2 states. I am not talking about 'come' and 'go' as opposites, rather the reference to 'exist as flesh' and 'exist forevermore' to literally go to be with God, and to not literally come from God. Your conclusion seems to be reading too much into the verse and changes contexts when suited.

Yes we can read into verses like this if other scriptures teach the same thing, therefore we are using scripture with scripture. But I said it before and I say it again. It seems that all the pre-existant scriptures have to be read too much into, in order to bring the nonpre-existant doctrine out.

In other words you have to first suggest the nonpre-existant theme to get it out. It is not read this way when most read the bible (even bias aside). It's seems to me like getting blood out of a stone. You can do it, but you must first soak the stone in blood.

But going back to John 13:3, I would argue that the quote “he came from God' means that he was born of God. But your interpretation would have to say that he was created by God. As you assume that Jesus is the Logos in God's mind that became flesh. In otherwords God's thought manifested physically and became a human being.

But there is a difference with being born and being created. If we look at creation do we say that it was born or created? Jesus was born of God and then he was born of Mary. So he was born of the Divine giving him divine nature and then he emptied himself of his standing with God and was born through Mary which gave him human nature. So he humbled himself for our sake which suggests a previous higher state. But because of this extremely generous act, we can progress from our human nature and be partakers of divine nature in the same way that Jesus partook of human nature. We will be like him. What a trade. I think we definately can say that we are fortunate. We have gained even though we didn't deserve it. Unmerited favour from God.

I was first created and then I was born of God.

Jesus was born of God first as the scritpures say.

He was also born of Mary and lived as a man.

He departed this world for God.

That is what the scriptures say. That is why he is called the only begotten son. He was the only one who was born directly of God. We were created through Christ. Jesus however was not created.

This is also what the 2nd century fathers taught. These are the guys that were discipled by the original disciples and they clearly teach and interpret from scripture that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation literally, that he existed with God in the beginning as the Logos and the son, and that he partook of flesh.

To see some of their quotes pertaining to the subject at hand, visit
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-6.htm

I came to the same conclusion as them even though I hadn't read their works and was unaware until relatively recently of their stance with God and the Logos. They also teach that God and Jesus are different identities just as we both do.

November 18, 2004 at 7:08 pm#4554

Participant

Hi ,
Heb 10.5 ” Wherefore, on coming into the world, Jesus said
'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me. Holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in .
Then I said 'As is written of me in the book, I have come to do your will, O God' “
10″By this will we have been sanctified through the offering the body of Jesus Christ once for all”
This is quoting Psalm 40 of course.
” Behold I come; in the written scroll it is prescribed for me. To do your will, O my God, is my delight and your law is written within my heart!”

So a body was prepared for Jesus. Jesus was not the body but lived in the body. His body was offered as a sacrifice. Jesus knew who he was and that his life in the body fulfilled the prophecies in the Word. He agreed to come and obey unto death.

November 18, 2004 at 10:28 pm#4557

Participant

Nick,

I am relatively ignorant in this area as well. That is why I am asking questions of those of you who seem more assured of your answers.

T8,

Quote

If I do not understand it technically, then do I have the right to preach this truth? Yes I do and I also have the right to rebuke anyone who preaches otherwise or against those scriptures.

If you are saying that you do not understand technically how Yeshua fulfills a clear prophecy concerning the Messiah, then I will not ask you any further questions concerning Yeshua's lineage. We can both plead ignorance on the matter. However, it is worth noting that the insertion of the virgin birth doctrine is what causes this confusion about Yeshua's lineage. Once you remove it, it is clear that Yeshua could is of the line of David.

I am glad that you bring up the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14, as it is another aspect of the virgin birth doctrine that has been bugging me of late. Let's look at it in context:

Isaiah 7
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 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. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Isaiah 8
3 Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”

I did not quote all of chapter 7, as I am sure you can look it up, but apparently King Ahaz, and the people of Judah were in fear for their lives and their kingdom. They were about to be invaded by Aram and Ephraim. God, however, had different plans for them and sought to assure King Ahaz that the two invading kings would not succeed. To assure this promise, God offered him a sign, hence the famous Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. If you look in chapter 8, you see that the sign of the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah's son. (Unfortunately for all of them, the Assyrians were about to overtake the entire region, humbling the Israelites before God.)

Here's my problem:

The prophecy was given at a specific time for a specific people, and was apparently fulfilled. How then does it show up in relation to the Messiah? Furthermore, if this is a dual prophecy, for both the son of Isaiah and the Messiah, then is Isaiah 7:14 really talking about a virgin birth? Because, if it is, then either this prophecy went unfulfilled in King Ahaz's time, making Isaiah a false prophet, or there were two virgin births in biblical history, one for Isaiah's son and one for the Messiah.

Have you looked into this issue at all?

November 18, 2004 at 10:41 pm#4559

Participant

Hi Whatistrue,
My bible says in the footnotes on Is 7.14 that the word used here should not be translated as “virgin” but “young female person”. In that way it confirms the duality of the scripture for Jesus and the son of Isaiah.

November 18, 2004 at 10:51 pm#4560

Participant

Nick,

If Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin birth, (as the footnote in your bible suggests), then there is no Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah being born of a virgin. It is the only one of its kind, and the only Old Testament confirmation of Matthews assertion in Matthew 1:22.

November 18, 2004 at 11:20 pm#4562

Participant

Hi,
The Hebrew word used is 'almah' .Now that I have that bible [good news]with me I will quote what it says.
“The hebrew word here translated “young woman”is not the specific term for “virgin”but refers to any young woman of marriageable age .The use of “virgin” in Mat 1.23 reflects a greek translation of the OT ,made some 500 years after Isaiah.”

November 19, 2004 at 12:49 am#4563

Participant

Hi,
Of course this does not change the fact of the virgin birth as shown in many NT verses.
The catholic church takes the idea one step further, as usual, and says Mary was always a virgin and never consummated her marriage or had further children, which is denied by scripture.

November 19, 2004 at 12:00 pm#4574

Participant

To WhatIsTrue,

It is interesting what you say about the OT scripture regarding the virgin and I may purse the answer. But I cannot do that right now for time restraints.

However I will say what is on my heart right now as that is easy to express and can be done in a flash.

I was actually aware that the word 'virgin' in that scripture meant young girl. But one could reason that this type of girl would be a virgin. But the NT scripture specifically uses the word 'virgin'. This word can also be applied to men who have never had sexual relations.

I have often seen prophecy fulfilled in a physical sense and then the spirtual. We see Israel as physical and the Church as the spirtual. We have water which is physical and spirit which is obviously spirtual. Physically speaking adultery is sexual relations with a married person. But spirtual adultery is idolatory. Other lovers vs other Gods.

Scripture often has a physical meaning and a spirtual. We are even told that which is bound on earth will be bound in heaven by Christ to his disciples.

Even the verse that many say is about Satan is first of all referring to a King (man).

Ezekiel 28
1 The word of the LORD came to me:
2 “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
” 'In the pride of your heart
you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a man and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.
……………….
11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

” 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.

So even here it appears that we have the physical ruler (a man ruling Tyre) and then the spirit behind him (the king of Tyre). I have heard people argue that this is for a man and others say it is about Satan, the Devil. But it appears to me as talking about both. The physical man who ruled Tyre and the spirit behind him who was a guardian cherub. Even Satan said to Jesus that he could give Jesus power over all the kingdoms of the world for it was his to give. So the King of Tyre could easily be the Devil and the ruler the man who rules Tyre.

So what am I saying?
That just as our bodies are physical first then spiritual, so it is with many other things. God created physical to mirror the spirtual. The physical realm could be seen as preschool (kindergarten) and the spirtual as university.

Even Jesus spoke of spirtual things as physical things so that we could understand. But he desired to talk about spirtual things directly, but people hardly understood his physical sayings.

You may find that God demonstrates spirtual things by the physical even in history. We have Babylon a physical city and then we see Babylon the Mother of all Harlots, the spirtual.

But being “assured of your answers” doesn't mean that I or we know everything and I am not trying to give that impression to anyone. But I know that if I desired the answer and was willing to seek it out with all my heart that I could find it. But I also have many other things in life to do and I have to balance all these things into my life. If it was a critical thing, then I would most likely drop everything and pursue it. But if someone did the research and gave me the answer then I would surely be thankful for it would save me a lot of time.

But I know that Jesus was born of a virgin because it is written in the NT as a quote and as an event. A lot of the OT is hard to understand when approached in a physical way. That is why many of the Pharisees never understood the scriptures and who Jesus really was.

I do not believe that there is a conflict with the NT and the OT. It is simply that we do not understand the deeper meaning sometimes.

And we must remember that God actually seals up the meaning at times so that we will not understand or to hide the meaning from the world. We see that in the Book of Revelation. But the seals are broken and the fullfilment is unleashed eventually. But all in God's time.

What I am trying to say is exactly what this scripture is saying.

1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

So there are reasons for sealing up the meaning and the fullfilment may not be what we expected. The same thing for the return of Elijah and how John the Baptist fulfilled that promise. For there was the physical man called Elijah, then the man John who came in the spirit of Elijah. But the disciples were expecting Elijah himself.

It's not as simple as we think, but yet it is all simple when we trust God and do what he says. It doesn't require exceptional intelligence to follow God, but what can be accomplised from being lead by God is greater than genius.

November 19, 2004 at 9:51 pm#4577

Participant

Nick,

If you discount the one OT passage, then the virgin birth is referenced in only two places in the entire NT: in the virgin birth accounts found in Matthew and Luke. (It is worth noting that these two accounts aren't necessarily conflicting, but they definitely present two completely different sets of facts.) No one else in the NT ever refers to it – not Paul, not Peter, not any of the disciples at any other point in Yeshua's life or afterwards. That makes the authenticity of those two accounts, and the prophecies that they reference, very critical to the foundation of the virgin birth doctrine. Nowhere else is it deemed important enough to even acknowledge.

T8,

I cannot dispute with your understanding of scripture. If the mind of God has revealed to you certain truths and convictions, I am in no place to question them. However, for myself, it is disturbing to note the many difficulties surrounding the virgin birth doctrine. Perhaps, I am coming at it from too much of an intellectual standpoint – (may God help me if I am) – but things just don't seem to be adding up for me. I will continue this study on my own, but do let me know if you uncover anything further yourself.

November 19, 2004 at 10:01 pm#4579

Participant

Hi,Whatistrue,
Why should God reveal all the truth about the virgin birth in the OT? What is wrong about concealing detail till the NT? God often does this just as the Jews were expecting a king instead of a servant caused them to stumble. If the fact that Mary was a virgin had been revealed earlier would it have caused controversy and difficult disputes about legitimacy? Or would it have caused problems for women who conceived out of wedlock or made it easier for Satan to cause mischief? Maybe God had His reasons?

November 19, 2004 at 11:10 pm#4582

Participant

I actually think that many of the prophecies of the OT are not spelled out that clearly for anyone to know the future. Rather when something happens like Christ doing miracles or John the Baptist baptizing people for repentance, then we can then read the OT scripture and see who they are.

Some scriptures are written so that when the event happens we recognise it for what it is. Other scriptures are specific enough to know the meaning before the event so we can be prepared or not fall into a trap.

Surely God is at liberty to choose for himself what a scripture will reveal and when. We cannot put a formula or rule in place because we are dealing not with a system, but a person or identity. In this case the Most High God of whom we cannot understand even from our own nature.

An example of this is Babylon in the book of Revelation. When read it seems that it can be two things.

1) A physical city like New York that will fall in the last days. Babylon is called “The Great City” seven times in these three chapters. New York is home to the UN and the biggest Stock Exchange so kind of fits that description. The recent attacks of New York could also lead one to believe that this is a taste of what is to come.
http://9news.com/newsroom/13294.html

2) Spiritual Babylon is a system that enslaves people into idolatory. The city in question could be Rome as it is the centre of the biggest religious system on earth. It directly controls over 1 billion Catholics and her doctrines (like the Trinity) also control many other Christians even non-Catholic. That is a huge influence.

It must be said that original city of Babylon was the New York of it's day regarding trade and commerce. But God judged Babylon for her idolatory and false gods, not her love of money (although love of money is a form of idolatory too).

In the end we will know for sure who Babylon is and that the scriptures prophecied her demise. Her identity is being revealed so we can come out of her. I see many prophecies that seem to have a physical explanation and a spirtual one too.

I think that the spirtual one is the one that God is trying to convey. With regards to the virgin giving birth, we appear to have a whole physical explanation for it, but if we look deeper…

November 20, 2004 at 12:41 am#4583

Participant

To Whatistrue,

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 19 2004,17:28)

Have you looked into this issue at all?

It could also be seen in the following way. Just as God fulfilled an OT prophecy with King Ahaz so he also did it in Christ.

Just as the sacfrificial lamb was crucified, so Christ became the sacrificial lamb. The Old is not done away with, rather it is fulfilled. Remember when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Yet God sacrificed his. A sort of pattern rather than a fulfillment.

So is Matthew actually using Isaiah 7 to say that this scripture is fulfilled, or is he using it as a pattern to what God is doing in with Christ? Is Matthew highlighting the 'young girl' part as saying that it means virgin or is he simply pointing out the 'Emanual, god with us' part.

Why can't the NT scriptures pertaining to Christ's mother's virginal status be enough. Do we need an OT reference? Would we even be discussing it or would there be any doubt to the validity of Mary being a virgin if Matthew simply did not use the Isaiah verse at all?

Perhaps Christians have traditionally read too much into this. The other gospel writers do not use this reference, only Matthew. Who knows why Matthew used it? Was it scriptural fulfillment or pointing out a pattern. If God did it then, he can do it now sort of attitude.

Quote

I cannot dispute with your understanding of scripture. If the mind of God has revealed to you certain truths and convictions, I am in no place to question them.

Either way I have no problem believing the New Testament scriptures and records regarding Jesus. I do not require an OT reference for all things that I believe. So whatever way Isaiah 7 is looked at, it won't affect this belief for me.

November 20, 2004 at 12:42 am#4584

Participant

To Whatistrue,

I also read the following from another website. I have rewritten it in order to condense what was said there.

Regarding the Matthew reference to Isaiah 7 and Christ, we also read the following in Isaiah. 9:6-7:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom

So it is possible that Isaiah 7.14 is actually talking about this 'larger than life' figure of chapter 9. A possible support for this view is in verse 14 which says a virgin should say 'the virgin' as the Hebrew definite article is used. If so, using this definite article denotes an unknown person or otherwise a name could be used if the person were known.

If this virgin is unknown to either Ahaz or Isaiah, then it is argued that it couldn't refer to Isaiah's wife or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for).

So some conclude that the prophecy is given not just in reference to Ahaz alone, but to 'the house of David'. The 'you' in v.14 is plural, and Ahaz is addressed as a representative of the line (whereas in 7.1-9, the phrase 'house of David' is described as 'Ahaz and his people', (v.2). The point here is that the message is addressed to a historically-larger group (i.e. the dynasty and lineage of David) rather than a simple 'local' fulfillment.

November 20, 2004 at 6:23 pm#4589

Participant

Nick and T8,

There is nothing wrong with God revealing something new, or bringing clarity to something old, by events or revelations in the NT. It is His perogative to operate as He will. However, in this case, it is the writer of Matthew, (or a subsequent scribe), who makes the OT a pertinent issue. A prophecy is quoted and then said to be fulfilled in the Messiah. That being the case, it seems to me that, after the fact, we should be able to look at the prophecy and understand how it has been fulfilled. Unfortunately, for me, the prophecy only makes the matter more confusing, rather than shedding any light on the situtation. Coupled with various other problems, a cloud of confusion begins to arise around the only places in scripture where the virgin birth is mentioned, as well as the virgin birth doctrine itself.

T8,

Quote

I also read the following from another website. I have rewritten it in order to condense what was said there.

Regarding the Matthew reference to Isaiah 7 and Christ, we also read the following in Isaiah. 9:6-7:

So it is possible that Isaiah 7.14 is actually talking about this 'larger than life' figure of chapter 9. A possible support for this view is in verse 14 which says a virgin should say 'the virgin' as the Hebrew definite article is used. If so, using this definite article denotes an unknown person or otherwise a name could be used if the person were known.

The only problem with this interpretation is that it still wrests the prophecy from its context. Isaiah 7:14 is one sentence out of the prophecy. The entire prophecy reads thusly:

Isaiah 7:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 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. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.

The prophecy is seamless. There is no gap between the first part, the birth of the child, and the last part, the destruction of the two kings. To apply it to the Messiah requires that you completely ignore the context, as their doesn't seem to be an apparent spiritual parallel either.

While we're still on the subject of the Matthew account, there is another issue about it that has been bugging me of late as well. Who are these magi, and what is the deal with the Messiah having a star in the sky to follow? As far as I can tell the word “magi” refer to magicians, or priests from a Persian mystery religion, and the whole idea of the Messiah having a star, again has no basis in the OT, but seems to have plenty of basis in astrology, and other mystery religion practices. In fact, the only passages I can find in scripture regarding this issue do not seem to speak highly of the concept.

Isaiah 47:
12 Keep on, then, with your magic spells
and with your many sorceries,
which you have labored at since childhood.
Perhaps you will succeed,
perhaps you will cause terror.
13 All the counsel you have received has only worn you out!
Let your astrologers come forward,
those stargazers who make predictions month by month,
let them save you from what is coming upon you.
14 Surely they are like stubble;
the fire will burn them up.
They cannot even save themselves
from the power of the flame.
Here are no coals to warm anyone;
here is no fire to sit by.

Amos 5:
25 “Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?
26 You have lifted up the shrine of your king,
the pedestal of your idols,
the star of your god Rephan –
which you made for yourselves.
27 Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the LORD , whose name is God Almighty.

Again, I would love to let the NT speak for itself on this matter, but the writer of Matthew, (or a later scribe), has made the OT an issue by how he chose to narrate the virgin birth account.

November 20, 2004 at 7:44 pm#4590

Participant

To WhatIsTrue,

Even if the prophecy was fulfilled in OT times, Matthew still could have pointed to that prophecy not as a fulfillment but a pattern. So that he could have been saying “just as the Lord did then, so he did now”. When Matthew quoted the scripture, did he actually say that it was a fulfillment?

I know a lot of christian writers that do this today. E.g. They might be talking say about freedom from oppression and they might quote Moses and the Exodus. This is not meant to imply that the scripture has become fulfilled but is used as a pattern only. It is a common practice even to this day. Perhaps Matthew was doing the same? Does it give a reason for him quoting that passage of scripture?

Also I have seen a lot of scriptures that refer to the Messiah in all sorts of places. E.g. in Psalm 22 we read about David and how he feels and somehow in that depressed expression is an amazing quote that seems prophetic regarding our Messiah.

Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
………….
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

When read in it's entirety it is obviously David's heart that is being expressed, yet Jesus said on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. This was probably true, but it also would have drawn attention to Psalm 22 for the hearers if they were familiar with the scripture and would have seen what was written as it happened. (In fact it was common practice to quote a Psalm and the reader to quote the rest of it. It was a way to remember scripture).

When you read that scripture it is not even obvious that it is a prophecy meant for the Messiah, yet Christ seems to have quoted it and the events are unfolding. Unless it was just a big coincedence?

November 20, 2004 at 9:53 pm#4592