Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

I have wandered onto this site by pure chance, but the debates unfolding here seem to be quite interesting. I have only one real question, although I couldn't seem to find a related subject in which to post it.
Why do creationists have such a problem believing in evolution? Could it not simply be a tool of God, or gods, or whichever you prefer? After all, when humans build something they need to first construct or find suitable tools to enable them to complete the job. Could not evolution serve just such a purpose for a supreme being?This message has been edited by Med Wards, 01-06-2005 11:42 AM

Welcome Med Wards. We're glad you found your way here.You ask some good questions but they really are off topic in this thread. Can I suggest that you look over the links at the bottom of this message, spend a little time checking out the posts in Post of the Month, and if you still haven't found a suitable thread, simply copy your message and post in in Proposed New Topics.

---

Good Grief! Did you actually read the whole story?The child was NOT to be born to Ahaz!The word "almah" is an old discussion. Get to the meat of the story. Now both verses say they shall call his name Immanuel, but when we read these verses: God didn't say to name the child Immanuel.Think about it. They shall call his name Immanuel, which means God is with us. Since God had Isaiah name his child Maher-shalal-hashbaz, God did not intend the child to be named Immanuel; and since God had Joseph name his son Jesus, God did not intend for him to be named Immanuel.So what is the point of Immanuel?IMO, it is someone or group calling out "God is with us."The NT does not show us that this phrase was uttered by anyone during the life of Jesus.As I pointed out earlier, the rest of the sign for Ahaz, or House of David if you prefer, does not point to Jesus or a messiah in the distant future.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hi Purple, I believe that this is viewed as 'God with us' in purpose rather than God with us in the flesh.God was with Ahaz in his quest to defend Judah and not literally in his company.Immanuel can be found in Isaiah 8, as the son of the prophetess, whom many commentators believe is the 'virgin' referred to in chapter 7.Brian.

I'm not convinced that the two children are intended to be the same.However the two prophecies follow the same form and we may reasonably conclude that what applies to one applies to the other.Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means "Quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil" (NIV) yet his name refers to events that happens before he is old enough to say (the Hebrew equivalent of) "daddy" or "mummy". At that age he is not going to toddle off to loot Damascus and Samaria !It follows then that the names are symbolic of what Isaiah says will happen. The name "Immanuel" means that child is a sign that God will be with Judah. It does not mean that the child is literally God any more than Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means that that child will literally loot the enemy capitals.

Hey Brian and PaulK,Thanks for reading the post.

quote:

---

I believe that this is viewed as 'God with us' in purpose

---

That's the way I understand it. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed when it came to writing it down.I'm trying to understand why it was put in the story the way it was, since the boy was given a different name.Trying to see the reality behind its purpose.Thanks again

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

purpledawn, A question how come we call Jesus the Christ, or Jesus Christ? It should be quite obvious the Christian Churches call him Jesus Christ, because he is both Jesus (son of man) & Emmanuel (God the Son).Its refering to the diety of Christ as the Son of God, that he came from the bosom of the Father. (kjv John 1:18) You can not throw out the Gospel of Matthew because its inferring that Jesus is also called Emmanuel.kjv Mat 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.G1694
Ἐμμανουήλ
Emmanouel
em-man-oo-ale'
Of Hebrew origin [H6005]; God with us; Emmanuel, a name of Christ: - Emmanuel.The name of the Lord is important because as many as receieve him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, "even to them that believe on his name".kjv Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

So Brian, are you saying that the Jews did not believe in a flesh and blood Messiah but merely a Messianic kingdom concept whereby everyone has a feelgood inner spirit?

Tom,Your answers and questions give me the impression that your Bible knowledge is based more on dogma and tradition (D&T) than research beyond D&T. I don't feel that you truly wish to understand the reality of the Bible stories or their authors. If you haven't noticed, I am not a proponet of D&T.The discussion of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew have been discussed in this forum many many times before. There is a whole thread on the Book of John.Instead of discussing my answers, you merely throw another verse at me. Try to understand Isaiah 7:14 from a Jewish perspective.Learn more about Judasim to get a better understanding of the purpose of the Jewish Messiah.If you do not wish to know any more than what D&T provides you, that is your choice, but personally, I don't have the time to restate what Jewish and Christian scholars already understand.I haven't found anything that supports Christian apologetics concerning this subject. Unless you have something new and more concrete than the same old apologetics, we really don't have anything else to discuss.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

HI Phat,The jews believe in a flesh and blood messiah and that he will free Israel from her enemies.The Immanuel in 7:14 is not a messiah, the passage is not about a messiah at all. It is about the birth of a boy as a sign that the alliance against Ahaz will fail.Cheers.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-07-2005 11:58 AM

The Words of the Lord are pure words, and no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. If no prophecy is of private interpretation. This means Gods Words are just that Gods Word.kjv Psalms 12:6 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.kjv Psalms 12:7 - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.kjv 2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.Isaiah 8:13-18 The Word says I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. It says he is hiding his face from the House of Jacob. It says to bind up the testimony and seal the law among my diciples.13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Tom, this is well and good, but when discussing and debating, we need to share our personalities and reasons with others who do not believe as we do. Quoting scripture will neither impress nor convert anyone.

AdminPhat, I guess I was getting a bit carried away in the Word to explain why I believed what I believe. I just don't feel it would matter what I said. In part because it appears the Isaiah testimony in the Old Testament appears bound. Isaiah chapter 8 talks of being as a stumbling block to the Jews, and the unbeliever. Its quite interesting how its is actually in agreement with the times of the Gentiles.Personally I learned a whole lot discussing this thread about the geneologies of Jesus Christ. I suppose I've been told this many times over by pastors. (you have to come up with the scriptures why you believe what you believe). Its like I now understand better what I believed, based on what scriptures.I've pretty much explained why I believe what I believe, so have not much else to contribute. While I believe the word used for virgin is the more correct word used feel its use likely might have something to do with in part the binding of this testimony.If I get a chance to talk to a pastor who has actually studied the Word as a believer. This might be a good question to ask someone like Hal Linsey, Pastor Cole, or even a Pat Robertson. I'd even respect Jerry Falwells input. This message has been edited by Tom, 01-07-2005 17:39 AM

It sure is cool how this forum just came out of no where. It's not like people got together and designed it. That would be persposterous. Everyone knows that over billions of years when they had computers that long ago, that ligthing struck it in just the right sequence to binarily write it. Yep, cool things nature can do uh?

Oddly enough you proved my point. You threw out verses and don't even realize what you are saying with them.Quoting two songs adds nothing to the mix.

quote:

---

kjv 2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

---

God was the source of the writing. So do you agree that we should take the words as written in their entirety as God had each author write them?Do realize that it is Isaiah speaking in verse 18? This confirms that his son (the one born of the young woman) was the sign.If you believe the words are from God then read all the words.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.