Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 121 of 304 (661626)
05-08-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
05-08-2012 7:42 PM


Re: Then you're a fraud and a poser:
Uh, no, I do not rely on either the authorship or accuracy of Isaiah, rather I rely on what is actually written.
And of course I have shown the alleged prophecies to be unreliable. Once again I refer you to Message 3, Message 6 and Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? where you will find actual evidence and not just fantasy and supposition.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-08-2012 7:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 122 of 304 (673546)
09-20-2012 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
12-18-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
It's obvious that Isaiah is speak of what will happen immediately. Further Jesus was not named Immanuel.
This appears a very superfiscial complaint.
1.) Now if YOU don't want to call Jesus "God with us" that's your choice. We Christians see that as your unbelief in the believable and even obvious. Jesus acted like God with us.
2.) It is too superficial to say "they never named Jesus Immanuel".
This name is a discription of how Jesus lived. It is not a matter of what was written on His municipal family records.
In all history no one like Jesus more qualifies to be a candidate of "God with us." You may argue. But the western world has divided world history by a line indicating before Christ came and the remaining years which are His.
All I really hear you saying is that you wish that God is not with us and never was.
A few of us have thought if anyone quaified to be God among human beings or better God as a human being - it is Jesus. So effectively He is called Emmanuel - God with us.
Now, folks may have some ground to say Isaiah's prophecy seems to indicate someone more immediate. I would not argue against that. But I would argue that Jesus clearly said that He was the greater one of a number of Old Testament personalities. In other words Christ is the greater David (Matt. 12:1-4), the greater Jonah (Matt.12:40,41), the greater Solomon (Matt. 12:42), and even the real temple as the house of God itself (Matt.12:6) .
Christ is the antitype of a number people who were real but symbols or types of a greater One to come. This One to come would be like them, only greater.
Based upon the prinicple that all the positive figures of the Old Testmanent are pointers to the greater One to come - Christ, we ascertain Christ is the greater Hezekiah too.
Now an "Argument from Authority" is not necessarily a argument for something not true. It is just not as rigoruosly robust argument in man's philosophical academia.
That the prophecy of the virgin bringing forth a child refers to the virgin birth of Christ is proclaimed by the apostle. That is authority enough for the Christian and settles the matter.
It may not be a rigorously logical argument "Argument from Authority". But it is not necessarily wrong. And in the last analysis men must out their trust in someone. Christ's approvedness persuades that His Gospel is worthy of our trust and He was the fulfimment of the prophecy.
Bottom line - we are well advized to believe Jesus is the virgin born miracle Savior and also God with us - God become a man.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-18-2011 4:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 09-20-2012 11:13 AM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 123 of 304 (673571)
09-20-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jaywill
09-20-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
Don't give me that "We Christians" shit, it just won't fly. If you want to say that Your Chapter of Club Christian wishes to try to play word games to fake a fulfillment, then that is fine.
But the child Jesus was NOT named Immanuel.
And sorry, but after the fact claims of fulfillment don't mean much either unless it stands up to examination. As so often is the case you are starting with "... the prinicple that all the positive figures of the Old Testmanent are pointers to the greater One to come..." is a great example of what is known as "confirmation bias".
The fact is that once again you must resort to quote-mining, taking pieces-parts out of context.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2012 7:59 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 8:38 AM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 124 of 304 (673763)
09-22-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
09-20-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
Don't give me that "We Christians"
Zerubbabel in the book of Zechariah was refered to as "My servant the Branch [or Shoot]" (Zechariah 3:8) . This doesn't mean that when people saw him on the street they necessarily called out "Mr. Branch, could we have a word with you?"
He was the Branch or the Shoot by God's prophetic announcement.
Jesus is God with us. Jesus is Immanuel. And in the end of Matthew's Gospel He says that He is "with us" all the days until the consummation of the age.
"And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20)
Sorry if God is not with you, jar. I would be lying if I said that God is not with us "club" members who have received Jesus. But God is with us. Which brings me to an important point.
You apparently still have not noticed that the Bible is a book always working to bring people into contact with God subjectively. If some of us receive the subjective encounter with God we are really using the Bible as it was intended to be used.
You on the other hand misuse the Bible completely. You use the Bible to fortify yourself AGAINST any subjective experience of God. You labor throughout your whole life to grasp the Bible in order to PUSH the subjective experience of God out of your life and as far away from you as possible.
So you want to use the Scripture to make sure God is not with you in any possible way. Its a temporary game. And your "club" is in for a bitter disappointment.
And sorry, but after the fact claims of fulfillment don't mean much either unless it stands up to examination.
You don't have to muster up any empty apology to me.
Christ is not only God with us because He has dispensed the Holy Spirit into us. Christ is Immanuel - "God with us" in light of the fact that He is become a man - So God is with us.
God has put on human nature in Christ. He is with us.
So the "club," or whatever you'd like to refer to us as, experiencers whose eyes have been opened to see the truth, know the truth.
As so often is the case you are starting with "... the prinicple that all the positive figures of the Old Testmanent are pointers to the greater One to come..." is a great example of what is known as "confirmation bias".
It is an example of what Christ Himself taught us after His resurrection:
"And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)
So Jesus took the lead to your "confirmation bias". He's trustworthy.
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25)
You, jar are REALLY REALLY "SLOOOOOOOOW of heart". In fact you may never make it to believe.
The fact is that once again you must resort to quote-mining, taking pieces-parts out of context
This is still a Bible Study. If you don't want to get into the QUOTES of the Bible then you're in the wrong forum.
And I will continue to quote mine. The reason you don't see me as much over on something like "Faith and Belief" is because I respect that over there it is more about philosophical argumentation.
But this here is BIBLE STUDY. So we QUOTE the Bible in order to STUDY, guess what?, the Bible.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 09-20-2012 11:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-22-2012 10:10 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 09-22-2012 2:05 PM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 304 (673770)
09-22-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jaywill
09-22-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
There is a difference between quoting and quote mining.
What you do is quote mining, taking a small section out of context to force support for some dogma of your Chapter of Club Christian.
What you do with Isaiah is to actually manufacture after the fact fulfillment.
Jesus was never named Immanuel.
In addition, Jesus did not meet the rest of the quote from Isaiah as I have pointed out to you many times.
The passage from Isaiah where you mine the quote regarding being named Immanuel points not to Jesus but to a child that was contemporary.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 8:38 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 5:02 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 126 of 304 (673774)
09-22-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jaywill
09-22-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
jaywill writes:
Jesus is God with us. Jesus is Immanuel.
You're thinking in circles. You've decided that Jesus is God with us so Isaiah must have been talking about Him. That's like saying that the epistles of John talk about Obama because Obama is the antichrist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 8:38 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 4:19 AM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 127 of 304 (673778)
09-22-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
09-22-2012 10:10 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
There is a difference between quoting and quote mining.
What you do is quote mining, taking a small section out of context to force support for some dogma of your Chapter of Club Christian.
It tends to be like this, when the quotation supports the skeptic's unbelief, why it is quoting. When the quotation supports the Christians belief in the plain teaching of the Bible, then it is "quote mining."
What you do with Isaiah is to actually manufacture after the fact fulfillment.
If the skeptic's complaint is that the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah does not seem to be about Jesus Christ, I can sympathize somewhat. But I do not offer full sympathy.
You see God had told the Jews that He would dispense the truth to them line upon line and here and there a little -
"Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he instruct with the report? ... For his words are line upon line, line upon linel Here a little, there a little ... But they would not hear. Therefore Jehovah's word to them will be: Rule upon rule, rule upon rule; Line upon line, Line upon line; Here a little, there a little. That they may ggo and stumble backword and be broken, snared, and taken." (See Isaiah 28:10-13)
God warns that as a discipline He will impart truth to the nation as pieces of a puzzle - here a little and there a little.
This is a way under the providence of the Spirit of God. You not only have the overwhealming testimony of Jesus. But you have the confirming lines here and there - accumulating and not always so clearly laid out in one place.
Had we only this jigsaw puzzle manner in which God speaks, we might be justified to disbelieve in the Son of God. However, accompanying this mysterious procedure we have the bright shinning life of Jesus against which you really have no vald argument.
So, while may be few have come to know Christ based solely on Isaiah 7:14 ( I know of no case ), the followers of Jesus certainly welcome the passage as a prophetic confirmation.
Jesus was never named Immanuel.
I think this is a logical fallacy of "Absence of proof is proof of absence." It is entirely possible that plenty of people called Jesus Immanuel and there is just no written record of it.
Being without a record of Him being called Emmanuel is not your proof that He was never called such.
And I still stand by what I wrote before. The prophecy that He will be called Immanuel is not a teaching that someone who does NOT believe in Christ will be forced to call Him Emmanuel.
Where I meet we do call Christ Immanuel. We especially refer to Him as Immanuel when we are praying for Israel. We lift up our voices in prayer and speak of "the land of Immanuel." So I know you are wrong that Christ was never called such.
In addition, Jesus did not meet the rest of the quote from Isaiah as I have pointed out to you many times.
It is true that the passage has limited application to Christ. I don't argue against that because God did say "here a little, there a little; Line upon line, line upon line."
So we lovers of God were given a "heads up" that the truth would sometimes be imparted to man in this way.
The passage from Isaiah where you mine the quote regarding being named Emmanuel points not to Jesus but to a child that was contemporary
The problem here is that it is the New Testament Apostolic writer of one of the Gospels, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that tells us that that is the meaning of the passage.
We do not regard Matthew's Gospel as an error prone faulty commentary on the book of Isaiah. We regard Matthew as the oracles of God, inspired Scripture, in exactly the same manner as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, the prophets ... etc.
I am not sure if you regard ANY book of the Bible as the inspired word of God. Matthew is a book on the same level of authority as Genesis or Exodus.
We absolutely submit to the apostolic utterance - "Now all this has happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with chold and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (Which is translated God with us). And when Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him." (Matt. 1:22-23)
Now this interpretation was apparently given supernaturally by an angel to Joseph as he slept. I would not be surprised at all if it was also expounded by Christ.
Now had you or Ringo been Joseph, you may have argued with the angel and demanded that he stop "quote mining" from the prophets. I can hear you now -
"No, no. That passage about the virgin has already been fulfilled. And it has nothing to do with my wife having a baby. Sorry. You'll have to come up with something better than that."
Thank God Joseph awoke and did not question as far as we know. Yet it says that he obeyed the command and "...he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus."
Joseph made sure that she remained a virgin for the miracle to take place. Interestingly, it says he called the child Jesus. I don't think he was doing that in disobedience.
"And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus ..." (v.21) So Mary and Joseph shall call His name first of all - Jesus. However, He will also be called Immanuel. In fact Jesus was called many things. And Jesus is still called many titles -
Prince of Peace, Prince of Life, Friend of Sinners, Good Shepherd, Great Physician, the Door, the Lord of Sabbath, the Amen, our Elder Brother, the Lamb of God, The First and the Last, Wonderful Counselor, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rose of Sharon, the Lilly of the Valley, etc.
So lovers of Jesus have called the Son of God many things including Emmanuel and much more.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-22-2012 10:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 09-22-2012 5:11 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2012 7:59 PM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 128 of 304 (673779)
09-22-2012 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jaywill
09-22-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
That's called the theology of anything that can be misrepresented and taken out of context.
Sorry but you offer nothing convincing. You are still simply trying to justify pulling pieces parts out of context to justify YOUR beliefs instead of dealing with what was actually written. It is dishonest and simply diminishes the worth of the Bible.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 5:02 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 129 of 304 (673782)
09-22-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jaywill
09-22-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
I think this is a logical fallacy of "Absence of proof is proof of absence." It is entirely possible that plenty of people called Jesus Immanuel and there is just no written record of it.
Ah yes that silly argument. The reverse is not true. The absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. To think it is, is the height of ridiculousness.
Using your argument people could have called him Biff Rocco too. Or how about Muhammad? There is no evidence but it is entirely possible.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2012 5:02 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 3:56 AM Theodoric has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 130 of 304 (673790)
09-23-2012 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Theodoric
09-22-2012 7:59 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
Ah yes that silly argument. The reverse is not true. The absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. To think it is, is the height of ridiculousness.
Your argument appears more silly to me. Christ is reigning forever. That is eternity. How do you know that through the everlasting ages He will never be universally sung as Emmanuel ?
You don't know. But you assume He is not God. Face it. Your complaint is totally based on unbelief.
Actually your claim that Christ was never called Emmanuel is really unfalsifiable. When He is called that it is heard by those who use the title and by God. The prophecy only said He will be called Emmanuel and not that you will always thus hear it.
And if you don't want to hear it and tend to stay away from those who would be likely to call Him that, that's no argument for you.
Since 1974 I have been in a number of meetings in which Christ was refered to as Emmanuel. If you stayed away from those meetings, that's no proof for your view.
There is a classic hymn which has been sung for probably over a centry - "Hark the Herald Angels Sing." That song sung by millions has a line in it refering to "Jesus Our Emmanuel"
If you don't like to sing that song, that's no proof of your opinion that He was not called Emmanuel.
Verse two of that hymn reads:
"Christ, by highest heav'n adored,
Christ , the everlasting Lord:
Late in time behold Him come,
Offspring of a virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail th' incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
Jesus our Immanuel."
Now that is a popular Christmas charol which one source says first appeared in 1739. Even though many of us do not celebrate Christmas, we do sing the hymn. And I am pretty sure millions around the English speaking world sing it at least once a year. And then you could add the people who sing it in translation to some other world language.
So right there you have millions around the world refering to Jesus as "our Immanuel" and subsequently fulfillment of the prophecy.
Using your argument people could have called him Biff Rocco too. Or how about Muhammad? There is no evidence but it is entirely possible.
You can call Christ Biff Rocco if you wish. The problem is that there is no PROPHECY stating that He will be called Biff Rocco. But there IS one predicting His being called Immanuel.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2012 7:59 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 09-23-2012 8:36 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2012 1:02 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 131 of 304 (673791)
09-23-2012 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by ringo
09-22-2012 2:05 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
You're thinking in circles. You've decided that Jesus is God with us so Isaiah must have been talking about Him. That's like saying that the epistles of John talk about Obama because Obama is the antichrist.
I disagree. The concept of Jesus being God incarnate starts with the man Jesus and how He LIVED, how He acted, how He spoke and rose from the dead.
His personality initiated the belief in us that He is God with us. So the beginning of the so called circle is the testimony born by the man from Nazarath - Jesus.
It should be obvious that MOST (if not all) of the believers FIRST believed His person. Then after His resurrection He opened their minds to understand that the law and prophets and psalms had spoke of Him.
But whether believing before His acts (as one priest and prophetess or John the Baptist or Joseph and Mary) or those believing after His 3 year ministry including His death and resurrection, both groups believed because of revelation from God.
John 6:44 - " No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up in the last day."
Millions of us refer to Jesus as Emmanuel when we sing the second verse of the hymn "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" which first appeared in 1739.
And how do you know that after you have gone off to your reward, whatever it may be, that in eternity He will not be praised as Emmanuel here on earth and among the galaxies for eternal ages?
So you have no case. "To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom." (Isa. 9:7)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 09-22-2012 2:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 09-24-2012 12:33 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 132 of 304 (673797)
09-23-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by jaywill
09-23-2012 3:56 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
But there IS one predicting His being called Immanuel.
No there isn't. You have provided nothing that shows this. All you have are things taken out of context and shoe horned into your beliefs.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 3:56 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 6:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 133 of 304 (673802)
09-23-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jaywill
09-23-2012 3:56 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
You can call Christ Biff Rocco if you wish. The problem is that there is no PROPHECY stating that He will be called Biff Rocco. But there IS one predicting His being called Immanuel.
Yes, but if there was a "prophecy" stating that you'd call him Biff Rocco, then you would call him Biff Rocco, thus making the "prophecy" true. You'd be writing things like: "There is a classic hymn which has been sung for probably over a centry - "Hark the Herald Angels Sing." That song sung by millions has a line in it refering to "Jesus Our Biff Rocco"." Well, it's not a real prophecy if you have to go out of your way to fulfill it.
But besides that, it doesn't fulfill the prophecy. Isaiah says that the woman who bears the child shall name him Immanuel. Well, she didn't, did she? It doesn't say "centuries later someone will write a hymn calling him Immanuel", it says: "therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel."
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 3:56 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 134 of 304 (673809)
09-23-2012 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Theodoric
09-23-2012 8:36 AM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
quote:
No there isn't. You have provided nothing that shows this. All you have are things taken out of context and shoe horned into your beliefs.
" ... and they shall call His name Emmanuel."
In context, and a prediction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 09-23-2012 8:36 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-23-2012 6:18 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2012 6:22 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 135 of 304 (673810)
09-23-2012 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jaywill
09-23-2012 6:10 PM


Re: Let's look at them in order.
Sorry but that is another example of misrepresentation.
Do you see the ellipsis in your quote?
If they are there it is NOT in context.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2012 6:10 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024