Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 166 of 304 (674007)
09-25-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jaywill
09-25-2012 4:49 PM


Isaiah 7:14 says the child is born and the mother will call His name Emmanuel. It doesn't have to mean the two events happened on the same day or even in the same year.
It just says she will call Him that. And Matthew modifies it somehwhat that "THEY" will call Him that.
I see no failed prophecy here. I admit that strictly speaking we don't see her calling Him Emmanuel at birth or latter.
You admit that you don't know if the prophecy as stated in Isaiah 7:14 is literally fulfilled at any time, but maintain that the modification as stated in Matthew is accurate.
But is any part of Matthew prophecy about Jesus as messiah, given that it was written after the birth and resurrection? I don't understand in what sense post-resurrection statements given in full knowledge of Isaiah can be prophecy, even if those statements are literally the Gospel truth.
You seem to be assuming that people who question whether it can be shown that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfilled prophecy are also questioning whether Jesus is the messiah. Well I, for one, don't question Jesus status as the messiah. Jesus is the Christ. But the question for this thread is a far narrower one. Namely whether we can find a fulfilled scripture identifying Jesus as the Messiah. In my view, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a fulfilled prophecy.
Matthew, on the other hand, is evidence that Jesus disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah. That's good enough for me. I don't care about the mismatch with Isaiah at all; except for the need to tell the truth in this thread.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 4:49 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 9:03 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 167 of 304 (674016)
09-25-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by NoNukes
09-25-2012 6:11 PM


You admit that you don't know if the prophecy as stated in Isaiah 7:14 is literally fulfilled at any time, but maintain that the modification as stated in Matthew is accurate.
You don't seriously expect me to believe that Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 because no passage of the NT records Mary addressing Him as Emmanuel ?
You don't, with a straight face, expect me to disqualify Christ as the Messiah on those grounds, do you? Somehow, when I imagine one of you skeptics confronting me face to face about this "No calling of Emmanuel" issue I vision someone to be barely concealing a mischevious grin.
This is a kind of "Gotcha!" attempt to thwart disciples of Jesus. I have said a number of times that the Emmanuel calling I don't read in the NT.
All things considered, do you seriously expect that this omission constitutes a failure of fulfillment of Christ to be the Messiah?
As for the difference between Isaiah and Matthew's reference, I have yet to study up on that.
quote:
But is any part of Matthew prophecy about Jesus as messiah, given that it was written after the birth and resurrection? I don't understand in what sense post-resurrection statements given in full knowledge of Isaiah can be prophecy, even if those statements are literally the Gospel truth.
The angel that spoke with Mary did not check to see what the New Testament had said about it, you know? Are you expecting that someone was beside the bed of hay as she gave birth penning down the Gospel?
I think that this little comment of Luke's gospel may be indicative of the fact that Mary helped the Gospel writers or Peter by recalling the things of her experience -
"But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19)
Probably after years of pondering, she assisted the evanglists by recounting the details of her mothering this extraordinary Person.
quote:
You seem to be assuming that people who question whether it can be shown that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfilled prophecy are also questioning whether Jesus is the messiah.
In some cases some people might hold to Him being the Messiah without agreeing with the prophetic nature of Isa. 7:14. They probably were gotten hold of by the more theologically liberal branches of academia.
You know, even though we don't read of the calling of Emmanuel, we are given considerable more detail about the virgin birth - ie. Luke 1:36-38; Matt. 1:18-25.
quote:
Well I, for one, don't question Jesus status as the messiah. Jesus is the Christ. But the question for this thread is a far narrower one. Namely whether we can find a fulfilled scripture identifying Jesus as the Messiah. In my view, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a fulfilled prophecy.
Do you mean that neither the virgin birth nor the calling of Him as Emmanuel, you think He fulfilled ?
Do you mean you have a Son of God whose physical father was Joseph who begot Him?
quote:
Matthew, on the other hand, is evidence that Jesus disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah. That's good enough for me. I don't care about the mismatch with Isaiah at all; except for the need to tell the truth in this thread.
Well, I think that God is not sloppy in His communicating His word to man. He is precise about the number of hairs on our head. Why should I think He is loose about Him giving us His word?
If there is a little difference between "She shall call His name" and "They shall call His name" I trust it is absolutely under the sovereignty of God. I will study the difference. But I have seen little differences like this before.
My opinion is that they are not a test to God. They are a test to man. Such a slight difference, I think, is totally under the sovereign providence of God. And it may be His way to expose us.
Some of us are experts at missing the point. Now, the "they" of Matthew must include the "she" of Isaiah.
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 166 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2012 6:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2012 9:17 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 172 by ramoss, posted 09-25-2012 11:27 PM jaywill has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 304 (674018)
09-25-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
09-25-2012 9:03 PM


You don't seriously expect me to believe that Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 because no passage of the NT records Mary addressing Him as Emmanuel ?
You may accept that Mary did call him Emmanuel. You may even be right. But there is no evidence in scripture that she did so.
You don't, with a straight face, expect me to disqualify Christ as the Messiah on those grounds, do you?
I don't disqualify Christ as a Messiah on those grounds, and I would not expect a Christian to take that position. That's a completely different issue than whether you can demonstrate that Isaiah 7:14 is prophetic.
All things considered, do you seriously expect that this omission constitutes a failure of fulfillment of Christ to be the Messiah?
I answered this question in my post. You could not possibly have read it and still not know the answer to this question. It does not constitute a failure.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 9:03 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 9:30 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 169 of 304 (674020)
09-25-2012 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
09-25-2012 9:17 PM


I answered this question in my post. You could not possibly have read it and still not know the answer to this question. It does not constitute a failure.
I think I was writing response as I was reading along. If I recall correctly, AFTER I wrote this question, I DID notice that you said you did not disqualify Christ as the Messiah.
Rightly or wrongly, I often past comments up and read and comment as I go.
Now. I would like to know if you also think Jesus was not born of a virgin. What do you think ? Yes? No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2012 9:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2012 10:22 PM jaywill has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 304 (674027)
09-25-2012 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jaywill
09-25-2012 9:30 PM


Now. I would like to know if you also think Jesus was not born of a virgin. What do you think ? Yes? No?
I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I accept also that on the third day Jesus rose again from the dead. Is there a OT prophecy that tells us to expect such a virgin birth? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 9:30 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 11:06 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 171 of 304 (674032)
09-25-2012 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by NoNukes
09-25-2012 10:22 PM


quote:
I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I accept also that on the third day Jesus rose again from the dead. Is there a OT prophecy that tells us to expect such a virgin birth? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.
Here's the relevance in my mind, at least.
You believe Jesus was born of a virgin, presumably because Matthew and Luke tell you so. Correct me if I am wrong. I know of no other place in the New Testament saying that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Yet curiously you do not believe the same Gospel of Matthew when it tells you that such a birth was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.
This seems curiously selective to me. If you cannot trust Matthew that - "Now all this happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (which is translated, God with us)" (Matt.1:22), how can you trust Matthew on the virgin birth?
Could you help me out here? If you don't trust Matthew on the detail of the prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 how is it you trust Matthew that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary ?
How can you trust Matthew that Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1-15)?
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 170 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2012 10:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2012 6:21 PM jaywill has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 172 of 304 (674034)
09-25-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
09-25-2012 9:03 PM


You don't seriously expect me to believe that Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 because no passage of the NT records Mary addressing Him as Emmanuel ?
No, Jesus failed to fullfill the prophecy o f Isaiah 7:14, because , if you read the 'prophecy' in context, Isaiah not only identified the woman as his wife, he identified the child as his own son, and the prophecy was a timer from the time he was conceived to the time he was old enough to know evil. .. (I.e. probably about 2 or 3).. The sign was to King Ahaz, and the prophecy was 'Before that child knows evil, the king of Assyria will get his butt kicked' (paraphrased).
So, it wasn't about Jesus, because the prophecy was more than a half a millennium too early.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 9:03 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jaywill, posted 09-26-2012 12:06 AM ramoss has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 173 of 304 (674035)
09-26-2012 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by ramoss
09-25-2012 11:27 PM


quote:
No, Jesus failed to fullfill the prophecy o f Isaiah 7:14, because , if you read the 'prophecy' in context, Isaiah not only identified the woman as his wife, he identified the child as his own son, and the prophecy was a timer from the time he was conceived to the time he was old enough to know evil. .. (I.e. probably about 2 or 3).. The sign was to King Ahaz, and the prophecy was 'Before that child knows evil, the king of Assyria will get his butt kicked' (paraphrased).
So, it wasn't about Jesus, because the prophecy was more than a half a millennium too early.
I do not account Matthew to be mistaken on these grounds. Matthew didn't say that anything of the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, but specifically these words - "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel ..."
"Now all this happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel ...".
Matthew stops right there. The fulfilling of the words of Isaiah do not encompass the words that you include.
I agree with you that the actual fulfillment of all the words that you included was the birth of Isaiah's son by Isaiah's wife (8:3).
This calls for a kind of dual fulfillment because ultimately the words singled out by Matthew, he says, were fulfilled in Jesus's birth. Now you are free to disbelieve Matthew. I believe Matthew.
I think this way of thinking is legitimate because it occurs elsewhere that a Scipture has a dual reference. David and Christ shared some passages in a dual way.
Now while some may complain that this is contrived or not fair, I think God has the authority to fulfill His will in this manner. At least Jesus taught that He was:
More than David as the kind of ultimate David (Matt. 12:1-5) . David and his followers ate the bread reserved for the priests only. Jesus transcends David who was a prefigure of Jesus.
More than Jonah (12:41). Jesus transcends Jonah who was a prefigure of Jesus.
More than Solomon (12:42). Jesus trancends Solomon who was a prefigure of Jesus.
In the same principle Jesus transcends Isaiah's son. Isaiah's son also being a prefigure of Jesus.
Now the words that you quote in Isaiah 7 from verse 15 through 17, Matthew does not include as words being fulfilled in the event of Jesus's birth.
So I think we have #1 - dual prophecy of which the more important occurance refers to the Son of God.
And #2 - a portion of the words of Isaiah's total prophecy being fulfilled in the birth of the Son of God.
Now while we may not like this manner in which God brings to pass things said by the prophets, I believe that we have to allow for God having the sovereign authority to act in this manner should He want to.
If I do not accept this rationale then I have to opt for saying the apostle Matthew is giving some kind of erroneous commentary on the book of Isaiah. But I think the writer of Matthew is rather writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I would add this. God seems not to want to COERCE belief from man. God seems not to want to bludgeon us into believing. In His way of prophecy it seems He often leaves the doubter an escape hatch to disbelieve.
It is as if God is saying "Here is the fulfillment of My prophet's words. But if you really don't want Me, here is a little side door for you to slip out with your own free will. Here's a little descrepancy - "she will call" verses "they will call". Here's a little escape hatch for you - Isaiah's son is the reference, Jesus is the final reference.
If you really don't want to believe Me, I will not force you against your will. I even leave for you a little escape hatch to duck out with your disbelief intack."
So it is with perhaps ANY prophecy. If you really want to hunt out a reason not to accept His word, He will even furnish a little escape route to slip away in your self chosen unbelief.
He will not usurp your free will. He woos your love and trust which you are ever free to refuse Him if you wish.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ramoss, posted 09-25-2012 11:27 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ramoss, posted 09-26-2012 6:59 PM jaywill has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 304 (674149)
09-26-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jaywill
09-25-2012 11:06 PM


Yet curiously you do not believe the same Gospel of Matthew when it tells you that such a birth was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.
An interesting and not unreasonable argument. But I think it fails.
The problem is that we can all see that Matthew's text describes a prophecy that does not match Isaiah 7:14. If indeed Isaiah 7:14 is accurate, then Matthew does not literally describe the prophecy from Isaiah.
More importantly, I would argue that you are misreading what Matthew actually says. I'll quote verses prior to and including Matthew 1:23 here to add some important context.
quote:
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.
Note that the actions taken in verses 1:18-1:21 (and in my mind including also the genealogy described in 1:1-1:17) are the actions referred to in 1:22 as "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled", i.e. the actions that confirm the words of the prophet quoted in 1:23. But those actions only include naming the child "Jesus" and not Emmanuel.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jaywill, posted 09-25-2012 11:06 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 12:15 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 175 of 304 (674160)
09-26-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jaywill
09-26-2012 12:06 AM


quote:
I do not account Matthew to be mistaken on these grounds. Matthew didn't say that anything of the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, but specifically these words - "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel ..."
First of all, this shows the dishonesty of Christians, since the term 'Almah' does not mean virgin. It means 'young woman of marriageable age'. That is strike one.
The second part is this shows how the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was probably not matthew btw) wrote TO a phrase to try to attribute it to Jesus. This tactic can be shown to be dishonest if you actually READ Isaiah 7:14 in context. I am sure that most honest people know what 'context' means.. It means looking at the phrase in conjunction to the surrounding sentences.. and if you read Isaiah, Isaiah specifically mentions WHO the woman is , and WHO the child is. The woman is his wife (see Isaiah 8:3-4), and his son. .. (Isaiah 8:19 confirms this).
This shows a passage that was written TO, rather than taken FROM. An after the fact retrofitting of a passage in the Jewish scripture by the NT authors is NOT scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, but rather evidence of deception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jaywill, posted 09-26-2012 12:06 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 12:04 AM ramoss has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 176 of 304 (674186)
09-27-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by ramoss
09-26-2012 6:59 PM


quote:
First of all, this shows the dishonesty of Christians, since the term 'Almah' does not mean virgin. It means 'young woman of marriageable age'. That is strike one.
The skeptic hopes to lay hold of a word which would mean "anything BUT a virgin." Almah is not that word. It can be claimed to mean something else beside a virgin. It cannot be insisted upon that it could never mean virgin.
Copied with permission from Christian Think Tank
quote:
"The Hebrew text says almah (the virgin) suggesting that a definite woman is in view. The Hebrew word almah is used seven or nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26 [1 Chron. 15:20 and the heading of Ps. 46 are uncertain]) and is the only Hebrew word which without qualification means a mature young woman of marriageable age, but unmarried and presumably a virgin. In Song of Sol. 6:8 the word stands in contrast with queens and concubines, and in Prov. 30:19 the way of a man with an almah contrasts the infatuation of youthful love with the infatuation of an adulterous woman (v. 20). Some have suggested that the word bethulah would more accurately suggest a virgin, but this term sometimes requires a qualification such as neither had man known her so that it cannot merit serious consideration as a quasi-technical term for virgo intacta [The Emmaus JournalV8 #1Sum 99 David J. MacLeod]
"The translation virgin (alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is bethulah.' Of the nine occurrences of 'alma' those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the "alamoth ' contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, `alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, 'so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'. [Motyer, Isaiah]
Some 200 years before the New Testament was written Greek translators used for Isaiah 7:14 a word [parthenos] which almost always meant virgin. This document refered to as the LXX.
They could not have been enfluenced by a bias to uphold Christian doctrines which did not yet exist.
quote:
"The LXX renders the word by parthenos which almost always means "virgin." Yet even with this word there are exceptions: Genesis 34:4 refers to Dinah as a parthenos even though the previous verse makes it clear she is no longer a virgin. This sort of datum prompts C.H. Dodd ("New Testament Translation Problems I," The Bible Translator 27 [1976]: 301-5, published posthumously) to suggest that parthenos means "young woman" even in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. This will not do; the overwhelming majority of the occurrences of parthenos in both biblical and profane Greek require the rendering "virgin"; and the unambiguous context of Matthew 1 (cf. vv. 16, 18, 20, 25) puts Matthew's intent beyond dispute, as Jean Carmignac (The Meaning of parthenos in Luke 1. 27: A reply to C.H. Dodd, The Bible Translator 28 [1977]: 327-30) was quick to point out. If, unlike the LXX, the later (second century A.D.) Greek renderings of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 prefer neanis ("young woman") to parthenos (so Aq., Symm., Theod.), we may legitimately suspect a conscious effort by the Jewish translators to avoid the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14." [EBCNT]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ramoss, posted 09-26-2012 6:59 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 12:40 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 1:51 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 195 by ramoss, posted 09-28-2012 7:44 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 177 of 304 (674261)
09-27-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by NoNukes
09-26-2012 6:21 PM


The problem is that we can all see that Matthew's text describes a prophecy that does not match Isaiah 7:14.
In essence you're claiming -
"Matthew has made a false statement. It is not true." That is why I asked why do you trust Matthew on history if Matthew cannot be trusted on the fulfilling of the "that which was spoken" ?
I think a kind of slippery slope problem is introduced by your concept. One miracle you will accept - the miracle of a virgin birth.
The other miracle you reject - that prophetic words spoken by an Old Testament prophet could be fulfilled in this birth.
If indeed Isaiah 7:14 is accurate, then Matthew does not literally describe the prophecy from Isaiah.
Now we have another problem. Isaiah may be mistaken as well.
1.) The fulfilling of the words spoken by Isaiah are suspect.
2.) The words spoken by Isaiah are questionable to begin with.
I think you are on a slippery slope here. I think that you are still holding to a virgin birth of Jesus. But doubt may soon gobble up that NT teaching as well eventually, at this rate.
Anyway, I am glad that you do apparently believe in a virgin birth and a resurrection of Jesus.
More importantly, I would argue that you are misreading what Matthew actually says. I'll quote verses prior to and including Matthew 1:23 here to add some important context.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the actions taken in verses 1:18-1:21 (and in my mind including also the genealogy described in 1:1-1:17)
Well, I notice the two important bounbary points -

Verse 18 - "Now the origin of Jesus Christ was in this way: ..."
Verse 22 - Now all this has happened so that what was spoken ..."
These two verses seem to me the boundary expressions, if you will, delineating the specific match up Matthew is explaining.
I probably would regard the verses from 1 - 17 as merely additional historical evidence mainly supporting verse 1 - "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
In my Recovery Version the outline is helpful -
Matthew 1:1 - 2:23 is under the editor's heading " 1. The Kings Antecedents and Status."
Under that a subsection of Matthew 1:1-17 headed as " A. His Genealogy and Office - Called Christ".
Then the next subsection is Matthew 1:18-25 headed as " B. His Origin and Name - Born a God-man, Named Jesus, Called Emmanuel by Men"
At present I think I would regard Verse 22 - "Now all this has happened" to specifically refer to the events recorded and commented by verse 18 - "Now the origin of Jesus Christ was in this way ..."
are the actions referred to in 1:22 as "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled", i.e. the actions that confirm the words of the prophet quoted in 1:23. But those actions only include naming the child "Jesus" and not Emmanuel.
I am not sure I follow you fully. "Now all this was done" can contain additional things not specified by the prophetic words.
I take the explanation as "all this" (and some) was foretold to come to pass by the Lord speaking through the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:14.
The naming of the child Jesus by the parents is not specifically mentioned by what the Lord spoke through the prophet in Isaiah 7:14.
That detail does not mean that "what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled" is a false statement. It is only that addition extra detail, albeit not specifically uttered by Isaiah.
It is only with "tongue in cheek" mischeviousness I could suggest this matter to qualify a failed prophecy - scrapping at the bottom of the skeptical barrel.
The detail of Joseph being instructed to name the child "Jesus" didn't change Jesus being born of a virgin.
Again, Jesus is the name that the angel directs Joseph to call the child -
"an angel of the Lord appeared to him [Joseph] in a dream, saying, Joseph ... and you [Joseph] shall call His name Jesus ..." (v.21)
This detail about the angel instructing Joseph in not something the words of Isaiah 7:14 predict will happen. I don't regard the additional detail about how Christ was born to constitute a "failed prophecy" or mismatch of Matthew's history and Isaiah 7:14.
A virgin DID bear a son.
Now the other part about what THEY will call the child.
The name Jesus is the name the parents are directed to call the child.
The name Emmanuel is what this Person will be called by people. I take this to be, as a result of experiencing the life of Jesus some people, including His mother, will confess that God is with them.
First He will be God with us, I think, to "His people" - " ... it is He who will save His people from their sins." (v.21)
I think the FIRST people to call Him Emmanuel are the people who experience Jesus saving them from their sins. Those who do not believe that they have sins and therefore have no need of salvation, may not call Jesus "God with us."
"God with us" is a declaring of praise and thanksgiving. Those groaning and chiding under the existence of Jesus are far less motivated to confess that Jesus is "God with us".
Actually, "all this has happened" includes another prophecy - that is that "He will save His people from their sins" . I do not seriously count this detail having no corresponding detail in Isaiah 7:14 to constitute a failure of prophecy. What I see is a prophecy, a fulfillment, and in the details of that fulfillment ANOTHER prophecy.
Well, you have God instructing Joseph (and wife) to NAME the child Jesus. You have in prediction that the child will be called Emmanual. The former is what God commanded the child to be named.
The latter is what man will call this Person.
The calling ones who refer to Him as Emmanual will include His mother. It does not seem mandatory that He is called Emmanual before the revelation of His power and ability as God is manifested. I think the ones who take the lead to call Him Emmanual are "His people" who are saved from their sins.
I don't think those persecuting Him wanted to admit or believe that He was "God with us". Eventually they did or will have to acknowlege Him as God. Whether he is God with them depends upon their receiving Him or not subjectively.
At most all I can say is there is a slight difference in "she will call His name" (Isaiah) and "they shall call His name" (Matt.)
I already commented on this. My belief is that there is no need to tap the Holy Spirit on the shoulder and educate God that He made a slight misquote. I believe God is 1,000,000 % sovereign over this difference for His own reasons.
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.
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 174 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2012 6:21 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 178 of 304 (674265)
09-27-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
09-27-2012 12:04 AM


jaywill writes:
It cannot be insisted upon that it could never mean virgin.
So you have a word that could possibly in some cases mean virgin and a vague speculation that Mary might occasionally have called Jesus Immanuel. Coulda-would-shoulda is hardly "scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah".
I could point out that nowhere does Treasure Island explicitly deny that Long John Silver is the Messiah, therefore he is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 12:04 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 1:13 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 179 of 304 (674270)
09-27-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by ringo
09-27-2012 12:40 PM


So you have a word that could possibly in some cases mean virgin and a vague speculation that Mary might occasionally have called Jesus Immanuel. Coulda-would-shoulda is hardly "scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah".
Why do you think the Greek speaking scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible around 200 BC used for Isaiah 7:14 a word parthenos, which almost always means virgin?
Christ had not even been born one way or another when these 70 scholars were doing their translation work.
I may get around to discussing modes of prophecy fulfillment. But you might read again the story of Joseph in Genesis.
You might also one day read carefully the books of First and Second Kings paying attention to how God fulfilled words of prophecy. Some of us pay attention to these things. God has laid a lot of ground work in the OT. His way and manner is revealed in many places in anticipation to the coming of the main focus of the Bible - the Christ.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 12:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 1:49 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 1:54 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 183 by GDR, posted 09-27-2012 2:15 PM jaywill has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 304 (674271)
09-27-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jaywill
09-27-2012 1:13 PM


Why do you think the Greek speaking scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible around 200 BC used for Isaiah 7:14 a word parthenos, which almost always means virgin?
"Almost always"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 1:13 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