Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 304 (674273)
09-27-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
09-27-2012 12:04 AM


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.
I guess that's why no-one ever said so except the imaginary people who live in your head. Yes, "Almah" does not imply that the woman in question is not a virgin. That's why no-one said that it did.

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 192 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2012 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 182 of 304 (674274)
09-27-2012 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jaywill
09-27-2012 1:13 PM


jaywill writes:
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?
Why were the Greek translators specific when the Hebrew text is not? It seems a bit presumptuous to translate "car" as "Cadillac Eldorado" doesn't it? Are you suggesting that the Greek translators knew something that wasn't written in the Hebrew text?
In any case, the word almah refers to a young woman who didn't have any children at the time the prophecy was given. It doesn't suggest that she would still be a virgin when the child was born.
Edited by ringo, : pelling.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 3:10 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 183 of 304 (674278)
09-27-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jaywill
09-27-2012 1:13 PM


The trouble with your whole approach Jaywill is that your belief is based on an inerrant Bible. The faith is Christianity, which is based on the belief that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. His resurrection essentially confirmed His message and so we should pay attention to what He had to say. What you are espousing would be better called Biblianity rather than Christianity.
Jesus did not preach an inerrant Bible. Even in His teaching on divorce He says that Moses told you one thing, (He did not say that God said it or that the Father said it but that it came from Moses), and then He said but this is how it really is.
I absolutely agree that God speaks to us through the scriptures but not in the way that you use it. He gave us reason for a reason. In Numbers we read that Yahweh commanded the Israelites to stone to death someone for picking up wood on the Sabbath. Prostitutes are also supposed to be stoned to death. In the Gospels we have Jesus debating with the Pharisees about the Sabbath and saying that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way around. He talked to prostitutes and others about repentance and forgiveness. Does this sound to you like the same god?
As Christians we should understand the Bible as the imperfect story of an imperfect people through the lens of the teachings of Jesus. We should not be trying to understand the Bible as the perfect story of an imperfect god.
So then you will say ask how we know to trust what the Bible tells us of what Jesus said and did. Firstly I would say that we have to use our God given gifts of prayer and reason. We should read a variety of Christian scholars and theologians who have in many cases devoted their lives to their work. However, in the end it is about faith. Do we have faith that God, the one who Jesus called Father is the God of love, mercy, forgiveness and justice that can be found throughout the entire Bible or do we have faith that God is sometimes that and sometimes vengeful, condemning, and manipulative that can be found primarily in the OT?
The thing about being a Christian is that we don’t have all the answers by a long shot. I suggest that we are afraid to admit that, and as a result we often try to treat the Bible as book of absolute certainty rather than a book that gives us guidance.
I suggest that Jesus knew His scriptures inside and out. Through His understanding of those scriptures and through revelation from the Father he saw Himself as the fulfillment of those scriptures. With that knowledge He would do things like ride a donkey into Jerusalem in order to make His point that He was the Messiah. Sure that was a fulfillment of prophesy but Jesus was awareof the prophesy and so He consciously fulfilled it. I just don’t see getting hung up on the point of always trying to justify the view of an inerrant Bible. I suggest that we should be paying attention to what the Bible has to tell us and get on with reflecting God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, peace and justice to a world that desperately needs it, in anticipation of the time when God will renew all of creation.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 3:48 PM GDR has replied
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2012 10:39 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 184 of 304 (674282)
09-27-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
09-27-2012 1:54 PM


In any case 200 years before His birth, unbiased experts in translating Hebrew to Greek must have thought "Hmm. Parthenos is the word we need here."
Usually - virgin. As far as they were concerned they were reading something that had long since been fulfilled.
Much latter in the Greek NT we have male usage of parthenos used for the "virgins" in Revelation 14:4 - "they who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 1:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 3:37 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 196 by ramoss, posted 09-28-2012 8:07 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 185 of 304 (674285)
09-27-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jaywill
09-27-2012 3:10 PM


jaywill writes:
In any case 200 years before His birth, unbiased experts in translating Hebrew to Greek must have thought "Hmm. Parthenos is the word we need here."
They seem to have believed that the word was appropriate at the time the prophecy was given. "That girl over there will have a child and by the time he knows right from wrong, the prophecy will be fulfilled."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 3:10 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 5:40 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 186 of 304 (674286)
09-27-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by GDR
09-27-2012 2:15 PM


His resurrection essentially confirmed His message and so we should pay attention to what He had to say.
A lot more is made of His resurrection in the New Testament, then His virgin birth, I think.
Paul has belief in His resurrection as a requirement of salvation - "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)
However, the virgin birth proves that He was qualified to be the Messianic descendent of David to sit upon David's throne. Had Joseph actually been His physical father, He would have been disqualified to be the Messiah. That's another story.
What you are espousing would be better called Biblianity rather than Christianity.
Neither terms sound very good to me.
I trust the Bible. I do not worship it.
And I love Christ. The attached "anity" means a lot of things to a lot of different people.
Jesus did not preach an inerrant Bible.
But what about this? The only Bible that they had at that time was the Hebrew Bible. This was refered to as Scripture. And Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
I think this may go into a discussion about innerant - what exactly is meant ? But this sound like Jesus taught a ultimately authoritative Hebrew Bible -
"Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass." (Matt. 5:18)
Even in His teaching on divorce He says that Moses told you one thing, (He did not say that God said it or that the Father said it but that it came from Moses), and then He said but this is how it really is.
I'll have to go back and look at that.
Initially, I don't see any problem my understanding of innerancy in this. God had His perfect will. God made allowances for man's weakness with His permissive will.
I am a little rushed right now.
I absolutely agree that God speaks to us through the scriptures but not in the way that you use it. He gave us reason for a reason. In Numbers we read that Yahweh commanded the Israelites to stone to death someone for picking up wood on the Sabbath. Prostitutes are also supposed to be stoned to death. In the Gospels we have Jesus debating with the Pharisees about the Sabbath and saying that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way around. He talked to prostitutes and others about repentance and forgiveness. Does this sound to you like the same god?
I think this will drift too far from the matter of fulfilled prophecy. So I will not get too deep into this right now.
As Christians we should understand the Bible as the imperfect story of an imperfect people through the lens of the teachings of Jesus. We should not be trying to understand the Bible as the perfect story of an imperfect god.
Imperfection and being God are incompatible to me.
But the poster who said s/he could believe in the virgin birth as Matthew said, but not in what he said about the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, I did not condemn as a non-believer.
I only asked him to consider the problem of doubting one detail of Matthew but accepting him on other detail.
Now when I first came to the NT, I had a huge filter. Eventually I was persuaded that the whole thing falls or stands together.
I have to go.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by GDR, posted 09-27-2012 2:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by GDR, posted 09-28-2012 7:38 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 187 of 304 (674295)
09-27-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ringo
09-27-2012 3:37 PM


They seem to have believed that the word was appropriate at the time the prophecy was given. "That girl over there will have a child and by the time he knows right from wrong, the prophecy will be fulfilled."
It is not much of a "sign" for a girl to have a kid.
I can hardly imagine that that was the only child born to a woman before the invasion of the Assyrians to Israel's enemies occured.
Now God said to Ahaz that he should ask for a sign and "make it as deep as Sheol, or make it as high as high can go." (v.11)
Now that sound like God wants to give a profoundly significant and powerful sign. Ahaz, in some kind of humility, refuses. God gives him a sign any way.
My thought is now "If God challenged Ahaz for a sign as either as deep as Shoel or as high as high can go, then why would God then give him an easy sign?"
I mean a mother giving birth to a child, who in its infancy, an invasion of Israel's enemy land will take place, is not that unusual. Maybe the quickness of the fall of their enemies was near miraculous.
But there is another alternative thought. God, transcending time and viewing all world history before Him, knows what is on His heart to perform - becoming a man Himself and being born of a virgin.
Someone may object that that was not a profound and deep sign which Ahaz witnessed. Perhaps not then. But in the scheme of eternity it is a sign for Ahaz to learn of some time.
So Ahaz gets a sign of Isaiah's son (8:3). But I think God also tacked on a dual meaning, with forethought, not afterthought. And that sign is exceedingly profound, exceedingly deep, exceedingly high - God Himself becomes incarnated miraculously through a virgin one day.
So I totally have to reject the cries of "Matthew is shoe horning false prophecies in a dishonest way." Rather God, through Isaiah, is speaking words which He knew then, (He knew in eternity past) He would fulfill in the incarnation of Christ.
You see, the other prophecy of Micah said the Ruler over Israel was to come from Bethlehem but His going forth was from ETERNITY. So the whole idea of God meandering through miscellaneous actions in a improvisational way, is unrealistic.
He knew what He was going to do - to come forth from eternity into the world, ... He KNEW even before the creation, let alone before the birth of Ahaz. This was the real sign as deep as Shoel and as high as high can go (that is an infinite distance).
These words also may suggest the death - descent and resurrection and ascension of this God-man Emmanuel.
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 185 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 3:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 6:11 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 10-01-2012 2:47 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 188 of 304 (674298)
09-27-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by jaywill
09-27-2012 5:40 PM


jaywill writes:
It is not much of a "sign" for a girl to have a kid.
The sign is the fall of the enemies. God knocks 'em down to show that He can; then He sets 'em back up if you don't take the hint and behave yourself. That's real life. That's more profound than some vague possibility centuries in the future.
The birth of the child just gives the timing. Why do you keep ignoring that? The birth of the child is tied to specific historical events.
jaywill writes:
But I think God also tacked on a dual meaning, with forethought, not afterthought.
The thread is about scriptural evidence, not your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 5:40 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2012 9:29 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 189 of 304 (674376)
09-28-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by ringo
09-27-2012 6:11 PM


The thread is about scriptural evidence, not your opinions.
That has a nice authoritative sound to it. But on this thread I reserve the right to give my opinion about evidences and any other related matter to the topic.
I don't demand that you don't give your opinion. Which is all that you jon, jar, Dr. Adaquate, have been doing incedently.
The sign is the fall of the enemies. God knocks 'em down to show that He can; then He sets 'em back up if you don't take the hint and behave yourself. That's real life. That's more profound than some vague possibility centuries in the future.
What is "real life" is a matter of your big fat opinion.
Real life for a lot of us is the virgin birth of Christ and that knowing Him we came to know God.
Speak for yourself about "real life".
The birth of the child just gives the timing. Why do you keep ignoring that? The birth of the child is tied to specific historical events.
What I keep ignoring and will continue to ignore is your phony authoritativee tone that you know the evidence points to some failed prophecy.
The evidence points to something greater than Isaiah's child being born and Assyria hastling king Ahaz's enemies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 6:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 1:28 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 190 of 304 (674377)
09-28-2012 9:42 AM


I've been reading up on the life of king Ahaz. An interesting man. He was one of the worst, if not the worst of the kings of Judah. He burned children in the valley of Hinnom to the god Molech. Child sacrifice was usually resorted by Jewish kings to in extreme national desperation. Terrible!
He was desperate to seek help everywhere except in God. For Ahaz God simply was not available (seemingly so he thought), not around. The more things happened to prompt him to turn to divine help the more stubburn and self willed he became. And the worldly help that he did trust in seemed to disappoint and backfire on him. Tis interesting indeed.
I can see now that God wanted to impress Ahaz that God was with them. Thus the name "Emmanuel" designated to the child to be born.
Now those who divorce this conversation between God and Ahaz from grander spiritual and moral issues of the world, are morally shortsighted. The greater problem is that the human race at large has become like Ahaz, sinking deeper and deeper into withdrawing from seeking God and His help.
Some shallow thinkers see only a dubious god's concern for the Assyrians at issue. Those with better insight into the whole tenor of the Bible realize to see that "God with us" is the salvation of mankind as a whole, realize how a dual prophecy could take place.
It is interesting that the abominable Ahaz (or Jehoahaz) bad as he was, was mentioned in the geneology of Jesus Christ. This indicates to some of us that the grace of God swallows up the most intractable sin and rebellion of men.
I am now more convinced than ever that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 does have ultimate fulfillment in the virgin birth of Christ.
"Thanks Matthew for letting us know."
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.

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


Message 191 of 304 (674382)
09-28-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by GDR
09-27-2012 2:15 PM


GDR,
I absolutely agree that God speaks to us through the scriptures but not in the way that you use it. He gave us reason for a reason. In Numbers we read that Yahweh commanded the Israelites to stone to death someone for picking up wood on the Sabbath.
We should remember that there were also the sins offering and trespass offering. I think therefore that immediate execution was probably not the only course of action.
Don't forget that in all this strictness you also have the atoning and redemptive offerings.
Prostitutes are also supposed to be stoned to death. In the Gospels we have Jesus debating with the Pharisees about the Sabbath and saying that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way around. He talked to prostitutes and others about repentance and forgiveness. Does this sound to you like the same god?
It is the same God indeed. Have you forgotten the mercy shown to the harlot Rehab and her whole household ? That is in the book of Joshua about the fall of Jericho.
God did not, therefore, wait until the New Testament to show His empathy and compassion on the wayward woman. Rehab sought God and God's people. And quite a record was reserved for her in the Hebrew Bible as an example to all.
As Christians we should understand the Bible as the imperfect story of an imperfect people through the lens of the teachings of Jesus. We should not be trying to understand the Bible as the perfect story of an imperfect god.
I understand the imperfect people. God however, by definition is right and righteous eternally so. The Bible is about how He can redeem us and transform us and conform us in His salvation until we match Him.
The Bible closes with a marriage of these saved formerly imperfect ones and the perfect God - Bridegroom and Bride. Marvelous!
So then you will say ask how we know to trust what the Bible tells us of what Jesus said and did. Firstly I would say that we have to use our God given gifts of prayer and reason.
Of course we should. And we should be renewed in the mind so that our reasoning is with a renewed mind.
" ... be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2)
And since this is a PROCESS I see no reason why on the way, we [wouldn't] have some doubts and misconceptions about His word.
We should read a variety of Christian scholars and theologians who have in many cases devoted their lives to their work.
Sure. But I think we should heed Paul's warning about God's economy or dispensation which is in the realm of faith and divine love-
" ... the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith; From which things some [teachers] having misaimed, have turned aside to vain talking ..."
Some teachers want to teach how to disbelieve the word of God. I am into teaching people how to believe the word of God.
God's economy is in the realm of faith. Some teachings - " ... produce questionings rather than God's economy which is in faith." (1 Tim. 1:4)
Priorities with me are asking first - "What was it that was really written?" Sometimes Christian teachers may teach people to strongly believe something, but it was not really WRITTEN that way.
Once I determine what is written, I look to God to teach seekers how to believe what was written. And I spend some time on places like this to defend why I believe such.
However, in the end it is about faith.
That is true because God has chosen the way of faith in order to wrought and work Christ into our lives (literally):
"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (Eph. 3:17)
Faith is the means God has chosen to dispense Himself into man. I am not sure why. Perhaps because lack of trust was what plunged man into all the problem to begin with. Perhaps faith is something which leaves man nothing to boast of in himself.
Do we have faith that God, the one who Jesus called Father is the God of love, mercy, forgiveness and justice that can be found throughout the entire Bible or do we have faith that God is sometimes that and sometimes vengeful, condemning, and manipulative that can be found primarily in the OT?
Like Paul I say there is the "kindness and severity of God". That is not a false dichotomy between the two. That is both attributes of God are manifested-
" Behold then the kindness and severity of God ... " (See Romans 11:22)
The thing about being a Christian is that we don’t have all the answers by a long shot.
I totally agree. I believe though that we have the answer to whether or not Jesus ultimately fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. He did.
I suggest that we are afraid to admit that, and as a result we often try to treat the Bible as book of absolute certainty rather than a book that gives us guidance.
Since I know that we do not have all the answers, I am not afraid to admit it. I don't think that even the Apostle Paul leaves us with the impression that he had no questions left in his own heart about some things.
I suggest that Jesus knew His scriptures inside and out. Through His understanding of those scriptures and through revelation from the Father he saw Himself as the fulfillment of those scriptures.
I think Jesus may have expounded Isaiah 7:14 as Matthew His discple related it to us. I don't know that.
Either way, I believe Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. If the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write that about the fulfilling of the words, that is also God telling him so. I'll believe it.
You can make your choice.
With that knowledge He would do things like ride a donkey into Jerusalem in order to make His point that He was the Messiah. Sure that was a fulfillment of prophesy but Jesus was awareof the prophesy and so He consciously fulfilled it.
I was trying to show that that sometimes happened, to another poster.
But unless Jesus is God, His arranging to be born in Bethlehem, was impossible. So I think He arranged somethings - as a man. And He arranged some things - as God.
Jesus is the mingling of God with man - of man with God.
Jesus is the union of the infinite with the finite - the created with the Creator. Marvelous !
I just don’t see getting hung up on the point of always trying to justify the view of an inerrant Bible.
I am giving my reasons for not doubting that Matthew was right about Christ being the Emmanuel and the virgin born Savior. I am not easily lying down and letting some skeptics walk over me.
Ask Ringo if he believes in ANY prophecy fulfillment of ANY kind in the Bible.
Ask one of the other career skeptics here if they believe that ANY prophecy of ANY kind in the Bible was fulfilled.
By the way, at first glance, it seems that the child Isaiah had was named by him, at God's command - Maher-shalalhas-baz (Isaiah 8:3) .
No passage saying he was Mr. Emmanuel. However the land of Israel is spoken as Emmanuel's land (8:8).
Now God's land (God with us's land) should not be being run over by the idol worshipping heathen Assyria or Babylon or Rome. So the land of Emmanuel MUST have a more meaningful fulfillment in someone beside Isaiah's kid.
Jesus Christ must be the greater Emmanuel as the Messiah under whose feet all the enemies of God are defeated. So Isaiah 7:14 HAS to point to a greater one than Isaiah's kid.
Incidently, since Isaiah took witnesses and went into the prophetess to have the child (8:3) that child could not have been born of a woman in virginity.
The greater "Maher-shalalahas-bazz" has to be Jesus. This is just like He is the greater Jonah, the greater Solomon, the greater David, the greater temple, etc.
I suggest that we should be paying attention to what the Bible has to tell us and get on with reflecting God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, peace and justice to a world that desperately needs it, in anticipation of the time when God will renew all of creation.
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 183 by GDR, posted 09-27-2012 2:15 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 192 of 304 (674386)
09-28-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 1:51 PM


I guess that's why no-one ever said so except the imaginary people who live in your head. Yes, "Almah" does not imply that the woman in question is not a virgin. That's why no-one said that it did.
Over many years now, people who jump on the almah issue hope to make the argument that its the wrong word for VIRGIN.
Now over the years some have fine tuned the complaint because of Christian apologetics. There is no need to talk about "imaginary people" with imaginary motives.
I think God is entirely sovereign over what word was used. Now if Almah cannot be insisted upon to be physical virginity that would account for both Isaiah's going into the prophetess to produce the child AND Jesus virgin birth having been a dual fulfillment of those words (Isa. 7:14).
"And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. And Jehovah said to me, Call his name Maher-shalalhas-baz." (8:3)
Now with Jesus, Mary had not yet had sexual relations with a man.
So the word almah not exclusively indicating physical virginity confirms the possibility of dual prophecy.
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 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 193 of 304 (674399)
09-28-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by jaywill
09-28-2012 9:29 AM


jaywill writes:
I don't demand that you don't give your opinion. Which is all that you jon, jar, Dr. Adaquate, have been doing incedently.
Nonsense. It has been shown that your claims are factually wrong. The prophecy specified that the child was to be named Immanuel by his mother, not by others. That is fact. The mother was a young woman (maybe a virgin) at the time the prophecy was given, not at the time of the birth. That is fact.
You're welcome to give your opinions but by the definition of the topic, they fail as evidence of fulfiled prophecy.
jaywill writes:
What is "real life" is a matter of your big fat opinion.
Real life for a lot of us is the virgin birth of Christ and that knowing Him we came to know God.
Speak for yourself about "real life".
On the contrary, I'm speaking for the people that the prophecy was given to. I'm talking about what was a momentous event with profound consequences for them. The prophecy was about a sign for them, not a sign for you.
jaywil writes:
What I keep ignoring and will continue to ignore is your phony authoritativee tone that you know the evidence points to some failed prophecy.
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the prophecy failed or not. I'm only interested in it from a logical point of view. I have no more vested interest in its success or failure than I do in Hamlet's fate. It would have been nice if he and Ophelia had lived happily ever after but I'm not going to mangle the story just to suit my own preferences.
I'm curious why you cling to such a bad example when there are suppoedly so many others. Surely you can come up with something better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2012 9:29 AM jaywill has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 194 of 304 (674428)
09-28-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by jaywill
09-27-2012 3:48 PM


Does it really matter?
jaywill writes:
A lot more is made of His resurrection in the New Testament, then His virgin birth, I think.
Absolutely. Jesus’ birth plays a minor role in two of the Gospels and isn’t in the epistles at all. The resurrection is the sole reason for the rise of the early church.
jaywill writes:
Paul has belief in His resurrection as a requirement of salvation - "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)
Let’s look at that in context. The verses right ahead of that (Romans 10: 1-8) say this.
quote:
1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:
Paul is clear here, as in many other places in his epistles that we aren’t to judge or worry about who wind up where, but that our faith is about the word of God living in our hearts. The word of God is not the Bible. The Bible itself says that the word of God is in Jesus. Paul also writes this in Romans 2.
quote:
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Paul is saying that God’s word can live in the hearts of people who naturally follow the law. Even Jesus said that he came for sinners. This is from Matthew 9.
quote:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth."Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Your faith essentially makes it all about what it is that you believe or more accurately, what you give intellectual assent to. I suggest that is why you feel that it is so important to make the case for the fulfillment of all the prophesies. Just read through what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. It isn’t about belief. It is about the heart. This is Matthew 7.
quote:
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Again it is about the heart. The message of salvation is actually a side issue, and again, both Jesus, (again in Matthew 7,) and Paul tell us that we aren’t to judge who winds up where.
jaywill writes:
However, the virgin birth proves that He was qualified to be the Messianic descendent of David to sit upon David's throne. Had Joseph actually been His physical father, He would have been disqualified to be the Messiah. That's another story.
That doesn’t really make sense. In the first place He was to be from the line of David through the father and as you have just said Joseph wasn’t His biological father. More importantly though, Jesus preached a specific message which was vindicated by God the Father through the resurrection. It is the resurrection that justified His messianic claim. Yes, I believe in the immaculate conception but it isn’t important to my Christian faith. It is my belief in the resurrection as an historical event that is the basis of Christianity. Without the resurrection Christianity is very much like other world religions.
jaywill writes:
Neither terms sound very good to me.
I trust the Bible. I do not worship it.
And I love Christ. The attached "anity" means a lot of things to a lot of different people.
However, you have faith in an inerrant Bible. What happens to your faith in Christ if you could no longer believe in an inerrant Bible?
jaywill writes:
But what about this? The only Bible that they had at that time was the Hebrew Bible. This was refered to as Scripture. And Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
Sure. It is what it is. That doesn’t mean it’s inerrant.
jaywill writes:
I think this may go into a discussion about innerant - what exactly is meant ?
A discussion on inerrancy is essential if we are looking at prophesy and its fulfillment. We have to understand the nature of the text.
jaywill writes:
But this sound like Jesus taught a ultimately authoritative Hebrew Bible -
"Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass." (Matt. 5:18
But Jesus was the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets. All through His ministry He clarified and corrected the ancient Scriptures.
GDR writes:
As Christians we should understand the Bible as the imperfect story of an imperfect people through the lens of the teachings of Jesus. We should not be trying to understand the Bible as the perfect story of an imperfect god.
jaywill writes:
Imperfection and being God are incompatible to me.
I agree. The point was that if we understand a perfect Bible the picture we get is of an imperfect God.
jaywill writes:
I only asked him to consider the problem of doubting one detail of Matthew but accepting him on other detail.
Now when I first came to the NT, I had a huge filter. Eventually I was persuaded that the whole thing falls or strands together.
That pretty much makes my point. Your whole faith stands on an in inerrant Bible. My faith stands on Jesus being the incarnation of God and that the message He espoused is to be the foundation of my life, regardless of whether the Bible is inerrant or not.
jaywill writes:
We should remember that there were also the sins offering and trespass offering. I think therefore that immediate execution was probably not the only course of action.
Don't forget that in all this strictness you also have the atoning and redemptive offerings.
This is the whole point. With an inerrant Bible you are left in the position of trying to justify a god who would call His people to go out and stone someone to death for picking up some fire wood on the Sabbath. If you want to worship a god like that then so be it. I worship the God that I see in His incarnation who completely repudiates that message.
The story is very clear. It doesn’t talk about another course of action. They are to take the poor guy out of town and stone him to death.
jaywill writes:
It is the same God indeed. Have you forgotten the mercy shown to the harlot Rehab and her whole household ?
God did not, therefore, wait until the New Testament to show His empathy and compassion on the wayward woman. Rehab sought God and God's people. And quite a record was reserved for her in the Hebrew Bible as an example to all.
That’s my point. In one part of the OT we have God saying that prostitutes should be stoned to death and in another part he shows mercy. Does this all sound like the same perfect god?
jaywill writes:
I understand the imperfect people. God however, by definitiong is right and righteous eternally so. The Bible is about how He can redeem us and transform us and conform us in His salvation until we match Him.
The Bible clo ses with a marriage of these saved formerly imperfect ones and the perfect God - Bridegroom and Bride. Marvelous!
Fine, however it doesn’t take an inerrant Bible to do that. In fact, it doesn’t require a Bible at all. Two points though. As I said earlier both Jesus and Paul tells us not to judge who is to be saved and secondly, I don’t think that either you or I are going to be matching Him anytime soon.
jaywill writes:
And since this is a PROCESS I see no reason why on the way, we have some doubts and misconceptions about His word.
Why do you call the Bible his word with that understanding. Yes God speaks to us through the Bible but that does not mean that it has in essence been dictated by God. Jesus was the Word of God. Word is used to denote God’s essence in the world. I’m quite happy to use the term for the Bible as the word of God but not the Word of God.
The early Christians only had the Hebrew scriptures and most of the Gentile followers wouldn’t have even had that. It has only been in the last few centuries that the BIble was in any way accessible to the vast majority of Christians. Please explain to me why it is that now, it is important that the Bible be inerrant.
jaywill writes:
" ... the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart amd pit pf a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith; From which things some [teachers] having misaimed, have turned aside to vain talking ..."
Amen to that, but the question is faith in what. I suggest that that the faith is in the message of love that we hear from Jesus, and that isn’t restricted to those who hold particular theological views.
jaywill writes:
Some teachers want to teach how to disbelieve the word of God. I am into teaching people how to believe the word of God.
Fine, but my thought is that you are teaching people the wrong way to believe in the word of God.
jaywill writes:
I think Jesus may have expounded Isaiah 7:14 as Matthew His discple related it to us. I don't know that.
Either way , I believe Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. If the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write that about the fulfilling of the words, that is also God telling him so. I'll believe it.
You can make your choice.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the entire OT, including all of the laws and the prophets. The original Abrahamic covenant was that the message was for the world. God spoke through the imaginations, minds and consciousnesses of the early Jews. In the written accounts it is obvious that some of what they wrote could well have been inspired by a loving god but also a great deal of what was written couldn’t have been. All of it is culturally or personally conditioned. In Jesus we can understand how that was fulfilled in a way that no one understood ahead of the event.
I guess my main point is that it isn’t crucial whether or not the virgin birth was supernaturally prophesied or not. (It does seem strange that the virgin birth or more accurately the virgin conception is only in the 2 gospels and not mentioned by Paul. Interestingly enough it is in the Qur’an. It does seem a bit of a stretch to tie Jesus to the Davidic line through Joseph and then tell us that Joseph isn’t the actual father.)
I go further and say that the virgin birth isn’t important to the Christian faith. However, Jesus certainly did seem to have a divine understanding of the scriptures. He was able to separate the wheat from the chaff in the scriptures in a way that was vindicated by God through His resurrection. The ancient Jews did have a fore-shadowing of the incarnation in their temple. The Temple was where God dwelt but Jesus saw what He was doing as a temple movement in that He would forgive sin essentially saying that they no longer had to go to the temple to be forgiven. In light of the whole story of Jesus and my belief in the incarnation I accept the virgin conception. However, even if it could be shown that it was actually a legend placed into the gospels in order to strengthen the messianic claim, it wouldn’t undermine my Christian faith. Would it yours?
The signature I have used is from Micah 6:8. It essentially tells us that what God wants of us is that we be humbly kind and just. That is the straightforward Bible message as it is taught by Jesus. Of course in addition to that there is the story that stretches through creation to the final re-creation. Those are the two distinct elements of the books that make up the Bible. It isn't believing the story that makes us righteous. It is about having a heart that rejoices in humble kindness and justice and that isn't the private domain of any particular belief.
Edited by GDR, : typo and small wording change

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jaywill, posted 09-27-2012 3:48 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 195 of 304 (674429)
09-28-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jaywill
09-27-2012 12:04 AM


Well, here we have some statements that can be demonstrated to be false.
If you look at the "Song of Solomon" in context.. (and I do think you should), you will see the LAMH is Song of Solomon 1:3 , you will see that almah there is being used in a sexual context, and in proverbs it is sexual in nature. "The way with a man with a woman (almah) is talking about sexual intercourse.
Let's look at what the orthodox Jews say about it.. from a Rabbi.
from Page Not Found
ʿ Almah, despite a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold a young woman [LXX:παρθένοσ, "virgin"] shall conceive and bear a son," indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question. The only way that the term "virgin" can be unambiguously expressed is in the negative: thus, Sumerian and Akkadian, "undeflowered," and Akkadian, "not experienced," "unopened," and "who has not known a male." The description of Rebekah (Gen. 24:16), who is first called a betulah, "young woman," and then "whom no man had known" (cf. Judg. 21:12), is similar. In legal contexts, however, betulah denotes a virgin in the strict sense (as does batultu in certain Akkadian legal contexts).
Now, let's take the term 'parthenos'.. There are a number of incidences where
the term parthenos has been used in Greek literature to refer to women who are of marriagable age, but not virgins.
Genesis 3:4, for example. refers to Dinah as a 'parthenos' even after she had been raped.
Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.
The other two reference are to young women who slept with a man (though
in Pindar's example quite a few men):
Pindar, Pythian 3.34
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).
So, I just find it very ironic that Glenn Miller, who is a computer jocky who runs an apologist site, claims to know so much more Hebrew that Jewish rabbis' who study it extensivley.

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 198 by jaywill, posted 09-29-2012 10:01 AM ramoss 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