Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

I hope there is a Creator God, but I hope he's different than Christians describe him.

Hi CG D,The Creator GOD will be Just exactly like the Scriptures and Jesus have discribed HIM----NOT as Mankind has painted HIM.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi CG D,The Creator GOD will be Just exactly like the Scriptures and Jesus have discribed HIM----NOT as Mankind has painted HIM.

Which Scriptures?

 

[sincerly]

Which Scriptures?

The Bible(OT and NT); they both tell the same facts. Ex.33:12-19; Deut.7:9 and 2Pet.3:9; 1John 4:1-15.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Bible(OT and NT); they both tell the same facts. Ex.33:12-19; Deut.7:9 and 2Pet.3:9; 1John 4:1-15.

Who wrote these books? Do you agree with scholarly biblical consensus or do you think that the old consensus is correct?

 

[CG Didymus]

Who wrote these books? Do you agree with scholarly biblical consensus or do you think that the old consensus is correct?

Consensus? That sounds like people decided on what the truth is. But how much consensus is there on anything based on the Bible? I'm with you. There are a lot of questions that have to be asked.

 

[sincerly]

Who wrote these books? Do you agree with scholarly biblical consensus or do you think that the old consensus is correct?

1Cor.10:1-11, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted... Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

And as 1 Peter 1:20-21 attests, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

I prefer to believe the Creator GOD who has shown the correct relationship for mankind to have with his Maker/GOD and fellow beings---rather that present "scholarly Biblical consensus" which is more of the falseness which was seen in the "consensus" of that serpent in the Garden of Eden.

 

[sincerly]

Consensus? That sounds like people decided on what the truth is. But how much consensus is there on anything based on the Bible? I'm with you. There are a lot of questions that have to be asked.

The answers to your questions are there, but one has to believe.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

1Cor.10:1-11, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted... Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

And as 1 Peter 1:20-21 attests, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

I prefer to believe the Creator GOD who has shown the correct relationship for mankind to have with his Maker/GOD and fellow beings---rather that present "scholarly Biblical consensus" which is more of the falseness which was seen in the "consensus" of that serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Given that the bible had not been put together at the time of these writings, and if you are to assume that it is Peter who was writing this in the time of Paul and not related to Pauls letters, then the scripture would be the Torah and Tanakh. Do you follow all the laws of the Torah and Tanakh?

If not is it talking of future scripture? As such do you follow the Qu'ran?

Or perhaps it means all scripture in the world, in which case do you follow the scriptures of Hindiusm, Zoroaster, Buddhism, all which are past scriptures by holy men.

Given that Paul believed that the end was going to happen in his time and it didn't, what do you think he was referring to?

If you do not believe that consensus matters then why do you follow the trinity? or the canon of the bible? Or believe that the when it says that all scripture is from God that it is only referring to only the Bible? If you do not trust consensus, then why do you believe anything?

 

[sincerly]

Given that the bible had not been put together at the time of these writings, and if you are to assume that it is Peter who was writing this in the time of Paul and not related to Pauls letters, then the scripture would be the Torah and Tanakh. Do you follow all the laws of the Torah and Tanakh?

2Pet.3:16 has his opinion of Paul's epistles. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Paul had this belief in the "Scriptures". Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Paul's confession as to what he based his teachings upon, Acts 24:14, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"

If not is it talking of future scripture? As such do you follow the Qu'ran?

Or perhaps it means all scripture in the world, in which case do you follow the scriptures of Hindiusm, Zoroaster, Buddhism, all which are past scriptures by holy men.

The "scriptures" from those beliefs are contradictory to those teachings of the Creator GOD.

Given that Paul believed that the end was going to happen in his time and it didn't, what do you think he was referring to?

It was still his belief that there is a prophesied ending of this present world/earth as the prophets have noted and while expecting to be alive at that event, Paul also, expressed that his time to die would occur prior to Jesus second coming and the "creating of the new heavens and earth"--Isa.66:22-23.

If you do not believe that consensus matters then why do you follow the trinity? or the canon of the bible? Or believe that the when it says that all scripture is from God that it is only referring to only the Bible? If you do not trust consensus, then why do you believe anything?

A consensus of GOD toward a point is truth. That agreement of man's opinions are worthless ---unless in agreement to that given by GOD. HIS word is truth. HIS word is authority and negates any and all consensus of mankind to the contrary.

Therefore, the Torah/tenakh are followed except in the areas that Jesus come to "fulfill" and were not for specific persons and events.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

2Pet.3:16 has his opinion of Paul's epistles. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Paul had this belief in the "Scriptures". Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Paul's confession as to what he based his teachings upon, Acts 24:14, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"




The "scriptures" from those beliefs are contradictory to those teachings of the Creator GOD.



It was still his belief that there is a prophesied ending of this present world/earth as the prophets have noted and while expecting to be alive at that event, Paul also, expressed that his time to die would occur prior to Jesus second coming and the "creating of the new heavens and earth"--Isa.66:22-23.



A consensus of GOD toward a point is truth. That agreement of man's opinions are worthless ---unless in agreement to that given by GOD. HIS word is truth. HIS word is authority and negates any and all consensus of mankind to the contrary.

Therefore, the Torah/tenakh are followed except in the areas that Jesus come to "fulfill" and were not for specific persons and events.

2nd Peter wasn't written by Peter though...so this person agreed with what Paul wrote as scripture. The same Paul who made a claim that he was sent by Jesus.

So if you accept Pauls claim you must surely asccept Mohammed, Paul is said to have heard the voice of Jesus, Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel. Both are sound claims if hearsay is all we are using.

So the Torah only works as far as it needs to work, then after that it's useless.

So pick and choose.

 

[sincerly]

2nd Peter wasn't written by Peter though...so this person agreed with what Paul wrote as scripture. The same Paul who made a claim that he was sent by Jesus.

So if you accept Pauls claim you must surely asccept Mohammed, Paul is said to have heard the voice of Jesus, Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel. Both are sound claims if hearsay is all we are using.

So the Torah only works as far as it needs to work, then after that it's useless.

So pick and choose.

Hi FM, The message of 2Peter is still correct. But were you there at the writing and can verify for certain that Peter didn't write 2 Peter? I didn't think so. The same for Paul, were you on that road to Damascus? Or with him as he received "revelations from Jesus Christ"? again, I don't believe so---therefore, your source for your claims.

As far as the Angel Gabriel, there are four verses where he is named-- twice in Daniel and twice in Luke. Gabriel didn't give contrary information in those areas and yet, you want me to believe that "Mohammed" received a contrary message from Gabriel. Sorry, I can't agree.

The Scriptures are not hearsay.

The Torah and the Prophets has not been negated---only fulfilled as related to the redemption of mankind. Therefore, I choose to follow the plan which was in place by GOD "before the foundation of the world".

The "father of lies" is still very active.

 

[CG Didymus]

The answers to your questions are there, but one has to believe.

All the different sects of Judaism has their Bible. All the different Christian sects have their Bible. They all can say they "believe" but all of them have small to great differences in what they "believe." And then it depends on how literal I want to take it. And, if I want to take it literal, why would I believe the Law, something that God gave the Jews forever, is not to be followed? Of course I'm told they can't follow it without the Temple. But let's say Christianity is right and we should follow everything Jesus said. Pluck your eye out for lusting? Oh, that is not literal but allegorical. Fine, I believe in an allegorical Bible. He said his followers would drink poison and raise the dead, with the faith of a mustard seed they could cast a mountain into the sea. Oh, that's not literal either. Fine, I'm liking this. I can take it for its spiritual meaning, that I should trust God and love my neighbors. I believe that.

FranklinMichaelV.3 said in post 990:

So if you accept Pauls claim you must surely asccept Mohammed, Paul is said to have heard the voice of Jesus, Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel. Both are sound claims if hearsay is all we are using.

Your response was:

As far as the Angel Gabriel, there are four verses where he is named-- twice in Daniel and twice in Luke. Gabriel didn't give contrary information in those areas and yet, you want me to believe that "Mohammed" received a contrary message from Gabriel. Sorry, I can't agree.

The Scriptures are not hearsay.

So when we are talking about contrary messages, in how many ways are most versions of Christianity contrary to Judaism? And, about Mohammed, when he says Gabriel spoke to him that's a lie because it is contrary to Christianity?

But what's this thread about anyway? Oh yeah, Matthew taking Isaiah out of context. So if he did, Matthew is saying something contrary to what Isaiah really meant to say. So here we are getting nowhere. You see it your way and others see it different. But your way sends them all to hell? Wait a minute, is "hell" consistent with Judaism or is it contrary?

 

[sincerly]

All the different sects of Judaism has their Bible. All the different Christian sects have their Bible. They all can say they "believe" but all of them have small to great differences in what they "believe." And then it depends on how literal I want to take it. And, if I want to take it literal, why would I believe the Law, something that God gave the Jews forever, is not to be followed? Of course I'm told they can't follow it without the Temple. But let's say Christianity is right and we should follow everything Jesus said. Pluck your eye out for lusting? Oh, that is not literal but allegorical. Fine, I believe in an allegorical Bible. He said his followers would drink poison and raise the dead, with the faith of a mustard seed they could cast a mountain into the sea. Oh, that's not literal either. Fine, I'm liking this. I can take it for its spiritual meaning, that I should trust God and love my neighbors. I believe that.

FranklinMichaelV.3 said in post 990: Your response was:So when we are talking about contrary messages, in how many ways are most versions of Christianity contrary to Judaism? And, about Mohammed, when he says Gabriel spoke to him that's a lie because it is contrary to Christianity?

But what's this thread about anyway? Oh yeah, Matthew taking Isaiah out of context. So if he did, Matthew is saying something contrary to what Isaiah really meant to say. So here we are getting nowhere. You see it your way and others see it different. But your way sends them all to hell? Wait a minute, is "hell" consistent with Judaism or is it contrary?

One sees what one wants to see and believes what one wants to believe. Any excuse to disbelieve---will suffice. GOD provided the source of Truth---one does the choosing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

One sees what one wants to see and believes what one wants to believe. Any excuse to disbelieve---will suffice. GOD provided the source of Truth---one does the choosing.

Pretty much you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe.

Gotcha

:beach:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM, The message of 2Peter is still correct. But were you there at the writing and can verify for certain that Peter didn't write 2 Peter? I didn't think so. The same for Paul, were you on that road to Damascus? Or with him as he received "revelations from Jesus Christ"? again, I don't believe so---therefore, your source for your claims.

As far as the Angel Gabriel, there are four verses where he is named-- twice in Daniel and twice in Luke. Gabriel didn't give contrary information in those areas and yet, you want me to believe that "Mohammed" received a contrary message from Gabriel. Sorry, I can't agree.

The Scriptures are not hearsay.

The Torah and the Prophets has not been negated---only fulfilled as related to the redemption of mankind. Therefore, I choose to follow the plan which was in place by GOD "before the foundation of the world".

The "father of lies" is still very active.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

And of course you jump to the statement about Satan. When the world does not conform to your beliefs, blame the devil.

 

[sincerly]

Pretty much you are seeing what you want to see and believing what you want to believe.

Gotcha

:beach:

Ditto!

 

[sincerly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

And of course you jump to the statement about Satan. When the world does not conform to your beliefs, blame the devil.

And you place "Wikipedia" and the human originators from it as "authoritive?

The "Adversary" of GOD'S TRUTH continues.

 

[Muffled]

Well, it is certainly not a name associated with Jesus.

None of Jesus' contemporaries or later called him by "Immanuel". Even though Matthew himself quoted Isaiah 7:14, he never called Jesus by "Immanuel".

And even if you believe this Immanuel to be a title and not name, Matthew (or any other NT authors) ever referred to Jesus with such title.

A lot of people gave names to child in the OT, but it is senseless to take it literally.

So saying that Jesus is or was Immanuel is based solely on your belief, which really means jack-$#@. There are no evidences to link Jesus with Immanuel.

What linked Immanuel to Maher-shalal-hash-baz is 7:15-17 to 8:3-4. And the child in 7:15-16 is the same child in 7:14; Immanuel is the child in 7:15-16, which linked Immanuel to the Two Kings and to the King of Assyria, as do Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:1-8. And verse 8 mentioned Immanuel again. You'd have to be blind to not see that.

Is the child in 7:16 not the child Immanuel (in 7:14)?

Who are the kings of the Two Lands mentioned in Isaiah 7:16? Are these two lands - Israel and Aram?

Are verses 15-17 not part of the sign?

Why or why not to any and all questions above?

I beleive Matthew associates the anme with Jesus. Isaiah associates the name with Yahweh. Howeve at the time of Isaiah, Yahweh was not born of a virgin.

The null hypoethesis is difficult to prove. I believe you would have to prove that God would find it necessary for one of the disciples to call Him that.

I believe it is being used to identify the child as God in the flesh so that people would know from this prophecy who Jesus is.

I believe it was quite common for people to give names that had meaning in relationship to their situation. For instance: Ge 30:6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.

i believe Jesus fulfills the prophecy of a virgin giving birth and claims to be God in the flesh which fulfills the meaning of Immanuel.

I believe you have not provided proof only a statement. I believe stating something that isn't true is not proving that it is true. I have my eyes open enough to see the difference, can you?

Yes and I believe that proves nothing. I believe it is like giving one premise of apples and another of apples and coming to a conclusion of oranges.

Who cares who they are? I believe they ae not germaine to the prophecy.

I believe this is where your problem lies. I believe you think that God is giving Ahaz a sign that he will actually see fulfilled but that is not the case. If it were the case, v16 would be germaine. However because the fulfillment of the sign comes with Jesus v 16 is not germaine to us. V16 does not prove that the sign will be fulfilled contemporarily only that the two kings will be forsaken contemporarily. It is not a sign that the two kings will be forsaken, so the answer is that it is not part of the sign but the relationship of the sign to Ahaz/s situation.

 

[Muffled]

ha'almah. THE young girl. Someone known to Ahaz. Hell, she might have even been in the room at the time, whilst Isaiah pointed to her or nodded his head in her direction.

I believe If a young girl isn't a virgin she is stoned to death in the time of Isaiah. Also a girl having a child is not a sign because it happens all the time. my wife was young when our first was born, does that mean she fulfills the prophecy? A sign is somethng unusual like turning water into blood.

I believe that is total fantasy. There is no evidence that any such girl had a child called Immanuel.

I believe this is a case where the null hyposthesis applies. If it was someone that Ahaz knew then wouldn't we expect God to name her instead of saying a young girl?

 

[Muffled]

That's ridiculous.

Isaiah was addressing Ahaz with the sign, and he was of the house of David.

Let look at your quote again.


Noticed all the bold and red words that I've highlighted - "ye" and "you". That's "ye" and "you" is Ahaz. Who else could it be?

Not only did Ahaz refuse to ask for a sign, the sign was given to regardless of whether Ahaz want it or not.

And Isaiah 7:13 isn't the only time that Isaiah 7 had addressed Ahaz as the "house of David":



There were no other king from the house of David, when Aram became ally to Ephraim (Israel).

Ahaz isn't the last in the house of David is he? Certainly God knows his name having addressed him earlier. I believe you are saying that God must have made a mistake by geberalizing this instead of making it specific but I beleive God does not make mistakes.

I believe it is The House of David. You do know what a previous refeence is don't you?