Biblical prophecies and statements. Are they about Jesus Christ or Bahaullah?

[CG Didymus]

But the authors of new testament did not say, Emanuel was Jesus.

But Bahai Scriptures says, Emmanuel is the forerunner of Bahaullah:

"In reality Emmanuel was the forerunner of the second coming of His Highness the Christ and the herald of the path of the Kingdom."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 536-540

Then who is the child in Isaiah chapter seven?

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus being Immanuel isn't a self contradiction. Immanuel means God with us. Is Jesus' name "Immanuel" or "Jesus?" | CARM.org

Almost the same question I asked Investigate Truth. Who is the child in Isaiah chapter seven that is a sign for King Ahaz?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but I only read the first two and the last two pages. I might go back and read them all. I always learn a lot from Firedragon threads.

And I only read the OP and the last few posts on the thread last night. I don't know if I will have time to go back and read them all. I have a new thread I wrote I wanted to post but I am not sure if I will do that now.

 

[Skywalker]

But the authors of new testament did not say, Emanuel was Jesus.

But Bahai Scriptures says, Emmanuel is the forerunner of Bahaullah:

"In reality Emmanuel was the forerunner of the second coming of His Highness the Christ and the herald of the path of the Kingdom."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 536-540

The Old Testament says that Emmanuel is Jesus. John the Baptizer was the forerunner of Christ. Is Isaiah 7:14 really a messianic prophecy? | CARM.org

Is Isaiah 7:14 really a messianic prophecy?
by Luke Wayne
11/8/16

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," Isaiah 7:14

Critics often claim that this verse was never meant to be a messianic prophecy. They point out that Isaiah 7 describes an encounter between Isaiah and King Ahaz. The "sign" in Isaiah 7:14 is offered to the King to assure him that God will deliver Judah from their coalition of enemies. The sign of a messiah being born long after King Ahaz was dead would not seem to accomplish the goal. They argue, therefore, that Isaiah 7:14 could only be talking about something that happened shortly after Isaiah spoke those words and could not have anything to do with the Messiah.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Isaiah 7 was written in a vacuum. It assumes that the story was written with no connection to the rest of the book of Isaiah and for absolutely no purpose other than to dryly record an event. The Book of Isaiah, however, is not a memoir or a work of history. There is very little narrative in Isaiah at all. When it does tell a story, it is utilizing that story to make a larger point. When the New Testament author cited Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Jesus, it was not merely ripping the verse out and slapping it on the page. It was making a larger case that Jesus was the fulfillment of a series of prophecies about a promised Messianic Son in Isaiah 7-12.

Matthew directly applied the verse to Jesus, saying:

"Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' which translated means, 'God with us,'" (Matthew 1:22-23)

Luke's gospel, however, lays out the point more holistically. While Luke does not directly quote from any one verse, Luke 1:31-33 directly connects the virgin birth with prophecies quite like Isaiah 9:7, such as sitting on the throne of David and ruling over a kingdom forever. There is also language similar to that of Isaiah 10-11. Luke is not merely proof-texting, but applying the idea of the promised Davidic Son of Isaiah 7-12 as a whole to Jesus, starting with the virgin birth. Likewise, Matthew does not cite only Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 4:15-16 also applies Isaiah 9 to Jesus, and a case can be made that Matthew 2:23 applies Isaiah 11 to Jesus as well. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus is explicitly identified with the "root of Jesse" in Isaiah 11:10 (Romans 15:12) as well as the "stone of stumbling" from Isaiah 8:14-15 (Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:8). Clearly, they saw Isaiah using the story of his encounter with King Ahaz as part of a larger point that Isaiah was making to his readers in that whole section of his book.

But is this really what Isaiah intended? The details certainly point that way:

1. In Isaiah 7:3, when God sends Isaiah to speak to the king, God tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub. The Bible specifically says that Isaiah's children are signs from the Lord to Israel (Isaiah 8:18) and in the very next chapter we are told of Isaiah naming another one of his children as a prophetic sign (Isaiah 8:3-4). The fact that Isaiah is told to bring a specific son by name is no accident. It is a part of his message. The child's name, Shear-jashub, means "a remnant shall return." Isaiah's conversation with the king is about God protecting Judah, but embedded here was something more: a promise that a remnant would return. Return from where? From exile, of course. The whole Book of Isaiah is dealing with the coming exile and the promise of return and restoration. That was not, however, King Ahaz's concern. He was concerned about his enemies at that moment, and God promised to protect him from those enemies. Yet, God was also clearly speaking to something bigger than that, and He had Isaiah bring with him the message "a remnant shall return." If you read Isaiah 7-12 together, this message is central and frequently repeated. It is also a future Messianic hope.
   
2. Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz in the singular, but when we reach 7:13, the grammar changes and he is speaking to "the house of David" in the plural. While it is hard to see it in the English, the pronouns change from the singular "you" to the plural "you," and the verb forms reflect a plural address. Isaiah delivered his prophecy in such a way as to speak to a broader audience than the King alone.
   
3. Isaiah 8:8 goes on to refer to Immanuel as the one to whom the land belongs, so the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 is brought over into the greater context, and not as a mere bystander. Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the promised Son who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. Isaiah 11 speaks of a shoot from the stump of Jesse (David's father) who will rule in righteousness. The image is of the house of David as a tree that has been cut down to a stump, but then a new shoot springs forth from the tree and brings forth new life. It is an image of a future restoration through a new Davidic king. There is a consistent theme of a future Messiah to be born. It runs throughout the passage and begins with Isaiah 7:14 and the first promise of Immanuel.
   
4. The inclusion of this story in Isaiah's book at all shows that it contained a message for later readers and not just for King Ahaz alone. There probably was a child born in the days of Ahaz that served a sign for him in his situation, but we are told nothing more about that because that was not the point of telling this story. Isaiah told this story to point to the larger message to his readers, the message of coming judgment and the promise of restoration. There was a dual fulfillment of this prophecy that was intended by God from the very beginning. That's what made this story meaningful even to Isaiah's original readers, who themselves would have read this chapter well after King Ahaz and Jerusalem's deliverance from the immediate, temporary threat. Isaiah's prophecies were about the coming exile and the later hope of restoration under the Messiah. Isaiah includes the story because it contained that message, even if King Ahaz would not have known it

 

[Trailblazer]

Almost the same question I asked Investigate Truth. Who is the child in Isaiah chapter seven that is a sign for King Ahaz?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Obviously this was Jesus, because Jesus was the only one who was ever born of a virgin.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Old Testament says that Emmanuel is Jesus. John the Baptizer was the forerunner of Christ. Is Isaiah 7:14 really a messianic prophecy? | CARM.org

The article closes with this....

"The narrow and superficial reading of Isaiah 7 offered by skeptics misses all of this and therefore misses the beautiful consistency that runs through these chapters. Isaiah is warning the people that a violent judgment is coming, but he also promises a hope beyond that trial. The ultimate hope of an eternal kingdom and a Messiah King who will be "God with us" and who will be called "Mighty God." Jesus is that divine Messiah."

Jesus was a Messiah, but Jesus is not that Messiah; Baha'u'llah is that Messiah.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace because world peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Baha’u’llah set up a system of government and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. They will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

Baha'u'llah claimed to bring the Most Great Law and sit upon the throne of David:

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 89-90

Isaiah 9:6-7 cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then who is the child in Isaiah chapter seven?

My understanding is, The child is not really physically a person. But it is the reality of the Bab. That woman symbolically represent Laws of Islam, which was going to give birth to Mahdi. Now, the Bab, is Mahdi, but here, the child represents, the new people who was born by manifestation of the Bab. So, this child is the followers of the Bab. Before this child knows true from false, the Bab was martyred. So, then the Land was left without any guidance. That is the meaning of the land of two kings becomes dry. Next verses, talks about Assyria, which is the land of Iraq and northern Turkey, where Bahaullah first declared. Then you see, there will be abundant.a person can have a cow and two goats. These are symbolic, and by abundance, it is meant, abundance in receiving guidance from God. This is abundance in spiritual food, which in practice was because of the abundance in revelations of Bahaullah, or the tablets and verses He was revealing.
This story from a Bahai point of view will have to be interpreted spiritually.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The Old Testament says that Emmanuel is Jesus. John the Baptizer was the forerunner of Christ. Is Isaiah 7:14 really a messianic prophecy? | CARM.org

The correct translation is not virgin. It is young woman. The rest of the verses don't match with Jesus. Jesus from beginning was Son of God, and knew all the right and wrong things. But here says, the boy eats honey and curd to know things, and before he knows right from wrong the land of two kings will lay waste. This description does not match with Jesus. You see? Jesus knew right from wrong from beginning. It is not like at some point Jesus started to know right from wrong.
So, we cannot just claim Emmanuel is Jesus, simply by saying, because it means God with us. That is just matching one word, while ignoring everything else that does not match with him.

 

[Skywalker]

My understanding is, The child is not really physically a person. But it is the reality of the Bab. That woman symbolically represent Laws of Islam, which was going to give birth to Mahdi. Now, the Bab, is Mahdi, but here, the child represents, the new people who was born by manifestation of the Bab. So, this child is the followers of the Bab. Before this child knows true from false, the Bab was martyred. So, then the Land was left without any guidance. That is the meaning of the land of two kings becomes dry. Next verses, talks about Assyria, which is the land of Iraq and northern Turkey, where Bahaullah first declared. Then you see, there will be abundant.a person can have a cow and two goats. These are symbolic, and by abundance, it is meant, abundance in receiving guidance from God. This is abundance in spiritual food, which in practice was because of the abundance in revelations of Bahaullah, or the tablets and verses He was revealing.
This story from a Bahai point of view will have to be interpreted spiritually.

The child is a literal reference to Jesus. Isaiah 9:6 Unto us a Child is born | CARM.org

Isaiah 9:6 Unto us a Child is born
Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy of the culmination of history that was leading to Christ. This is why it says "a Child is born." It is referring to Jesus who is throughout the Bible. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve walked with God. They sinned and as a result, they hid from him. But, the Lord (the pre-incarnate Christ) sought them out. He went looking for them. We all know that eventually God covered them with animal skins and promised them a deliverer. Then, through the ages, God-shaped history and periodically revealed more and more about the coming deliverer. God spoke through his prophets. He narrowed the possible families to the descendants of Abraham, then he narrowed it through his son Isaac, then through David. God told how the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem in the book of Micah. In Zech. 12:10 God spoke of how he himself would be pierced. Isaiah 53 described him as a suffering servant who would bear our sins. There are many such prophecies about Jesus. But we aren’t going to look at them all. Instead, we’re going to examine just one.

Turn with me in your Bibles to Isaiah 9:6.

Isaiah 9:6 “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us

1. What do you think of when you see a newborn baby?
   1. Do you think of power, strength, and majesty?
   2. Or do you think of a cute, new life that is vulnerable, and needs warmth, protection, and food.
   3. The preciousness of life is best seen in the frailty of the newborn and we love and value the little ones.
   4. How much more should we value the precious life of Christ who, when he became a Child, and was delivered from his mother’s womb, entered our world the same way we did.
   5. We have no capacity to understand the incredible humiliation that was involved when the Word became flesh.
   6. It is an unfathomable reality that defies comprehension when we think of the 2nd person of the Trinity entering into humanity…forever, because Jesus will forever be a man in which the eternal word will dwell.
2. When The Word (John 1:1) became a child
   1. The infinitely powerful became weak
   2. The wonderfully majestic became humble
   3. The creator of the universe became one of us.
   4. The infinite, eternal, self-sustaining being, who created every atom in the universe and put them all in their places, became dependent on the nourishment of his mother’s breast and the warmth of her loving touch.
   5. As a child, the Eternal Son was in a state of submission to the will of God the Father in heaven and also to the guidance and rule of his parents on earth.
   6. This is incredible. This is unfathomable.
   7. It is a demonstration of infinite love and incredible humility.
   8. At his birth we see the beginning of the work of redemption
3. What did the Word give up to become a child, a small son?
   1. “A Child will be born” speaks of the Word becoming flesh
      1. John 1:1,14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
      2. Gal. 4:4, “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.”
      3. Heb. 2:9, “But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”
      4. Luke 2:52, “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”
   2. He became one of us to die for us.
   3. He became like us to free us.
   4. He walked among us to guide us.
   5. He stayed with us, to teach us.
   6. He died on the cross to set us free from the treachery and consequence of sin, not only in this world, but in the one to come.
   7. But he didn’t stay dead. He rose from the grave to prove that his sin sacrifice was acceptable to God the Father, and to demonstrate that what he said about God, sin, and redemption was true.
   8. In that child, The Majesty of God…the Glory of God…the Omnipresence of God was in submission to the Law in the form of an infant child that could be held in the arms of his earthly mother.
   9. His being “a son that was given” is a gracious gift from God the Father.
      1. It was the Father who sent the Son. John 8:18, “I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
      2. John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
   10. The Word did NOT give up his deity when he joined to the human nature and became the person of Jesus, the Christ. Instead he cooperated with the limitations of humanity.
       1. Phil. 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
   11. So, when the Word became flesh.
       1. The eternal became the mortal.
       2. The infinite became the finite.
       3. The glory put on sandals
       4. The majestic wore clothing
       5. The creator walked among us
       6. Eternal love eventually became bleeding flesh

For the world, Christmas has become a commercialized frenzy of crazed shoppers who trample each other underfoot while trying to get a good deal on shoes, games, and clothing. They have forgotten what Christmas is about… God made man so that he might redeem us from the consequences of our own sin.

For the Christian, Christmas is a time of celebration of the birth of the Lord God in our world so that He might save us. Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy that is fulfilled in Jesus who was born so that He might die. It was Jesus who was born in a manger so that He might hang on a cross. In the birth of Christ is our redemption, our blessing, our cleansing, and all our hope.

 

[Skywalker]

My understanding is, The child is not really physically a person. But it is the reality of the Bab. That woman symbolically represent Laws of Islam, which was going to give birth to Mahdi. Now, the Bab, is Mahdi, but here, the child represents, the new people who was born by manifestation of the Bab. So, this child is the followers of the Bab. Before this child knows true from false, the Bab was martyred. So, then the Land was left without any guidance. That is the meaning of the land of two kings becomes dry. Next verses, talks about Assyria, which is the land of Iraq and northern Turkey, where Bahaullah first declared. Then you see, there will be abundant.a person can have a cow and two goats. These are symbolic, and by abundance, it is meant, abundance in receiving guidance from God. This is abundance in spiritual food, which in practice was because of the abundance in revelations of Bahaullah, or the tablets and verses He was revealing.
This story from a Bahai point of view will have to be interpreted spiritually.

The word almah has connotations of a virgin young woman. The Hebrew and the Greek is why certain language is used.

Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy. | CARM.org

Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy.
Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is almah. According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word almah does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (maiden); Exodus 2:8 (girl); Psalm 68:25 (maidens); Proverbs 30:19 (maiden); Song of Songs 1:3 (maidens); 6:8 (virgins)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).

The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word almah into the Greek word parthenos. According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means virgin. This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.

Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.

 

[Skywalker]

My understanding is, The child is not really physically a person. But it is the reality of the Bab. That woman symbolically represent Laws of Islam, which was going to give birth to Mahdi. Now, the Bab, is Mahdi, but here, the child represents, the new people who was born by manifestation of the Bab. So, this child is the followers of the Bab. Before this child knows true from false, the Bab was martyred. So, then the Land was left without any guidance. That is the meaning of the land of two kings becomes dry. Next verses, talks about Assyria, which is the land of Iraq and northern Turkey, where Bahaullah first declared. Then you see, there will be abundant.a person can have a cow and two goats. These are symbolic, and by abundance, it is meant, abundance in receiving guidance from God. This is abundance in spiritual food, which in practice was because of the abundance in revelations of Bahaullah, or the tablets and verses He was revealing.
This story from a Bahai point of view will have to be interpreted spiritually.

The child in Isaiah is a reference to a person. Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate and sinless. Why is the virgin birth of Jesus so important? | CARM.org

Why is the virgin birth of Jesus so important?
by Matt Slick
7/16/2016

The reason the virgin birth of Jesus recorded in Matthew 1:25, is so important is because it fulfills prophecy, supports the deity of Jesus, and shows his sinless nature. Let's take a look.

The Virgin Birth Fulfills Prophecy
The Old Testament prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

Some critics of the prophetic aspect of Scripture will tell us that the Hebrew word for virgin, in that verse, is 'almah' which means "young maiden." It is not 'btulah' which is Hebrew for "virgin." Therefore, they say that Isaiah 7:14 is not prophecy. There are two responses to this objection.

First, saying that a young maiden will give birth to a child is not miraculous. What would be the reason for Isaiah writing that a girl will have a child? All children are born of women, so Isaiah must have had something else in mind than just a casual mention. Furthermore, the word "Emanuel" means "God is with us." So, the verse tells us that this person who was to be thus born was of special character.

Second, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament,1 the Jews translated the Hebrew word "alma" into the Greek "parthenon" which means virgin. So, the Jews themselves understood the text in Isaiah 7:14 referred to a virgin birth.

The Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ
The New Testament clearly tells us that Jesus has two natures, divine and human. He is God and man.

• John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
• Colossians 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

If Jesus were born of natural parentage, a biological father, and the biological mother, then the support for his deity would be undermined. In addition, Jesus' divine nature and human nature are important because of how they affect the doctrine of the atonement. Jesus is human so that he could die for people. He is divine so that his sacrifice would be of divine value and sufficient to atone for the sins of his people.

The virgin birth and the sinless nature of Jesus
The Bible tells us that the sacrifice offered to God must be without blemish.

• Numbers 19:2, "This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel that they bring you an unblemished red heifer in which is no defect and on which a yoke has never been placed."
• Deuteronomy 17:1, "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the LORD your God."

If Jesus were born from a purely human lineage, then how could we defend his sinless nature, a sinless nature that comes from God? Since a mother and a father are sinners, for Jesus to be born of sinful human parentage, it would imply his own sinful nature. This would then jeopardize the sufficiency of the atonement that requires an unblemished sacrifice. After all, having a fallen, sinful nature, would be a blemish.

Conclusion
The virgin birth is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, who overshadowed Mary.

• Matthew 1:20, "But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Mary's pregnancy was the product of God's miraculous work, not mere human copulation. Therefore, Jesus was conceived in a miraculous manner, from a virgin, which fulfilled prophecy, and supports his deity which further supports the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's the position that King David and Job believed.

Sure it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the Old Testament the Messiah is called Emmanuel, meaning God with us. Messiah | CARM.org

Your point?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The child in Isaiah is a reference to a person. Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate and sinless. Why is the virgin birth of Jesus so important? | CARM.org

God cannot incarnate. God is an invisible spirit. God does not change.

 

[Skywalker]

Sure it is.

Davids belief in the Messiah was Christian. Job 19:25 But I know that my Redeemer lives, and in the end He will stand upon the earth.
Was David a Prophet? | CARM.org

Was David a Prophet?
by Luke Wayne
12/2/2019

While David is not generally numbered among "the Prophets" in the narrow sense of those specific biblical authors who wrote that category of Old Testament books, David was filled with the Holy Spirit by whom he wrote the Psalms, many of which were prophetically foretelling the coming of the Messiah. As such, David can rightly be called a prophet, as he is in the New Testament.

The New Testament Testimony
David is explicitly called a prophet at least once in Scripture, during one of Peter's sermons in the book of Acts:

"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay," (Acts 2:29-31).

Yet, even when they don't use the word, the New Testament believers clearly regarded David as a prophet. Earlier in Acts we also read:

"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus," (Acts 1:16).

The language of the Holy Spirit foretelling by the mouth of David is an obvious reference to prophecy, even if the exact term is not used. Likewise, Jesus Himself said things like:

"'What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?' They said to Him, 'The son of David.' He said to them, 'Then how does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord," saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet'?"'" (Matthew 22:42-44).

Again, David wrote "in the Spirit" and spoke of the Messiah who would come in the distant future. This is the language of prophecy. The author of Hebrews may also explicitly count David among the prophets when he writes:

"And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets," (Hebrews 11:32).

The author seems perhaps to list two distinct groups here. The first is a group of judges (Gideon, Barak, Sampson, and Jephthah). The second appears to be David, Samuel, and "the prophets." Samuel is obviously himself a prophet, so we could read this as naming Samuel and David both as prophets alongside those biblical writers traditionally known as "the prophets." This understanding of Hebrews is far from certain but, as we will see, it has at least some basis in Jewish tradition. At any rate, even if this is not what this particular verse means, the New Testament as a whole clearly regards David as a prophet and his canonical writings as prophetic.

Early Jewish Tradition
But was this perspective on David a novel invention of Jesus and His apostles, or did other Jews see David as a prophet as well? The fact is that, though David is not frequently called a prophet, we can see from a wide range of Jewish literature that the New Testament Christians were not alone in their assessment of David's prophetic role. The most straightforward example comes from the Babylonian Talmud, the authoritative tradition of Rabbinical Judaism. There we read:

"The Gemara poses a question: Who were the early prophets? Rav Huma says: This is referring to David, and Samuel, and Solomon."1

In a list reminiscent of what we read in Hebrews 11:32, David is placed alongside Samuel (and, in this case, Solomon as well). The Talmud explicitly calls these figures (including David) prophets. The traditions recorded in the Talmud, however, were not written down until several centuries after the New Testament era. When we look at sources from the first century, the exact word "prophet" is not used, but we find the same idea. Josephus, the famed Jewish historian from shortly after the time of Jesus, wrote concerning David that:

"...But the Divine Power departed from Saul, and removed to David, who upon this removal of the Divine Spirit to him, began to prophesy."2

After reporting David's whole life, Josephus goes on to say that God "had shown all things that were to come to pass" to David, and that "many of those things had already come to pass, and the rest would certainly come to pass hereafter."3 Even earlier, we find this perspective in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the scroll 11QPsa (or 11Q5), after describing David's numerous Psalms, says:

"All these David spoke through (the spirit of) prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High."4

Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls represent two very different strands of Jewish thought, yet both confirm that David was a prophet. Another much later document that is nevertheless worth noting is the highly interpretive Aramaic paraphrase of the Psalms known as the Targum of Psalms. The Targum not only understands a number of the Psalms to be messianic or otherwise prophetic but also repeatedly references David engaging in prophecy. For example, we read:

"David said through the spirit of prophecy, 'But God will redeem my soul from Gehenna, for he will teach me his law forever.' Concerning Korah and his company, he prophesied and said, 'do not fear, oh Moses, when Korah the man of strife becomes rich, when the glory of those in his house become great. For when he dies he will not take anything, and his glory will not go down after him," (The Targum of Psalm 45:16-18).

This passage claims both that David "prophesied" and that he spoke "through the spirit of prophecy." Likewise, the Targum of Psalm 103:1 opens "by David it was said in prophecy..." The Targum of Psalm 18:1 speaks of "David, who sang in prophecy before the Lord the words of this song..." and the Targum of Psalm 14:1 attributes the Psalm to "When the spirit of prophecy was upon David." All of this parallels perfectly the manner in which the New Testament describes David as a prophet. Thus, while Jesus and the New Testament writers reveal to us more plainly and clearly what the Psalms meant and how they have been fulfilled, the basic idea that David was a prophet and that the Psalms contain prophecy is not a New Testament creation. It was something many ancient Jews already understood.

 

[Skywalker]

Your point?

Emmanuel means God with us.

 

[Skywalker]

God cannot incarnate. God is an invisible spirit. God does not change.

What about theophanies? Who were the three men who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18? | CARM.org

Who were the three men who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18?
Genesis 18 tells of a fascinating series of events in which three men appear to Abraham, and one of them speaks to Abraham as the LORD and promises Abraham that they will return the next year and Sarah will bear a son in her old age. Abraham then walks with the three men for a time as they continue on their way, and God reveals to Abraham the coming destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. All of these things transpire just as the man said. So who were these three men? The Jewish Talmud identifies them as three angels, and many Christians see them as an appearance of the Trinity: that all three men represented the one true God. Neither of these explanations, however, fits the text. The reality is that in this amazing passage, God appears to Abraham along with two angels, all with their glory veiled in a human form. These same two angels that appear with God to Abraham are the ones that go on to deliver Lot and his family out of Sodom before God destroys the city. From the rest of Scripture, we can know that the one who appeared to Abraham was specifically God the Son, the pre-incarnate Christ.

The passage opens:

"Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth," (Genesis 18:1-2).

So we know right off that the sudden appearance of these men represents the Lord appearing to Abraham. Most of the rest of the passage is Abraham talking with the Lord as he dines in his home with the men and then walks with them as they head on toward Sodom. The passage goes on to state:

"Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord," (Genesis 18:22)

It may be tempting to read this as saying that all three men left and that the LORD was still there speaking with Abraham independent of the men. The rest of the passage, however, shows us that two of the men went on while one remained speaking with Abraham. The one who remained was the LORD, while the other two were angels. After conversing with Abraham further about the coming judgment of the cities below, the passage concludes by telling us that:

"As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his place. Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground," (Genesis 18:33-19:1)

The LORD departs, Abraham goes home, and the two angels arrive at Sodom. That accounts for all three men who were walking with Abraham. And note that the passage doesn't just say that two angels arrive in Sodom, but rather that the two angels arrive. These are the two angels that the story has already introduced. The two angels who were walking with Abraham and God. So the three men who appeared to Abraham were God and the two angels who were then sent on to Sodom before judgment came to that city.

Now, John 1:18 explains that:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."

Paul also tells us that the Father, "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see," (1 Timothy 6:16) and that Jesus is the "image of the Invisible God," (Colossians 1:15). The only consistent conclusion that we can come to is that whenever the LORD, Jehovah God, has appeared before the eyes of men, it was the Son of God who appeared. No man has ever seen God the Father. He has always been made known by God the Son, the eternal Word who ultimately became flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14) and perfectly revealed God once and for all. This is the marvel of the Triune God of the Bible. He is a God whom no man can see and yet who has been seen, with no contradiction! God the Father remains gloriously veiled from our sight while God the Son appears to us and makes the Father known and God the Holy Spirit works within us that we may understand. This is the only way we can grasp the incredible historical event recorded in Genesis 18, where God appeared as a man for a moment to promise a miraculous son, who in turn foreshadowed a time when God would appear as a man in Christ Jesus who would come as a miraculous, promised Son!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What about theophanies? Who were the three men who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18? | CARM.org

Genesis 18 is symbolic. Bible clearly says, God is an invisible spirit.

 

[Skywalker]

Genesis 18 is symbolic. Bible clearly says, God is an invisible spirit.

That doesn't have anything to do with God coming down as a person to save us and to teach us how to live and to reconcile us back to a relationship with God. How can Jesus be both God and the Son of God? | CARM.org

How can Jesus be both God and the Son of God?
by Matt Slick

Jesus can be both God and the son of God because the terms don't mean the same thing. When we say that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8), we are saying that Jesus possesses the divine nature (as well as a human nature, see hypostatic union). But the term "Son of God" does not mean that Jesus is not God. Think about it. If the term "Son of God" meant that Jesus is not God, then does the term "Son of Man" mean that Jesus is not a man? Of course not. Likewise, if the term "Son of Man" means that Jesus is a man, then does it not imply that when it says Jesus is the "Son of God" that he is God? We ought not look at the ancient words found in Scripture and judge them by modern thinking.

"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God," (John 5:18).

As you can see in this verse, Jesus was calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. Therefore, the term Son of God is a designation of the equality with God when it is a reference to Christ.

Jesus is the Son of God
The phrase "Son of God" occurs 44 times in the New American Standard Bible. Each time it is used of Christ. It is a title of his preeminence, holiness, and relationship to God the Father. In fact, we see that the Pharisees wanted to kill him for proclaiming he was the son of God

“I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (John 10:30-36).

In this account we see the second instance of Jesus being threatened with stoning. The first one is a little earlier.

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple," (John 8:58-59).

Jesus' words here are significant because he says he is the "I am." This is similar to what is found in Exodus.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations," (Exodus 3:14-15).

When we combine all of this together, we see that Jesus was claiming the divine title for himself (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14-15) and that is why the Jews wanted to kill him (John 8:59 and John 10:31). The explanation given is that Jesus was claiming equality with God by claiming that he was the Son of God.

So, when we say that Jesus is God, we are saying that he is divine by nature. He is, after all, the second person of the Trinity. But when we say that Jesus is the Son of God, we are saying that he is also God since that is what the phrase means.

 

[CG Didymus]

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Obviously this was Jesus, because Jesus was the only one who was ever born of a virgin.

Other than did this woman get pregnant without having sex with a man, is this really a Messianic prophecy? Since it is a "sign" for King Ahaz the primary thing these verses are saying is that a child is going to be born, whether it is a virgin or a young woman isn't the main thing. It is that by the time this child gets old enough to choose good and reject evil, the enemies of Judah, the two kings, will be dead.

So how does one verse and only one verse from this end up being a Messianic prophecy? Something that is probably way easier to fake than a resurrection, is the virgin birth of Jesus. Who was there to verify it? Only two gospel writers take the verse from Isaiah and make a birth narrative about Jesus being born from a virgin. The rest of the verses in Isaiah 7 describe other things that will take place. None of those things are included. Only the virgin birth and that he will be called Emmanuel. Plus, the two gospel stories contradict each other in several ways.