sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi CG D, No! Jesus is seen in the "fulness of time"---Future---when it was prophesied that HIS forunner was to prepare the way for the Lord.
However, mahershalalhashbaz did witness all those symbolic things. Isa.8:18
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
haalmah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Hi CG D, No! Jesus is seen in the "fulness of time"---Future---when it was prophesied that HIS forunner was to prepare the way for the Lord.
However, mahershalalhashbaz did witness all those symbolic things. Isa.8:18
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
Sincerly, this isn't about treating Jesus' birth as a myth, but analysing the text (like literary analysis and literary criticism) of one source against the other sources - particularly the original sources.
In Matthew's quotes of supposed messianic prophecies, these come from other sources, from the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other OT writings. So when analysing Matthew's OT passages, the logical sense that you would do, is not just reading a verse of interest, but read the whole chapter to find the original context of passages.
So Matthew had quoted Isaiah at Matthew 1:23, but the original passage Isaiah 7:14 is found in Isaiah 7 (chapter, obviously). So one would sensibly read ALL OF ISAIAH 7, to find the original context of Isaiah's sign. So when I read this whole chapter, I don't see how the chapter as a whole or how the part of the chapter that have to with the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17), have anything to do with any messiah.
Verses Isaiah 7:15 and 7:16 are also part of the sign, and that they are to same child Immanuel, which would indicate Immanuel to be contemporary to Ahaz and to Isaiah (as well as to Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria). Isaiah 8:1-8 also confirmed to me that Immanuel to be contemporary to Isaiah, Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria, because Immanuel reappeared in 8:8 in relation to 8:6-7.
Can you seriously tell me that Immanuel doesn't appear in Isaiah 8:5-8? Are you that blind that you can't see the link between Immanuel and the kings (and prophet)?
Don't get me wrong, sincerly. When I read Matthew 1 & 2, as well as Luke 1 & 2, I do see and understand they are narratives of Jesus' "virgin birth", but I have hard time in accepting Matthew's quotes (Matthew 1:23, 2:15, 2:18) to be messianic prophecies.
For instance - Matthew 2:18 - Matthew had quoted ONLY HALF-A-VERSE from Hosea 11:1. Why didn't Matthew quoted the whole verse, and included the 1st line?
The whole verse of Hosea 11:1 revealed that this passage has already happened; it is clearly reminiscing the past, it is not a prophecy of the future.Hosea 11:1 said:
In fact, the 1st four verses of Hosea 11, God is speaking of what already happened, thus he was speaking in the past tense. So I find it difficult to accept Matthew's interpretation that Hosea's was referring to Jesus being in Egypt.
This is clearly referring to Jacob, who was also called Israel. Jacob entered Egypt with his family, and it was Moses who brought Jacob's people "out of Egypt".
So Israel can also mean people, like descendants of Jacob-Israel (the 12 tribes), or it could mean the kingdom of Israel.
And when I read all of Hosea 11, I can see that pretty much most of the chapter has to do with "Israel" being the "Kingdom of Israel".
And if you even bother to read the next several verses to Hosea 11, you can clearly see that Israel is not shown in positive light. If you believe that Jesus is Israel, then wouldn't that mean Jesus was an idol-worshipper?
Hosea 11:1-2 said:
Did Jesus worship Ba'al?
I have said it before, time and time again, that verse should be read with surrounding verses of the same chapter, and not just a verse (or partial verse) alone, to get the proper and original context of the verse.
You are playing a game of mix-and-match, but what I see don't match at all. Isaiah 7:14 & Genesis 3:15 don't match, and "the seed of woman", certainly wasn't referring to Mary's seed, no matter how much you like to twist Genesis 3:15.
Genesis 3:15, woman's seed was not referring to any specific person, but referring to all of Eve's children and descendants, so in essence, all of humankind.
(editor's note: the 2nd last paragraph, I have colored the word, "don't", because it was originally "do". It should be "don't mix", not "do mix". Sorry.
)
Last edited:
dantech
Well-Known Member
You know Gnostic, Matthew would have you believe that Moses didn't die in the desert, as this verse's context clearly shows "So Moses, God's servant, died there"(Deuteronomy 34:5)
Nooo, who needs context?!? Moses actually died in Pharao's palace.
Oh and also, the verse mentions the name Moses, so it must actually be referring to Abraham or anyone else that is completely unrelated, whose name was never recorded as Moses..
This is essentially their argument. If they haven't gotten it after 1000+ posts, I suggest you stop trying because you are wasting valuable energy and efforts, for no reason.
I believe this thread could pass as Einstein's definition of insanity.
Nooo, who needs context?!? Moses actually died in Pharao's palace.
Oh and also, the verse mentions the name Moses, so it must actually be referring to Abraham or anyone else that is completely unrelated, whose name was never recorded as Moses..
This is essentially their argument. If they haven't gotten it after 1000+ posts, I suggest you stop trying because you are wasting valuable energy and efforts, for no reason.
I believe this thread could pass as Einstein's definition of insanity.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
1000 posts? Or, a couple of 1000 years? I wonder, though, all the passer-bys that read a few posts then move on, what are they thinking? In my thread on this subject I asked if it bothered Christians that Matthew takes Isaiah out of context. It doesn't. They seem to feel that the main reason Isaiah gave that sign to Ahaz was for Jesus. For them it doesn't make sense. In Josh McDowell's book, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pg 291-294 they are trying to say that a "young girl" giving birth isn't much of a sign, but a "virgin" giving birth? Now that's a miracle. The guys that McDowell quotes in his book are no doubt "big-time" Bible "scholars." Yet, they ignore the context? The "out of Egypt" quote Gnostic mentioned is worse. Like he said, in context, it's a negative thing he's saying. No where in there is it remotely a Messianic prophecy.
Gnostic and I have similar stories, and we are so passionate about this is because we were victims of it. Which, if we are right, is a spiritual deception of the highest order. It is making the NT and those that profess it to be true, essentially liars. We bought into the story that Christians told us, and assumed we were being told the "gospel" truth. They made you, the Jews, the crazy ones, the weird ones, the stubborn ones, the blind ones. But then, like Gnostic, I read the verses in context. I asked a Jewish friend about what he believed about Jesus. He gave me three books, Judaism and Christianity--The Differences by Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, You Take Jesus, I'll Take God by Samuel Levine, and The Real Messiah? by Aryeh Kaplan. It became apparent to me that Christianity, and these are the gospel writers and Paul, were twisting the Hebrew Bible's words to say the things they wanted it to say.
Do most Christians know this? I hope not. But, it seems that many do, and they find ways to justify it. I can't. I tried to be a Christian. I tried to believe the NT was the absolute truth. Spiritually? it worked. I felt the "love" of God in my heart. I became a better person. Intellectuallly? I couldn't keep believing and push my doubts aside. I hope that some of the people that have been following this thread discover for themselves that the things that you and other Jews have been saying here is factual and worth investigating. So "insane"? No, this thread is not insane. Spiritually, it's the most important thing I've ever been involved in. Where else would anybody listen to things that I have to say?
CMike
Well-Known Member
Excellent post.
gnostic
The Lost One
For 7 years, I had spend my time, reading and researching literature for Timeless Myths, sharing stories of ancient myths and medieval legends, to either entertain or educate readers/visitors. The original purpose of Timeless Myths wasn't to teach, but to share the myths or stories that I love. But getting emails from people of all ages, including school students, that they have learn a lot from my website, I realized that I am actually teaching too.dantech said:
In RF, is a religious education forum. I'm here to learn, but I'm also here to share what I've learned, hence to educate. It is a habit I've developed, back in the days of Timeless Myths.
The irony is that I never view myself as a teacher, and I have struggled through schools (and later college), learning was difficult. English is my main language, and yet I still have problem with grammar and punctuations, to this day.
I still don't see myself as a teacher, but I like sharing what I do know or might know.
I don't know everything, nor do I pretend that I understand everything I read (with regarding to the bible), because I am still learning. But I am quite certain that my reading and understanding of Isaiah/Matthew sign are correct.
Is it insane to share or teach Christians what I know, but who (like sincerly and james2ko) will dismiss or disregard what I have to say? Then, yes, perhaps I am insane.
But I think it is more insane to not counter ignorant claims. Silence will only let ignorance win.
I would do the same things with the creation-evolution issues, or with the science-religion issues. I am not going to remain silent, so they can misinform others with their belief.
dantech
Well-Known Member
What I meant by "insane" was using Einstein's definition of the word. I meant no offense.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, what "you don't think" is because it doesn't fit with your conclusion of The Creator GOD and the Recordings concerning GOD in the Bible(Scriptures) are just myths.
The Almighty GOD of ALL things we observe laid out HIS plan of Salvation from Gen.1:1 to Rev.22:21---it includes a Massiah. If you wish not to believe the record that is your choice.
Then you are acknowledging that your books concerning "myths" in relating to Jesus, the Scriptures, and the Creator GOD are the "myths"??
Gnostic, what "you don't think" is because it doesn't fit with your conclusion of The Creator GOD and the Recordings concerning GOD in the Bible(Scriptures) are just myths.
The Almighty GOD of ALL things we observe laid out HIS plan of Salvation from Gen.1:1 to Rev.22:21---it includes a Massiah. If you wish not to believe the record that is your choice.
Then you are acknowledging that your books concerning "myths" in relating to Jesus, the Scriptures, and the Creator GOD are the "myths"??
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
Man! You're like a dog, who rather chew on old bone, instead of fresh new bone.
I don't know how you can quote what I am saying, and still manage to falsely accusing me of labelling the scriptures as being "myth". Does what I say, don't reach your brain? Think, man. Think!
Here is what you have quoted from me:
gnostic said:
If you read it properly, no where does it say "Jesus is a myth".
The sources I am referring to, are all in the bible. There is Matthew's quote (Matthew 1:23). There is the original source is obviously Isaiah 7:14. But literary analysis doesn't mean I have to confine to these 2 sources. There are also other instances to usage of the Hebrew word harah, like Genesis 16:11, Exodus 21:22 and Jeremiah 31:8; so I can compare these other instances against Isaiah's sign. Also other sources include all these verses, but there are number of different translations, and literary analysis is also about comparing these different translations.
There is a huge gulf of difference between literary analysis/criticism and simply labelling them as myth.
I am doing the former, not the later, but for some st@pid reasons, you think or believe I am talking the later.
Again, I will tell you the purpose of this thread that I have started.
The topic is about the Hebrew word הָרָה֙ or harah (not almah). For instance:
- Does harah mean "is pregnant" (present) or "will conceive" (future)?
- What is the context of this word, against the other verses - like the other part of the sign (Isaiah 7:15-17) or like the whole chapter (Isaiah 7)?
- What does harah mean in other instances of the Hebrew scriptures?
(For examples, Genesis 16:11, Exodus 21:22, Jeremiah 31:8.) - What about the Hebrew word הָרִ֖ית or hariyt, in Judges 13:3?
How do this hariyt compare with harah?
Just because I am using technique of literal criticism or literary analysis on some passages, doesn't mean I lumping everything as a myth.
You do know differences, don't you?
Look it up, sincerly. Look up literary analysis, and then literary criticism.
Furthermore, I know that Matthew 1 & 2 - conception of Mary and birth of Jesus, is a narrative that contain the "virgin birth". I am not disputing this. I do agree that part of the theme in these 2 chapters, have to do with the "virgin birth". My issue is on what Matthew had quoted, in Matthew 1:23. When I re-read Isaiah 7:14, I don't see prophecy for virgin birth or birth that will happen centuries later, after Ahaz and Isaiah are all dead.
This thread IS NOT ABOUT Jesus' birth being a myth. It is about understanding the context of the verse in question, not about Jesus, and not about god. I don't give a frigging beep about god or about Jesus.
Do you understand now?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Last edited:
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Right! The birth of Jesus was prophesied....many centuries prior to HIS Birth and it and GOD are not myths nor mistakes in the Scriptures.
Nor am I putting words in your mouth....the things you post are from your own machinations. The underlined above and your "signature" expresses it all.
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
There you go...again.
You can't read, or you can't understand what you read.
I wrote many times just in the recently and in the past that this thread is not about myth, but the literary context and comparison of some verses, but you are again, twisting my words around.
Did you not read the purpose of this thread?
gnostic said:
Does none of the above make sense to you? Only someone who is daft wouldn't understand them, I know that you are not.
How many times must I explain to you that this is not about "myth" of Jesus or of god? :banghead3
But clearly you don't understand or you don't want to understand...or you are simply a troll, and I've wasted my time replying to you.
I have repeated myself again and again that this thread is not about establishing Jesus' birth narrative is a myth, and have re-stated the purposes of this thread, but still you persisted in what I'm not claiming, not only demonstrated that you're utter rude, but you are doing this to bait me, hence you're trolling.
Last edited:
sincerly
Well-Known Member
There you go...again.
You can't read, or you can't understand what you read.
I wrote many times just in the recently and in the past that this thread is not about myth, but the literary context and comparison of some verses, but you are again, twisting my words around.
How many times must I explain to you that this is not about "myth" of Jesus or of god? :banghead3
But clearly you don't understand or you don't want to understand...or you are simply a troll, and I've wasted my time replying to you.
I have repeated myself again and again that this thread is not about establishing Jesus' birth narrative is a myth, and have re-stated the purposes of this thread, but still you persisted in what I'm not claiming, not only demonstrated that you're utter rude, but you are doing this to bait me, hence you're trolling.
Gnostic, no trolling, but, as long as your purpose is to try to falsefy the Prophecies of the Scriptures to fit your reasoning---is your choice. Bang your head, frown, and be mad. I will counter with the Scriptural truth.
I am at ease with my understanding of the Scriptures and your "pov" doesn't deter me or the Prophets who were inspired to write those Scriptures.
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
Now you are being utterly ignorant.
My interpretation is almost exactly the same of any Jew here at RF. My interpretation is also based on simply reading Isaiah 7, from start to finish, which is how all chapters should be read. And I am not even Jewish, and yet I grasp the context of Isaiah's sign to be the same how Jews read it. Jews are not claiming Isaiah 7 to be myth, nor am I.
Your interpretation is based on only Matthew's claim, from another book (gospel of Matthew). This is cherry-picking, and you are doing exactly the things, is nothing but demonstration of poor scholarship and biased propaganda.
You haven't presented nothing substantial. You use the blueletterbible as your source, but you ignorantly misread their table on Isaiah 7:14, demonstrated your ignorance and incompetency. Yes, the table include the complete verse, from the Masoretic Text, but the table itself, only show the root word, which you for some silly reasons, you think it is agreeing with your claim, but you are not even looking at verse themselves, which only make you look foolish.
I understand perfectly well that Matthew 1 & 2, is written about Jesus' birth and the events that followed, and I actually believe Matthew is writing of "Virgin birth". My dispute is not Matthew's narrative of the virgin birth, but of Matthew's quote in Matthew 1:23 don't match the context of Isaiah 7:14.
Read the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, and read 7:14 with 7:15-17, and then it will make sense that both almah and Immanuel are contemporaries to Isaiah and Ahaz, and to 3 other kings (including that of the King of Assyria).
I find it strange that you only accuse me of labelling the scriptures of being "myth", but not CG Didymus, Cmike, dantech, tumah, levite, dirty penguin, who also argue against Isaiah 7:14 being of Mary and Jesus. They also argue against the virgin birth, but only with me that you rant about "myth" this or "myth" that.
That's double standard.
I have stated the purpose of the thread, but you have chosen to ignore them, when I have ask you several times I don't want to deal with topic at hand. You do it, because you know it irritate me, so yes, you're trolling.
Grow up, sincerly.
CMike
Well-Known Member
It may have been prophesized in the chrisitan bible.
It's no where in the jewish bible.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Didn't someone post a story about how a rooster fulfilled a bunch of "prophecies"? It would've been really helpful if the prophecies were more specific like: "I will call My Only Son out of Egypt when Herod dies." "The mothers of Bethlehem will cry for their children because Herod had them killed."Ahaz, you're a loser, and even though you'll be long gone, someday, in about 700 years, a virgin is going to give birth to the Messiah. Yes, that's right the Messiah. I'm telling you here and now so there won't be any mistake about it. He will eat curds and honey, fish and bread and lots of things. The enemy of the Jews at that time will be called Rome, but they're not important now. In fact they are so not important that the Messiah won't do a thing about them.
The virgin will call his name Jesus. He will be 5' 11", have long hair and a beard. You people reading this prophecy keep an eye out for him. For those of you that can't add 700 years from now should made it about 0 AD or so, plus or minus a few years. He's going to bring personal salvation to you, so it's kind of important that you follow him. At that time the Law will pass away like withered grass. I was just testing you, you failed. Don't fail this time. Hello, remember the name, Jesus. He will be a carpenter in Nazareth. Accept no substitutes. He's the real deal. He"ll do miracles galore. If you miss him this time, don't worry, he'll be back later... in the year??? Ha, that would be too easy. You'll have to try and guess that one on your own."
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, no trolling, but, as long as your purpose is to try to falsefy the Prophecies of the Scriptures to fit your reasoning---is your choice. Bang your head, frown, and be mad. I will counter with the Scriptural truth.
Gnostic, How does attacking me as Ignorant, incompetnecy, silly, help your argument in this debate??
Your "interpretation" being "almost exactly the same of any Jew at RF" doesn't give it validating authority either. Since Jesus went throughout Judea teaching and preaching the Truths of the OT( Instead of the "traditions and man made commandments" by the "fathers/elders"), the Jews (as a whole/nation) have rejected HIM as Messiah and the SON of GOD.
Isaiah 7 isn't a myth, but very much a part of the Jewish history of rebellion and GOD'S punishing/as prophesied the people for following the "god's of the nations".
vs.14 is a "sign" to Ahaz of the power that GOD will manifest (future-still----that "seed " did come as Matthew attested, but that coming was to insure the Redemption of all believers.) on all who are in rebellion to HIM.
Mahershalalhashbaz is the 'sign' during which Assyria would devastate Judea---Not the kings of Isreal or the king of syria.(7:7; 8:18)
The "silly reasoning" is that the "masoretic text" was that which Jesus and the disciples, Jews of that day, etc., were reading and the "interpretation" was as rendered in the KJV.
Gnostic, what doesn't match is your "I actually believe" with the posts which you have posted and the claims made in your "myth books".
Once you are finished with this thread (Concerning Jesus)and began to debunk the Creator GOD of all things as claimed in those "myth books", then you will see how loyal to your pov those Jews are.
That appears to be "projection" by you. If you are right, you should not be "irritated". Answering isn't trolling.
Gnostic, no trolling, but, as long as your purpose is to try to falsefy the Prophecies of the Scriptures to fit your reasoning---is your choice. Bang your head, frown, and be mad. I will counter with the Scriptural truth.
Gnostic, How does attacking me as Ignorant, incompetnecy, silly, help your argument in this debate??
Your "interpretation" being "almost exactly the same of any Jew at RF" doesn't give it validating authority either. Since Jesus went throughout Judea teaching and preaching the Truths of the OT( Instead of the "traditions and man made commandments" by the "fathers/elders"), the Jews (as a whole/nation) have rejected HIM as Messiah and the SON of GOD.
Isaiah 7 isn't a myth, but very much a part of the Jewish history of rebellion and GOD'S punishing/as prophesied the people for following the "god's of the nations".
vs.14 is a "sign" to Ahaz of the power that GOD will manifest (future-still----that "seed " did come as Matthew attested, but that coming was to insure the Redemption of all believers.) on all who are in rebellion to HIM.
Mahershalalhashbaz is the 'sign' during which Assyria would devastate Judea---Not the kings of Isreal or the king of syria.(7:7; 8:18)
The "silly reasoning" is that the "masoretic text" was that which Jesus and the disciples, Jews of that day, etc., were reading and the "interpretation" was as rendered in the KJV.
Gnostic, what doesn't match is your "I actually believe" with the posts which you have posted and the claims made in your "myth books".
Once you are finished with this thread (Concerning Jesus)and began to debunk the Creator GOD of all things as claimed in those "myth books", then you will see how loyal to your pov those Jews are.
That appears to be "projection" by you. If you are right, you should not be "irritated". Answering isn't trolling.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
What are the "Truths of the OT" Apparently not the Law that was given to the Jews by their God. Even the 10 Commandments are not followed by most Christians. So even if what you are saying is that the interpretation by the Rabbi's isn't correct, still the Laws themselves were from their God. So why don't Christians follow them? Jesus came up with his own commandments. Are his commandments better than God's? I know when it comes to the definition of adultery and murder, they are stricter. So since you don't like how the Rabbi's interpreted God's Law, how do you interpret it? What do you consider work on the Sabbath? Or, do you even keep the Sabbath? How about shellfish or pork? Is it okay to eat it? If so, why did God tell the Jews not to? Or, did the "new" covenant replace the old one? The one that God told the Jews to keep forever.
I think my situation is very similar to Gnostic's. Born again, evangelistic, fundamentalist Christians say they take the Bible literal, but they don't. They interpret it the way they want to. They say the "OT" is the Word of God, yet they don't follow it. They say that what they believe and how they believe is the "only" way. Yet, how many of them follow the teachings and commands of Jesus? They say that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of "OT" prophecies. But, come to find out, most, if not all, were not Messianic prophecies. I'm not a Bible scholar and I can see this. I can also see how Christian Bible scholars have to turn, twist and re-interpret Hebrew Scriptures to come up with Jesus being God and the whole convoluted mess about the devil and hell. But, who knows, it might all be true. But that's why we're questioning, because it sounds too crazy to be true. So I want to make sure.
But there's some other people that have stuck to their beliefs about their God, the Jews. What if they're right? Just because I don't believe in what they believe doesn't mean I don't respect them and listen to them. They don't condemn me and say I'm destined to burn in hell fire if I don't believe like them. So when it comes to the case against Christianity, I agree with them. Their Scriptures don't point to Jesus and what Christianity teaches and has become.
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
Nor do your claim to Isaiah's sign being that of Mary and Jesus. Matthew's claim in Matthew 1:22-23 is also not authority, too. It is forced and superficial link.
Nothing in Matthew say that Jesus told them what to write; I don't think Jesus even knew what Matthew would write, some 30-plus years, after Jesus' death and resurrection.
And if Matthew was truly the apostle and the author of this gospel, why write the gospel decades later? Why wait, so long to write the gospel, especially when Matthew was supposedly eyewitness to Jesus' ministry?
But I don't really care about any of these issues, because this topic wasn't really about Jesus or Matthew's gospel.
This topic was always about the language, grammar and context of Isaiah's use of the word הָרָה֙ or harah, and comparing this against other instances of harah ("pregnant" or "with child"), or against that of הָרִ֖ית or hariyt ("will conceive").
My interpretation is similar to the Jews here, because I had simply read Isaiah 7, from start to end, and understood what Isaiah is writing about.
You should try that, one day, learn to read Isaiah 7, from one to the other, and perhaps one day you will be smart to understand what Isaiah is really saying.
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance.sincerly said:
The Masoretic Text didn't exist in the time of Jesus or that of his disciples. The Masoretic Text (MT) referred to all the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) were written by copyists, scribes, scholars, editors, etc, known as the Masoretes, between 7th century and 10th century CE.
The KJV used one of these copies, or Masoretic Text, supplementing with the copy of the Greek Septuagint, for their works on the English translation.
You should up on the history or origin of the Masoretic Text, instead of making silly claim that Jesus or his disciples had used the Masoretic Text.