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

[Skywalker]

No brother. There is no evidence, internal or external for this.

Luke was a physician.

 

[Skywalker]

No brother. There is no evidence, internal or external for this.

Jesus isn't a myth.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus isn't a myth.

Lol. Who said Jesus is a myth mate?

 

[firedragon]

Luke was a physician.

Quote the verse that says so.

 

[firedragon]

Luke was a physician.

Brother. Please read the Bible.

 

[Skywalker]

Quote the verse that says so.

Colossians 4: 14.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope. Thats a lie created by pseudo scholars/evangelists. I see that your sources are shallow surfing.

See SW, you should not make such claims about a book you have never read or studied. You should correct yourself.

If you mean the Quran saying "dont call me ilah" means its part of the trinity, then there are other verses in the Quran that says "do not call money God", and children, and also your own ego.

So in that case all of these God, children, ego, money, priests as mentioned in the Quran should all be part of the trinity.

The one who told you this is ignorant.

The koran has verses about Mary and the Trinity. Is Mary a member of the Trinity? Do Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God?

Topic: False and/or misleading statements in the Qur’an

Received: 3 March 2005

Subject: Stop spreading wrong information about Islam

I was quite disappointed to see the numerous articles on your site spreading incorrect information about Islam. If the intent of the website is to purposely deceive people, then I have nothing to say. However, if you actually believe you are being honest, then I can't understand why you would post such one-sided, anti-Islamic information.

For example, I noticed the article called "Was Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?" by Andrew Vargo. The author used logically flawed arguments or flat-out wrong information to suggest the Qur’an makes inaccurate statements. For example, he indicates the Quran "mistakenly" suggests Christians believe Mary is a part of the trinity. No where in the Quran is such a statement made! The trinity is only mentioned in two places in the Quran, and all it says about trinity is "Say not trinity. There is only one God."

In a separate verse, the Quran relates a story of Jesus in which he is asked whether he told people to worship himself and his mother. (It does not suggest Mary is a part of the trinity.) There are many Roman Catholics today who pray to Mary (and saints, for that matter), so there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Quran states! The Quran does NOT state that Mary is one of three in a trinity as Andrew Vargo suggests.

Secondly, he claims that a statement by the Quran that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God proves the Quran is wrong. Unless someone knows about the beliefs and practices of EVERY Jewish community in history, even those who left no written records, how can anyone claim this statement by the Quran is a contradiction? I would not be surprised at all if there were heretical Jews throughout history who gave up monotheism. After all, didn't some Jews worship a golden calf even during Moses time?

If you truly believe the one-sided, false information posted on your site, at least respond to the arguments I have made. Whether you respond or not, at least we agree that God will judge us in the end, and he knows what is in our hearts!


Our answer:

Greetings …,

Thank you for your e-mail.

First, I assure you that the purpose of our website is not as you said, "to purposely deceive people". However, when you said: "we agree that God will judge us in the end, and he knows what is in our hearts!" - we could not agree more fully. And for this reason, we do take this website seriously. We genuinely care about your eternal destiny as well as the eternal destinies of the multiplied thousands of visitors.

Okay, your complaint seems to be primarily the following: Inaccurate information particularly from the article "Was Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?" by Andrew Vargo. Here Mr. Vargo critiques the Qur’an for claiming that Mary is part of the trinity and for claiming that the Jews viewed Uzayr (Ezra) as the Son of God.

Before I am going to explain Mr. Vargo’s position, I would like to point out that while technically the verse in question (Surah 5:116) does not specifically or directly mention the trinity - which you seem to think is justification to thus accuse us all here of dishonesty and deceit etc - neither does the other verse that you mentioned (Surah 5:73) technically mention the trinity either. In fact, it is my contention that the word "trinity" is nowhere found in the Qur’an. Since you are wanting to apply such a strictly technical standard to the Qur’an in the case of Surah 5:116 then I must point out to you that Christians do not believe that God is "one of three", but rather God is One - not of three but in three. Technically there is a huge difference. In fact, we Christians are in full agreement with the later part of this verse, which says that "there is no God except one God."

At this point, if I were to use your same standard of judgment and turn them back on you, I would be fully justified to accuse you of being dishonest and purposefully deceitful even as you have suggested that we are. I hope that you are beginning to see the rashness and the silliness of your initial suggestions.

Okay, now that we're both on the same page, let's look at the actual verses in question.

Specifically of God, the Qur’an says this:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three [in a Trinity]: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy) verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." Qur'an 5:73. (Yusuf Ali Translation)

Now obviously, the word "Trinity" is not in the original Arabic. This was added in the English translation. It does say however, "One of Three".

Now, the verse which you refer to about Mary is this:

"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." Qur’an 5:116

So your complaint is that there is no reference to the "trinity' in 5:116. (Of course, again, neither was there in 5:73.)

The question that needs to be asked is this: Is it reasonable to conclude after reading these two verses together to assume that Muhammad thought that the trinity of Christianity consisted of these three: Jesus, Mary and Allah? My response to this question is that yes, it is very reasonable. Indeed, my opinion is substantiated by the fact I have had numerous Muslims from all over the world express to me that this is exactly what they thought we Christians believed. Where did they get this idea? From other Christians? No. They learned this misconception from the Qur’an.

Now, to be fair, let me say that I do not necessarily altogether reject the possibility that perhaps what Muhammad was referring to was a smaller group of Christians who seemed to have a heretical emphasis on praying to Mary, etc… But while you accuse us here at answering-islam.org of somehow being dishonest and one-sided for seeing it this way, we are joined by many of your very brothers and sisters (Muslims) from all over the world who have read it the very same way. Because of what the Qur’an says, many Muslims wrongly think Christians believe in a trinity that consists of God, Mary and Jesus.

On a side note with regard to the practice of some Roman Catholics who "pray to Mary": While I am not a Roman Catholic, and do not condone such non-Biblical practices, the official explanation of the Roman Catholic Church is that they do not pray to Mary as they pray to God but simply ask Mary to pray for them, even as you might ask a fellow Muslim to pray for you if you needed the extra prayer. Again, I do not endorse this practice for the simple reason that it is not Biblical. It is fair to say that this practice has no more to do with genuine Biblical Christianity than the practice of Istikhara has to do with Orthodox Islam.

Moving on: With regard to the Qur’anic claim that "The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the Son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; In this they imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: How they are deluded away from the Truth!" (Surah 9:30)

Let's think about this for a moment. What does the Qur’an say? It says "The Jews" - not "some Jews" or "a company of the Jews", but rather "The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah". And not only this, but it clearly juxtaposes "The Jews" to "the Christians". Thus it reads:

"The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the Son of Allah…"

Does this preclude Muhammad from referring to a small sect of Jews? Again, I am not altogether adamant that it does. But I would also ask you to admit that it is clearly the natural reading that Muhammad was referring to Jews in general. In fact to read it otherwise requires a hard and very unnatural stretch. If Muhammad were only referring to a very small sect of Jews, it seems as though he would have (and certainly should have) stated this verse quite differently.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, it is supported by an incorrect interpretation of the Bible made by Christians.

But for the Jews, I don't even think their interpretations of the Bible supports manifestations either. The Messiah I think I read was just a plain old human. And, as far as Jesus goes, it very well could be that the gospel writers borrowed things from the other religions to come up with a virgin birth a resurrection and being part man part God.

 

[CG Didymus]

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).

Christians and Baha'is still only take part of what is being said. The rest of the chapter says...

8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, 10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.

11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together; 12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.

14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.

15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.

16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.

20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: 21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.​

What's all that talking about? How does it relate to the earlier verses? We might not agree with what the Jews say about it, what the chapter is talking about, but it should at least be considered.

 

[Skywalker]

But for the Jews, I don't even think their interpretations of the Bible supports manifestations either. The Messiah I think I read was just a plain old human. And, as far as Jesus goes, it very well could be that the gospel writers borrowed things from the other religions to come up with a virgin birth a resurrection and being part man part God.

The Old Testament says Jesus took the iniquity of us all.

 

[Skywalker]

But for the Jews, I don't even think their interpretations of the Bible supports manifestations either. The Messiah I think I read was just a plain old human. And, as far as Jesus goes, it very well could be that the gospel writers borrowed things from the other religions to come up with a virgin birth a resurrection and being part man part God.

The Old Testament talks about the Messiah being born of a virgin in the verse with the word almah. The Messiah Would Be Born of a Virgin

The Messiah Would Be Born of a Virgin
Reference: Isaiah 7:14
Fulfillment: Matthew 1:22-23; Luke 1:31-35

More than most others, this prophecy has occasioned seemingly unending debate: was it fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, or was it for a later time? Does the Hebrew word almah refer to a virgin or a young woman? Was Matthew in the New Testament misquoting it and distorting its meaning?

Two of the four gospels refer to the virgin birth; only Matthew cites Isaiah. Here are both passages in their larger context:

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

– Matthew 1:20-25

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy – the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.”

– Luke 1:30-37

Two comments can be made at the outset. First, for those who say a virgin birth is physically and scientifically impossible, Luke remarks that “nothing will be impossible with God.” If we can believe that God made the universe out of nothing, we can certainly believe as well that He can suspend the usual physical laws that apply.

Secondly, some people point out that Jesus was never called “Immanuel” by anyone in the gospels. However, we find that this same phenomenon happened with King Solomon:

Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him and sent a message by Nathan the prophet. So he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.

– 2 Samuel 12:24-25

Yet Solomon is never actually called Jedidiah. Rather than being labels, these “extra” names (Immanuel and Jedidiah) tell us something about the nature of the people they were given to even though they were not used in daily life.

The primary points of debate on Isaiah 7:14 concern (1) the meaning of the Hebrew word almah, (2) the person to whom the prophecy refers, and (3) Matthew’s use of the prophecy.

The meaning of almah
Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus who has studied ancient Near Eastern languages, offers the following helpful point about the word almah: “While the word ‘almah can refer to a virgin, it does not specifically mean ‘virgin.’ Its basic meaning is primarily related to adolescence, not sexual chastity.” (For his detailed reasons, see Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, section 4.3.)1

Some may think this line of reasoning destroys the case for a virgin birth. But it does not. If we translate almah as a “young woman of marriageable age,” in the culture of Isaiah’s time, it was assumed that she would be a virgin! In other words, rather than needing to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that almah linguistically means “virgin,” we can simply point out that an almah in that culture was a virgin.

The meaning of the word betulah
Some have argued that there is another Hebrew word that clearly does refer to a virgin: betulah. If Isaiah really meant “virgin,” the argument goes, he would have been better off using this alternate word.

But Brown shows that betulah, while it could refer to a virgin, often simply means a young woman. Some of his observations:

1. Genesis 24:16 includes the phrase, “a betulah whom no man had known.” Here, the qualifier, “whom no man had known” (which means “whom no man had slept with/had sexual relations with”), is added, showing that betulah by itself was not enough to indicate virginity.
2. In the following verses, “young woman” makes sense while “virgin” does not: Isaiah 23:4; Ezekiel 9:6; Job 31:1; Joel 1:8 (referring to a widow); Isaiah 47:1 (the betulah loses her husband and her children in verses 8 and 9).
3. In cognate (related) ancient languages, the equivalent of betulah often can refer to someone who is pregnant or has had intimate relations.

Thus, the word betulah would not have worked for Isaiah if he meant to indicate virginity. (Again, for more detail, see Brown’s book referred to above.)

To whom does the prophecy refer?
The context of the prophecy in Isaiah
The context of Isaiah 7 is the attack on Judah by the Arameans and the northern tribes of Israel. Note these things:

1. The aim of the attack was to depose the king of Judah, a descendant of David, and thereby to end the Davidic dynasty, which God had established and promised to always sustain. In essence, it was an attack on God Himself.
2. The current king of Judah, Ahaz, was a man of superficial faith. God’s promise in Isaiah 7:7-9 that both His adversaries (the Arameans and the northern tribes of Israel) would come to an end is met with no response of faith on the part of Ahaz. God even offers to give Ahaz a sign, but Ahaz refuses to take God up on His offer – “I will not put the LORD to the test,” he replies, using Deuteronomy 6:16 as an excuse. It is as though someone warmly invited you to their home for dinner and you responded, “I won’t come because I don’t want to impose!”
3. With some exasperation, God then addresses the entire house of David (using plural pronouns, which means He is not addressing only Ahaz). God takes the initiative and gives the sign of the almah who will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel.

Because the sign of Immanuel is meant to be a sign to Ahaz of God’s deliverance of Israel, we can say that it was fulfilled in Ahaz’s day in the birth of a particular person who was born to a young woman of marriageable age – after she was married. The person, though not named Immanuel (see discussion above), was a sign that God was with His people in delivering Judah. It almost does not matter who this person would have been. Ahaz and his court would have known. Yet the prophecy doesn’t end there because it was given to the entire house of David as well. And so…

How did Matthew use the prophecy?
Sometimes a prophecy ends up being far more complex than it first appears. In Exodus 3:16-17, God tells Moses that he will bring Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. But it was not a straight shot by any means as God’s promise was not fulfilled without the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, the death of the first generation to leave Egypt, and an assortment of other obstacles and incidents along the way, none of which were mentioned when the original promise was given.

Another example is God’s promise to David that He would set David on the throne and that his kingdom would last forever (see 2 Samuel 7:13-18 and 1 Chronicles 17:11-14). And yet, as commentator Craig Blaising notes, “Nothing was said about a line of kings, a later division of the kingdom, trouble with Gentile powers, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and an interruption of Davidic rule for over four hundred years…. Note that throughout that history each of the Davidic kings found legitimacy in the original covenant promise, while subsequent prophecy spoke of one yet to come who would fulfill the promise forever.” Blaising calls this “a divinely directed historical complexification of prophetic patterns.”2

Something similar can be seen with the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. There was a child born in Ahaz’s day who served as a sign that God would deliver Israel. But – “complexifying” matters, in Blaising’s terminology – the deliverance did not last. Israel again came under oppressive rulers and continued to do so with only brief respites up through the rule of Rome in the first century. Similarly, though David’s rule was prophesied to last forever as a time of peace and prosperity, many of the following Davidic kings proved to be evil, bringing destruction rather than deliverance. The messianic hope was for an ultimate descendant of David who would finally fulfill the original promise God gave to David.

And so Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, a promise made not just to Ahaz but to the whole “house of David” – the entire Jewish people. In Matthew’s time, Judah is still oppressed and in need of deliverance by an Immanuel, someone known as “God with us.” This time, the prophecy is fulfilled in all its fullness: Jesus – if you accept the teaching of the New Testament – was indeed God with us as He became incarnate in a human being. And for good measure, Mary literally remained a “young woman of marriageable age” – without having relations with her husband – up through the time of Jesus’ birth. Ahaz may have had his “Immanuel” in his own time as a sign that God was then with Israel, but, with the incarnation of Jesus, the entire Jewish people have now had the ultimate “Immanuel,” God literally with us in Yeshua.

Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 has been a source of lively discussion. The above comments are not intended to be the last word on the subject but rather to point to one way of understanding the prophecy.

 

[Trailblazer]

But for the Jews, I don't even think their interpretations of the Bible supports manifestations either. The Messiah I think I read was just a plain old human.

It is true that Jews and Muslims believe that their Prophets, Moses and Muhammad, were only human. They do not believe Moses or Muhammad also had a divine nature, as Baha'is believe about Manifestations of God. It is also true that Jews believe that the Messiah they await will be only human.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christians and Baha'is still only take part of what is being said. The rest of the chapter says...

8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, 10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.

11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together; 12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.

14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.

15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.

16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.

20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: 21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.​

What's all that talking about? How does it relate to the earlier verses? We might not agree with what the Jews say about it, what the chapter is talking about, but it should at least be considered.

I agree that we should at least read all the verses, and I just read them, but hell if I know what they are referring to or what they mean. It would be like asking a Jewish person what the Writings of Baha'u'llah mean. One really needs to have a familiarity with the other chapters in order to understand what a chapter means. As a Bahai I would say a lot of that is symbolic, but that is just my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

The koran has verses about Mary and the Trinity. Is Mary a member of the Trinity? Do Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God?

No.

 

[firedragon]

The Old Testament talks about the Messiah being born of a virgin in the verse with the word almah. The Messiah Would Be Born of a Virgin

Almah doesnt mean virgin.

 

[firedragon]

Colossians 4: 14.

That Luke is not the author of Luke. There is no evidence. You are talking about two different people.

 

[Skywalker]

That Luke is not the author of Luke. There is no evidence. You are talking about two different people.

There is historical evidence that Luke was a physician. Should we use doctors, or just have faith that God will heal? | CARM.org

Should we use doctors, or just have faith that God will heal?
There is nothing in the Bible that says we cannot use doctors. In fact, Luke is commonly believed to have been a physician. So, God has chosen a doctor to help write the New Testament.

God has gifted believers, as well as unbelievers, with the ability to study medicine and to be used by Him in order to heal people. In fact, God has gifted all kinds of people in all kinds of ways. What about going to the orthodontist to have our teeth straightened? As Christians, should we just pray about it and not go? Or what about people with bad vision? Should they pray and ask for healing or go to the ophthalmologist? The answer is simple. Do both. Pray and ask the Lord to heal you. If He doesn't, go to a doctor.

But whatever you do, don't ignore serious medical issues just because some preachers say that people who go to doctors don't have enough faith. If a preacher complains in such a manner, shouldn't he be consistent and also complain that you don't have enough faith to have your car miraculously run when the engine blows up? Or what about your TV, your stereo, or computer? Can God not heal these things as well by His sovereign hand? Of course, He can. But the simple fact is, very often God chooses to use people to make things better.

So, if you are sick, pray and ask the Lord to heal you. Expect healing and don't doubt, but understand that the healing you may get could be through miraculous intervention by God, or the natural healing of your own body, and/or the work of a doctor who might use surgery and/or medicine. Either way, God is the one who miraculously works and who also has gifted people to be able to perform their healing work.

 

[Skywalker]

Almah doesnt mean virgin.

bethulah refers to widows or divorced women. The Fingerprint of the Messiah

Prophecy of the Virgin Birth Hundreds of years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Isaiah 7:14 foretold: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Critics, however, have said this is a mistranslation. They claim the Hebrew word used in this prophecy, almah, merely means “young woman,” and that bethulah would have been used if the idea of virginity were intended. But researcher Glenn Miller told me that the latest and most detailed linguistic studies show bethulah could refer to a widow or divorced woman who was not a virgin. Almah is never used of a non-virgin. Says Miller: “If any notion of virginity were intended — even as only an ?implication’ — almah was the best/only word to do that job.”

 

[firedragon]

There is historical evidence that Luke was a physician. Should we use doctors, or just have faith that God will heal? | CARM.org

Well, if you are talking about the Author of Luke, its not Luke because he doesnt claim to be Luke.

 

[firedragon]

bethulah refers to widows or divorced women.

Bahaullah didnt write Isaiah. So that's an absurd statement to make.

You said ALmah in the Tanakh/Isaiah means Virgin. Thats wrong. Almah doesnt mean Virgin. Please again respond with something irrelevant. I will be waiting.