• 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!

Did Jesus say he was God???

Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
wizanda said:
Immanuel means 'God is with us', so that doesn't make him God.... God is known as the lord of hosts, thus God's spirit was within him; as it can be the same within any of us. :innocent:
Click to expand...

I believe in calling a spade a spade. If Jesus is called Immaunel then He is being called God.

I beleive it is not the same because we have a human spirit and Jesus did not.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe in calling a spade a spade. If Jesus is called Immaunel then He is being called God.

I beleive it is not the same because we have a human spirit and Jesus did not.
Click to expand...
Various proper names in Hebrew reflect a connection of varying types between God and His people.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
metis said:
Various proper names in Hebrew reflect a connection of varying types between God and His people.
Click to expand...

I believe God is with us all the time. I believe when God applies that name to a person that means the person is God with us.
 
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Muffled said:
I believe in calling a spade a spade. If Jesus is called Immaunel then He is being called God.

I beleive it is not the same because we have a human spirit and Jesus did not.
Click to expand...

Not true. Emmanuel is Isaiah's son. Promised by God as a sign they would triumph, - hence his name is - God is with us.

He tells us further down that He and his sons are for SIGNS, - because that is what God says above (before the pregnancy) - ASK for a SIGN.

There are many names ending with God, - obviously they are not all God.

*
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe Jesus is the only person ever born to a virgin and that fits the prophecy that labels Him Immanuel. How do you say that is not evidence?
Click to expand...
It does not actually say "virgin" (actually it should be translated as a "young maiden"), and "Immanuel" as used in Isaiah rather clearly does not refer to Jesus.
 
Ingledsva

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Muffled said:
I believe Jesus is the only person ever born to a virgin and that fits the prophecy that labels Him Immanuel. How do you say that is not evidence?
Click to expand...

Jesus' name is NOT Immanuel! Hummmmm! Guess he is not the Immanuel born of a maiden back in Isaiah's war.

You folks leave out some important data -

They are told to ask for a sign Isa 7:11 - and ISAIAH is told to go in to a maiden, - she has his baby BOY - as a SIGN.

ALL of this takes place during the same war.

AFTER the birth of IMMANUEL text -

ISAIAH then - tells us his children are for signs. Isa 8:18

This ALL takes place in order, - not with a jump of hundreds of years, to a supposed Jesus.

*
 
Last edited:
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
metis said:
It does not actually say "virgin" (actually it should be translated as a "young maiden"), and "Immanuel" as used in Isaiah rather clearly does not refer to Jesus.
Click to expand...
I believe people say something is clear when they can't prove it. I suggest you see the arguments in the string on Isaiah 7 in Biblical Debates.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe people say something is clear when they can't prove it. I suggest you see the arguments in the string on Isaiah 7 in Biblical Debates.
Click to expand...
Nice try but that boat don't sail. The narratives in Isaiah deal with events that took place many centuries before Jesus existed, plus the overall paradigm of what's happening and being taught in Isaiah is the antithesis of what Christianity teaches. Generally speaking, it goes like this:

-We screwed up by not following the Law closely enough.
-God punishes us because we didn't follow the Law closely enough.
-God restores us and tells us to follow the Law more closely.

Christians don't follow the Law = no match.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
metis said:
Nice try but that boat don't sail. The narratives in Isaiah deal with events that took place many centuries before Jesus existed, plus the overall paradigm of what's happening and being taught in Isaiah is the antithesis of what Christianity teaches. Generally speaking, it goes like this:

-We screwed up by not following the Law closely enough.
-God punishes us because we didn't follow the Law closely enough.
-God restores us and tells us to follow the Law more closely.

Christians don't follow the Law = no match.
Click to expand...

I believe it would not float your boat but then you are on the wrong boat.

I believe I have said this before that prophecy is about things that haven't happened at the time of the prophecy. Also prophecies don't usually come with a date as in this will be fulfilled in five years.

I believe that is less than apparent and comes from a particular point of view not associated with the text.

I believe this presumes much. Christians follow Jesus who is the fulfillment of the law whereas those who say they follow the law do not actually fulfill it.

I believe that paradigm never worked which richly explains why God had to change it.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe it would not float your boat but then you are on the wrong boat.

I believe I have said this before that prophecy is about things that haven't happened at the time of the prophecy. Also prophecies don't usually come with a date as in this will be fulfilled in five years.

I believe that is less than apparent and comes from a particular point of view not associated with the text.

I believe this presumes much. Christians follow Jesus who is the fulfillment of the law whereas those who say they follow the law do not actually fulfill it.

I believe that paradigm never worked which richly explains why God had to change it.
Click to expand...
First of all, let me just say that I've been in both boats and much prefer the one I'm in, thank you.

Secondly, even though prophecy deals with the future, even the future that is covered in Isaiah doesn't allow for the elimination of the Law, which is exactly what started to happen with Jesus and the apostles and was continued in the early church.

Thirdly, why would God absolutely demand that we follow the Law, threaten to punish us if we didn't, and then turn around and say that we no longer need to follow it? Doesn't that strike you as being rather bizarre? That's like saying that there's so much theft and murder let's legalize them. And this makes sense how?

And finally, if you read Isaiah all the way through, you'll note that even at the end of the book God demands the Law be obeyed-- not abandoned. Matter of fact, we are told by God in Torah that if any "prophet" tells us that we need not obey the Law, that is a "false prophet" that's talking.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
We've been over the passage in Isaiah a few times in this thread. Those who want to attribute it to Yeshua are mistaken. To do so is sloppy exegesis. In "context", because context is king, the story in Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua. It was a prophecy told to a king that would see the prophecy come to fruition in his day and time. It was no in reference to a person that would exist 700 years later. Additionally the prophecy, that which this child would do, Yeshua never did.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Dirty Penguin said:
We've been over the passage in Isaiah a few times in this thread. Those who want to attribute it to Yeshua are mistaken. To do so is sloppy exegesis. In "context", because context is king, the story in Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua. It was a prophecy told to a king that would see the prophecy come to fruition in his day and time. It was no in reference to a person that would exist 700 years later. Additionally the prophecy, that which this child would do, Yeshua never did.
Click to expand...

I believe there is no statement that the King would see the sign come in his time however the portion that references the kings concerns would take part in his time.

I believe context does not change what a text says, it only helps in understanding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top