How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?

[DivineNames]

Why does a person who does not believe that the OT. is genuinely God's word want to argue with about the validity of God's word in the New?

This is obviously given by skeptics as an example of where prophecy fulfillment looks to be fake. Can you not see why skeptics would be interested in that line of argument?

 

[DivineNames]

Also, no one has to answer every question asked in this forum. Most of the information we post is ignored any way.

No, you don't have to answer the question. But I think the issue is that you can't answer the question.

The only part of the sign in Isaiah 7 that seems to connect with Jesus, is the virgin birth part. And that is the very part which is contested, which may well have nothing to do with a virgin birth.

 

[bibleberean]

Also, no one has to answer every question asked in this forum. Most of the information we post is ignored any way.

No, you don't have to answer the question. But I think the issue is that you can't answer the question.

The only part of the sign in Isaiah 7 that seems to connect with Jesus, is the virgin birth part. And that is the very part which is contested, which may well have nothing to do with a virgin birth.

We have dealt with that. :-D

You are not the only one asking questions here and the issue here is not only based on Isaiah 7 and if the answers given are not to your satisfaction I doubt anything will sway your "dogmatic" position . :smt102

Have a wonderful weekend... :D

 

[DivineNames]

As far as making up things about what Jesus said here is a scripture in John that shows that the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal truth...

There has never been a scripture are argument that will win over the enemies of Christ. They don't want to hear it.

But you are wrong about this, at least on the specific point, as I previously said-

Fair enough, it does claim that they had their understanding "opened".

So I accepted what you were saying on that point. (for what it is worth- you were not "making it up") The N.T. may well say apostles were inspired to understand O.T. prophecy.

By the way, if you think that is any kind of argument that claims of prophecy fulfillment in the N.T. are genuine, that would be erroneous.

I believe you are guilty yourself of not, "wanting to hear it", you are not open to anything that conflicts with your dogmatic beliefs.

 

[DivineNames]

We have dealt with that. :-D

You are not the only one asking questions here and the issue here is not only based on Isaiah 7 and if the answers given are not to your satisfaction I doubt anything will sway your "dogmatic" position . :smt102

You have not made any attempt to explain how the verse relates to Jesus. You are just trying to dodge the issue because you don't have a clue.

:D

 

[bibleberean]

Unless I misunderstand you the answer was already given. The prophecies which were placed in the Old Testament were revealed in the New.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. :smt102

By explaining-

"But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (Isaiah 7:16 NIV)

How does this verse relate to Jesus? Which land and kings are being talked about?

If the prophecies in the Old Testament were revealed in the New, then point me to where in the N.T. the above verse is clearly explained, as to how it relates to Jesus.

The duality of prophecy.

Isa 7:16

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken by both her kings."

A child does not come to a clear knowledge of good and evil as an infant.

Some commentators say this verse relates to any child. The virgin giving birth does not come to pass until the days of Christ. Just as the prophecy David gives concerning his body not seeing corruption is explained in the book of Acts. see Acts 2:25-47.

The explanation and reference of the Virgin birth is given in Luke and in Matthew...

Poole writes...

The child, Heb. this child; not the virgin's Son, but the prophet's child, Shear-jashub, whom in all probability the prophet, to prevent mistakes, pointed at, and who was brought hither by God's special command, Isa 7:3, and that for this very use; for otherwise his presence was wholly insignificant.

The land; the lands, to wit, of Syria and Israel, as is evident from the next words. It is an enallage of the singular for the plural.

That thou abhorrest, for its cruel designs and practices against time. Or, which vexeth or molesteth thee, as this word is used, Ex 1:12; Nu 22:3, &c.

Shall be forsaken of both her kings; so far shall Pekah and Rezin be from conquering thy land, that they shall lose their own lands, and their lives too; which they did within two years after this time, being both slain by the king of Assyria, 2Ki 15:29; 16:9.

BB continues the prophecy of a vigin (same as a maiden) having a child was given to the entire house of David.

The book of Isaiah is one book and as I have clearly demonstrated Messianic prophecies are given throughout the book.

Isaiah 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Isaiah saw the vision of future happenings in Judah and Jerusalem not just in the immediate future but for thousands of years.

The book is an unfolding of those prophecies.

The New Testament does not explain every single detail of the Old or the New Testament would be thousands of Volumes long. We are given the New Testament to understand the Old and it's significance for Jews, Gentiles and the Church of God.

There is no explanation which will satisfy any person who is only interested in discrediting the bible.

We stand by these verses in the NT and refuse to throw them out simply because a person who's only purpose is to discredit the validity of the entire bible say's so.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There you have it... If it isn't good enough, too bad.

 

[bibleberean]

Here is the problem, I am the only one in here answering the questions of multiple skeptics. Just because all questions aren't answered at once doesn't mean they can't or won't be answered. I didn't see all the questions so excuse me if I don't turn in an essay every single time a question is asked.

:roll:

 

[AHIMSA]

No, thats not the problem. The problem is that you have not turned in a single logical answer, you simply resort back to scripture to prove the veracity of scripture...which, needless to say, is redundant.

Its not that you're only answering some questions, its that you have deliberately avoided the questions of substance that pose a real threat to your dogmatic outlook.

 

[bibleberean]

No, thats not the problem. The problem is that you have not turned in a single logical answer, you simply resort back to scripture to prove the veracity of scripture...which, needless to say, is redundant.

Its not that you're only answering some questions, its that you have deliberately avoided the questions of substance that pose a real threat to your dogmatic outlook.

Which questions have I avoided answering?

It is only your own bias that states that I haven't given any logical answers.

Which ones are not logical?

I won't badger you until you answer. That isn't my style.

How is a Christian supposed to answer questions on scripture? Which sources should he quote? The Satanic bible? Atheists against the bible?

I have given my logic based on scripture and no one here has to accept it.

I have written some very detailed posts and quoted scripture and given my reasons for what I believe. It is easy for you to say "you haven't proven anything".

That took some thought and research... Not...

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If we discount two of the gospels why should we believe any part of the NT?

This reveals biased reasoning. You can't discount any part of the NT because then you could not be sure any part of the NT was true, and since that possibility cannot be honestly considered by you, you are not really evaluating any of our skeptical challenges to any portion of scripture.

In short, even if a contradiction or error be proven, you would not accept that proof. What is the purpose of debate if one side cannot be persuaded no matter what the evidence? :-?

 

[bibleberean]

If we discount two of the gospels why should we believe any part of the NT?

This reveals biased reasoning. You can't discount any part of the NT because then you could not be sure any part of the NT was true, and since that possibility cannot be honestly considered by you, you are not really evaluating any of our skeptical challenges to any portion of scripture.

n short, even if a contradiction or error be proven, you would not accept that proof. What is the purpose of debate if one side cannot be persuaded no matter what the evidence? :-?

I believe the bible is true and that no one here has yet to provide convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary.

Everyone here has a bias and a position.

This is news?

 

[einstein]

messiah

I appreciate that the moderator seems to be the only one attempting to respond to the many challenges being put forward so if any others wish to contribute, please do.

With all due respect, your reply to my post regarding Hosea was weak. Instead of a reasoned response you are trying to give us all a lesson in botany stating that Israel is the kernel and Jesus is the seed

If you accept the virgin birth, then Jesus in not of the seed (zera) of either Abraham or David since he had no mortal paternal seed.

Please explain how in your estimation Jesus is the seed.

Your response to the Isaiah 7 passage is the well-worn dual prophecy. It doesn't wash!. The prophecy specifically states several things that would happen as the child grows and mature. So if this is a dual fulfillment (and this is never stated in Isaiah) let me ask you several questions.

1)Which 2 kingdoms were abandoned in Jesus' lifetime?
2)Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel in the 1st century when there had not been such a kingdom for over 700 years?
3)When did Jesus eat cream and honey?
4)WHO WAS THE OTHER WOMAN WHO HAD A VIRGIN BIRTH CIRCA 732 B.C.E.???

Finally, if you wish (and this would take several long posts) I would challenge you wrt to Isaiah 53 by stating at the outset YOU ARE BASING YOUR THEOLOGY ON A TRANSLATION WITH MANY ERRORS when you carefully compare it with the original Hebrew Masoretic texts.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If we discount two of the gospels why should we believe any part of the NT?

This reveals biased reasoning. You can't discount any part of the NT because then you could not be sure any part of the NT was true, and since that possibility cannot be honestly considered by you, you are not really evaluating any of our skeptical challenges to any portion of scripture.

In short, even if a contradiction or error be proven, you would not accept that proof. What is the purpose of debate if one side cannot be persuaded no matter what the evidence? :-?

I believe the bible is true and that no one here has yet to provide convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary

Is it possible you could be convinced the bible contained errors by a "convincing argument" or "evidence to the contrary"? That's the question. If not, your position is unreasonable.

The same could be said for any position

Not necessarily. In my case, and, I believe I can assume in the case of the other two posters who are challenging you on this thread, we do not believe it is a "sin" for us to doubt our position or that we are forsaking some God (or the skeptical community) if you were to convince us that what you contend is true. Can you say the same for yourself as regards the implications of us being right?

 

[Andyhill]

Hi all!

I've been watching the fur fly here & it has been very interesting.

Bibleberean, you posted:

Everyone here has a bias and a position.

This is news?

Correct.

It shouldn't be.

What also shouldn't be news is that our respective views (Jewish & Christian) on how to understand and interpret the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament") differ in many particulars. That some of my Christian friends & cyberfriends consider my beliefs about the Tanakh to be completely wrong & at utter variance with theirs doesn't faze/rankle me in the slightest. I certainly don't begrudge them their beliefs. I'm actually touched by the fact that some of them consider my soul to be in jeopardy. However, what does faze/rankle me and get under my walrus skin just a teeny bit is when I'm necessarily deemed to be, or written off as, blind/ed or that I've been misled, merely because my beliefs differ from theirs.

Ahimsa, you posted:

The problem is that you have not turned in a single logical answer,

Bradtheimpaler, you posted:

In short, even if a contradiction or error be proven, you would not accept that proof. What is the purpose of debate if one side cannot be persuaded no matter what the evidence?

Faith is not mathematics. The latter is given to rational proof. The former is not.

I see the purpose of dialogue (as opposed to debate) as learning about others' beliefs/teaching about our own beliefs & all growing in the process.

Be well!

Andyhill

 

[DivineNames]

The duality of prophecy.

Isa 7:16

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken by both her kings."

A child does not come to a clear knowledge of good and evil as an infant.

Some commentators say this verse relates to any child. The virgin giving birth does not come to pass until the days of Christ. Just as the prophecy David gives concerning his body not seeing corruption is explained in the book of Acts. see Acts 2:25-47.

The explanation and reference of the Virgin birth is given in Luke and in Matthew...

Poole writes...

The child, Heb. this child; not the virgin's Son, but the prophet's child, Shear-jashub, whom in all probability the prophet, to prevent mistakes, pointed at, and who was brought hither by God's special command, Isa 7:3, and that for this very use; for otherwise his presence was wholly insignificant.

Are you saying that the verses do not relate to Jesus? That only the (contested) "virgin birth" part does?

 

[DivineNames]

The problem is that you have not turned in a single logical answer,

Faith is not mathematics. The latter is given to rational proof. The former is not.

That a sign/prophecy could plausibly be about someone/some event, couldn't that be argued for and demonstrated?

Should you have faith against the evidence?

 

[Andyhill]

Hi all!

DivineNames, you posted:

That a sign/prophecy could plausibly be about someone/some event, couldn't that be argued for and demonstrated?

Should you have faith against the evidence?

Yes.

Define "evidence".

Naturally, I completely & unreservedly subscribe to our view that there are no references to either Jesus, a triune God or God becoming flesh anywhere in the Tanakh. I'll be happy to try to explain our beliefs as best I can to anyone who amicably inquires about them but I won't get my jockeys in a twist over the fact Christians disagree with me strongly. A skeptical atheist, bibleberean (ferinstance ) & I could cite "proofs" and "evidence" to/at each other :smt014 until we're blue in the face but where would that get us? What purpose would it serve? :smt105 I may disagree with bibleberean from A to Z and back to A again about the Tanakh & about our respective beliefs yet I very much respect his/her (?) faith and the tenacity with which he/she (?) holds it; we have much in common. I am glad that others have beliefs which they cherish & hold dear; that they differ from my own is (more or less) small beer.

On a semi-related note, Stephen Crane wrote a poem entitled "Think as I think," said a man:

"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."

All I can say is Ribbit!

Be well!

Andyhill :smt039

 

[einstein]

messiah

Everyone, of course is entitled to their beliefs. The problem arises when person A who holds his/her beliefs is told by person B who holds contrary beliefs that person A will be eternally damned if he does not come to accept the beliefs and creeds of person B :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: messiah

Everyone, of course is entitled to their beliefs. The problem arises when person A who holds his/her beliefs is told by person B who holds contrary beliefs that person A will be eternally damned if he does not come to accept the beliefs and creeds of person B :

And, to make matters more ridiculous, person B has to appeal to a type of exclusive revelation :bday: to warrant his interpretation - an interpretation which is demonstrably false by any standard of logic or honest exegesis.

 

[DivineNames]

Re: messiah

"Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks baredâ€â€to Egypt's shame" (Isaiah 20:3-4 NIV)


A 'sign', as the term was used, does not have to be anything miraculous, it can be a natural event regarded as having significance.