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

[einstein]

messiah

The Hebrew word "ot"(sign) appears 79 times in the Hebrew bible and the significant characteristic of its usage is to denote a physically perceptible signal, that is something that can be seen or heard or directly sensed. Although the word is used to describe a deed that suspends natural law in Isaiah 38, there is, in fact, nothing inherently miraculous in the normal sense of the word "ot".

The moderator referred to a comment by someone named Poole suggesting that Isaiah's first son was the child in 7:14. This is impossible since the "almah" of the verse is "harah" translated as "a pregnant female" or a woman who is pregnant and about to conceive.

 

[bibleberean]

I have counted no less than 15 questions and challenges for me to answer since I have been away to prepare for this mornings Sunday sermon at the small church I pastor.

I will answer these as best I can.

"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."

Not true.

I gave a bible lesson.

Out of Egypt did I call my son. This prophecy, no doubt, had a primary reference to the Exodus, and was an echo of the words of Moses at Ex 4:22-23. In their type and antitype relationship the Old and New Testaments may be likened to the shell and kernel of a nut. Israel was Israel, and God's Son, because it included in itself the yet unformed and unborn body which was later to be inhabited by the spirit of the Word or Son of God. The seed of Abraham was called out of Egypt, that the promised seed enveloped within it might have a body and nature prepared in the land of liberty, and not in that of bondage. Israel was the outer shell, and Christ the kernel, hence the double significance of the prophecy--the twice repeated movement of the nation and the Man."

(TFG 50)

The Fourfold Commentary on Acts

Bibleberean goes on...

Paul the Jew of the tribe of Abraham and a student of Gamiel comments in Galatians...

Hosea is giving a dual prophecy here with the obvious referrence to Israel the son "the seeds" and Jesus the son the "seed".

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Jesus is referred to the "son of Man" and the son of God".

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I made a mistake in what I wrote above. Paul was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and of the seed of Abraham..

Also the use of the word "seed" and seeds is used in the bible to give clarity and meaning in explaining the scriptures.

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Matthew 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

Acts 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

1 Corinthians 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

1 Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Joseph and Mary were both in the lineage of David.

God being Christ's true Father confirms that Jesus is legitimate heir to the throne.

Unlike those who are born again and become adopted son's of God Jesus is the "only begotten son of God".

Joseph being the Christ's "supposed father" gave Jesus earthly adoption.

Also Mary being the mother give's Christ's the lineage according to the flesh.

The argument by todays Jews and skeptics is that Mary has no bearing on the lineage of the King because she is a woman.

That is not true as demonstrated in a post earlier.

http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY

"Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary....

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship."..

BB continues:

There were always exceptions to clear cut rules of inheritance in Israel...

For instance...

Numbers 27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

Numbers 27:2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

Numbers 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.

Numbers 27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.

Numbers 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.

Numbers 27:5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.

Numbers 27:6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Numbers 27:7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

No explanation will ever be satisfactory for the lost souls who's only purpose for being here is to try to cast dispersions on our bible and the God who authored it.

God being Christ's Father when he calls Israel "his son" means His geneology is not pure? That is logical?

God brought about the whole human race through Adam.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[bibleberean]

"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?

Andy Hill also writes
Correct.

It shouldn't be.

Bias

2. A leaning of the mind; inclination; prepossession; propensity towards an object, not leaving the mind indifferent; as, education gives a bias to the mind.

Of course I am inclined to believe the bible is true. Who isn't biased to some degree?

Atheists have a bias.

Psalms 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

By the way, I did go to a Jewish site once. Not to argue but to mention that the Koran never once mentions Jerusalem. I gave this word of encouragement to them. There is no doubt Jerusalem is the city of David.

In the Old Testament Jerusalem is mentioned 626 times.

In the New Testament Jerusalem is mentioned 141 times.

I believe that Jerusalem called by it's other names brings that total to over 800 times.

Funny that the Muslims are so worried about Jerusalem and yet their "holy" book doesn't even mention it.

Also, I want you to know that the nation of Israel and Jerusalem are in my prayers every day.

Jeremiah 46:28 Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the LORD: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.

The above verse is an unfolding of prophecy. God has scattered the Jews all over the world. That part is an observable fact. God has not yet made a full end of all the nations where He has driven the Jews but I know that He will.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

Jeremiah 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

The sun is still a light for the day and the moon and the stars are for a light by night. The waves are still roaring. Israel will not cease to be a nation and God will not make a full end of Israel.

 

[bibleberean]

1)Which 2 kingdoms were abandoned in Jesus' lifetime?

None that I know of...

How many young Hebrew women conceived and had male children that ate bread and Honey when Isaiah gave the prophecy?

Which woman named her son Immanuel?

Why would a young woman who having a male child that ate bread and honey be sign?

Let me give you the answer.

The prophecy is not completely fulfilled. It wasn't just a young woman that was to have a child it was a virgin that was to conceive. The prophecy was not fully understood nor fulfilled until Christ was born in Bethlehem.

There were male children born to many women and they ate bread and honey and before these children reached the age of the reasoning of good and evil the two kings were destroyed.

Here is another example of unfolding prophecy that is not completely fulfilled in the time it is given.

Matthew 2:5-6 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Matthew 2:5-6 is quoting Micah 5:2

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Read the rest of Micah chapter 5.

It doesn't appear that there is anyway that Jesus fits the description of what will take place in the rest of the chapter. But Jesus will return to fulfill them.

Did Jesus become a ruler in Israel? Did He destroy the images and cut off (destroy) those who practice witchcraft?

Not yet. :D

No virgin had a baby during the reign of Ahaz.

I never saw the Red Sea part nor did I see Christ rise from the dead but I believe these miracles took place and yet they are considered signs.

The Virgin birth was a sign that has impacted the entire world. The proof is everywhere. Why are we having this conversation if it isn't considered a sign? Joseph and Mary saw the sign. How many people need to see a sign to make it one.

There are only a little over 500 people that saw the resurrected Christ.

How many people saw the sign of Gideon's fleece?


"Quest. How was this birth of a virgin, which was not to come till many ages after, a sign of their deliverance from the present danger?

Answ.

1. Because this was a clear demonstration of God's infinite power, and goodness, and faithfulness, and consequently of the certain truth of all God's promises from time to time, which can never fill so long as those attributes of God stand; and men's faith is either strong or weak, as they believe them or doubt of them; of which see Ps 77:8; 78:19-20; Ro 4:20-21. And so this was a proper remedy for Ahaz's disease, which was a secret suspicion that God either could not or would not deliver them.

2. Because that promise, I say not only the actual giving, which was long after, but even the promise, of the Messiah, which had been made long since, and oft renewed, and was universally believed by all the people, was the foundation of all God's mercies and promises unto them, 2Co 1:20, and a pledge of the accomplishment of them.

3. Because this promised birth did suppose and require the preservation of that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no cause to fear that utter ruin which their enemies now threatened to bring upon them.

4. This is one, but not the only sign here given, as we shall see at Isa 7:16.

Behold; you who will not believe that God alone is able to deliver you from the united force of Syria and Israel, take notice, for your full satisfaction, that God is not only able to do this work, but to do far greater and harder things, which he hath promised, and therefore both can and will accomplish.

A virgin; strictly and properly so called. The Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof of the truth of Christian religion, pretend that this Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this corrupt translation is easily confuted,

1. Because this word constantly signifies a virgin in all other places of Scripture where it is used, which are Ge 24:43, compared with Isa 7:16; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Song 1:3; 6:8; to which may be added Pr 30:19, The way of a man with a maid, or a virgin: for though it be supposed that he did design and desire to corrupt her, and afterwards did so; yet she may well be called a virgin, partly because he found her a virgin, and partly because she seemed and pretended to others to be such, which made her more careful to use all possible arts to preserve her reputation, and so made the discovery of her impure conversation with the man more difficult, whereas the filthy practices of common harlots are easily and vulgarly known.

2. From the scope of this place, which is to confirm their faith by a strange and prodigious sign, which surely could not be not a young woman should conceive a child, but that a virgin should conceive, &c.

Bear a Son; or rather, bring forth, as it is rendered, Mt 1:23, and as this Hebrew word is used, Ge 16:11; 17:19; Jg 13:5.

And shall call; the virgin, last mentioned, shall call; which is added as a further evidence of her virginity, and that this Son had no human father, because the right of naming the child (which, being a sign of dominion, is primarily in the husband, and in the wife only by his consent or permission, as is evident from Ge 5:29; 35:18; Lu 1:60,63, and many other places of Scripture) is wholly appropriated to her.

Immanuel; which signifies, God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, Joh 1:14, God and man meeting in one person, and being a Mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office; as we read that his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, &c., Isa 9:6, and that this is said to be his (the Messiah's) name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness, Jer 23:6, although he be never called by these names in any other place of the Old or New Testament; but the meaning of these places is, He shall be wonderful, and our Counsellor, &c., and our Righteousness; for to be called is oft put for to be, as Isa 1:26; 4:3"

Matthew Pooles Commentary on the Bible.

 

[bibleberean]

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Matthew 1:23 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.

Private interpretation? Not hardly...

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[einstein]

messiah

I have read your posts several times and I must admit I am having serious difficulties understanding your explanations. Furthermore you still have not properly addressed my previous questions in regard to Hosea or the Isaiah quotes.

In essence, your response is the dual prophecy argument, that is there was a contemporary event which was a foreshadowing of a future event where the principal figure is Jesus (the "son" or the "virgin birth")

I have posted regarding the Hebrew word "ot" which you do not seem to understand. There is nothing inherently miraculous in the meaning of the word "ot" and its usage in the Hebrew bible is always associated with something perceptible. How is a virgin birth perceptible to anyone except the woman giving birth?

The fact that an "almah" can be a virgin does not indicate its common meaning is "virgin". The term has no connotation of sexual purity. The male counterpart to "almah" is "elem" which simply means "a young man"-again, without any reference to sexual experience.

If even one reference in the Hebrew Bible using the term "almah" can be demonstrated to rule out a virgin, then I think most reasonable people would accept the more common understanding as many Christian bibles have. (eg NEB,RSV}

I don't understand your quotes wrt Prov 30:18-19 as an explanation. The simple and straightforward commonsense explanation is the author is describing 3 things which are confounding him: the way or the serpent on a rock, the ship in the sea and the way of a man with a young woman "almah". What these have in common is THEY LEAVE NO TRACE"The only way there is no trace when a man is with a woman is if she is NOT a virgin and her hymen has been broken. This is confirmed in the very next verse when the author says "SO is the way (referring to the almah) of an adulteress woman; she eats (engages in sex) and wipes her mouth and she says " I have commited no sin"

The ONLY WAY these passages make any sense is if the "almah" is NOT a virgin :wink: Matthew erred by using the Greek word "parthenos" from the Septuagint which usually but does not always mean virgin.

I will conclude by stating that another problem with your dual prophecy argument is that are forced to be very selective or cherry-pick wrt which part of the prophecy represents the first leg and which represents the second leg. You have not responded at all to my challenges wrt Isaiah 7:14. The passage refers to the birth of a child and then goes to state several things about what will happen to child or things about the child. YOU selectively (and erroneously in my opinion) select the virgin part and totally ignore everything else.

The passage says certain things would happen before the child knows good from evil. You have admitted that you know of no two Kingdoms that were abandoned in the 1st century and you will have to admit that the northern Kingdom of Israel had been out of existence for more than 7 centuries. While I am at , how could there be ANY time between the time Jesus is born and the time he can differentitate good from evil if as you believe Jesus=God????

The dual prophecy theory makes no sense since in order for it to truly be a dual prophecy EVERYTHING that the prophet states in these passages would have had to occur in the near term (which they did) and in 1st century Judea (which they certainly did not).

Sorry for the length of the post. I welcome further input and will be posting again when time permits wrr several other or your prooftexts such as Micah and Jeremiah.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: messiah

I will conclude by stating that another problem with your dual prophecy argument is that are forced to be very selective or cherry-pick wrt which part of the prophecy represents the first leg and which represents the second leg. You have not responded at all to my challenges wrt Isaiah 7:14. The passage refers to the birth of a child and then goes to state several things about what will happen to child or things about the child. YOU selectively (and erroneously in my opinion) select the virgin part and totally ignore everything else.

The passage says certain things would happen before the child knows good from evil. You have admitted that you know of no two Kingdoms that were abandoned in the 1st century and you will have to admit that the northern Kingdom of Israel had been out of existence for more than 7 centuries. While I am at , how could there be ANY time between the time Jesus is born and the time he can differentitate good from evil if as you believe Jesus=God????

The dual prophecy theory makes no sense since in order for it to truly be a dual prophecy EVERYTHING that the prophet states in these passages would have had to occur in the near term (which they did) and in 1st century Judea (which they certainly did not)

How to get around the fact that a prophecy didn't come out the way you wanted? Label it a "dual prophecy" and claim the ultimate fulfillment is yet to come. How convenient :wink: In this manner it could be claimed that almost anything we want is a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus and that the "other part" simply hasn't happened yet.

Another "dualie" concept, this one invented to excuse the "Deity of Christ" from having to exhibit the characteristics of God all the time is the "Dual Nature". You see, there was a time when the baby Jesus didn't know right from wrong in his human nature. Just attribute anything that is the antithesis of the nature of God to Jesus' "human nature" and *Viola* - Jesus can still be God, even though, as for instance in this case, it is ridiculous to imagine God not knowing right from wrong.

 

[DivineNames]

There were always exceptions to clear cut rules of inheritance in Israel...

For instance...

Numbers 27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

Numbers 27:2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

Numbers 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.

Numbers 27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.

Numbers 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.

Numbers 27:5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.

Numbers 27:6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Numbers 27:7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

No explanation will ever be satisfactory for the lost souls who's only purpose for being here is to try to cast dispersions on our bible and the God who authored it.

This was about inheriting possessions, NOT LINEAGE!

You didn't quote from Numbers 36 (NIV)-

(1) The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. (2) They said, "When the LORD commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. (3) Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. (4) When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers." (5) Then at the LORD's command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: "What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. (6) This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. (7) No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. (8) Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father's tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. (9) No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits."



As I understand, they could only inherit possessions if they married within their father's tribe. If they married outside of it then they would be part of their new husband's tribe. So lineage is going via the male.

 

[einstein]

messiah

Brad: Well put. While awaiting any further responses wrt Is 7:14 I just want to summarize that both from a linguistic and contextual perspective, this passage cannot be referring Jesus. Again, the most obvious translational error is to translate "ha'almah" as " A virgin". Sorry, but the "ha" in Hebrew is the definitive article meaning "the". It's there but the KJB and others ignore it. WHY IS THAT? :

Could it be that by using the definitive "the" the prophet was identifying a specific or particular young woman contemporary to the court of Ahaz? After all that's the function of a definitive pronoun. One can see by ignoring a word known by any grade 1 Hebrew school student, the translators of the KJB, by substituting an INDEFINITE pronoun, made it just a little easier to suggest some unknown woman in the future, thus fitting in with the christological message.

I won't get into any further discussions on this passage for now but I would like to respond in a future post to the moderators explanation of Jesus' genealogy.

 

[einstein]

messiah

DinveNames: You stole a bit of my thunder, but I certainly support your posting. The use of the daughters of Zelophehad is certainly inappropriate since the passages refer to tangible assets or property NOT TRIBAL LINEAGE. I would also add that the common Christian position that Joseph passed on his royal line by adopting Jesus has no support in the Hebrew bible. Certainly there are cases of adoption, but there is nothing to indicate that one transfers one's tribal lineage by adopting. A KOHEN can adopt a son, but that son will never be a KOHEN. This is only one problem among several others I hope to discusss as time permits. :wink:

 

[DivineNames]

The New Testament does not explain every single detail of the Old or the New Testament would be thousands of Volumes long.

But why doesn't the N.T. explain its use of the Old Testament?

The amount of explanation that would be required is presumably in proportion to how 'out of context' material appears to have been taken, how many problems are created etc., so if you wish to claim it would take books and books of explanation then it will only count against you!

:D

 

[bibleberean]

The New Testament does not explain every single detail of the Old or the New Testament would be thousands of Volumes long.

But why doesn't the N.T. explain its use of the Old Testament?

The amount of explanation that would be required is presumably in proportion to how 'out of context' material appears to have been taken, how many problems are created etc., so if you wish to claim it would take books and books of explanation then it will only count against you!

:D

No virgin gave birth to a child in Isaiah's time. The prophecy was given for the entire house of David. Ahaz did not want a sign.

Ahaz represents Israel and his personal rejection was used by God to a give a greater unfolding prophecy as well as one for that time.


When Christ came born of a virgin much later Israel could have been completely delivered and Christ would have ruled and reigned on the throne of His father David.

But the Jews rejected Him and the rest as we say "is history".

Isaiah 7:11-13 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The prophecy was fulfilled here.

Matthew 1:23-25 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. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

"Immanuel; which signifies, God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, Joh 1:14, God and man meeting in one person, and being a Mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office; as we read that his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, &c.," Matthew Poole Commentary

Many a "young woman" had babies that ate bread and honey during this time period. The kings were removed before any child born immediately after the prophecy could reach the age of reason. Israel was preserved until the child Jesus came born of a virgin.

As said before "Ahaz represents Israel and his personal rejection of a sign was used by God to a give a greater unfolding prophecy as well as one for that time."

The Old Testament's meaning of the verse is explained to the satisfaction of billions of believers in the New Testament.

As Isaiah's prophecy unfolds more information about the child is given.

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.

In the context of the verse above the child born was to rule and reign forever. Jesus was born and He is indeed called the mighty God the "prince of peace" etc. but He did not rule and reign forever. This prophecy will be fulfilled when Christ comes again.

That is the problem the Jews had when He was executed and part of the reason they rejected Him. They believed that the apostles were "cherry picking" parts of verses.

Hold on there is more... :D

Be back soon.

 

[bibleberean]

Another example of unfolding prophecy

Isaiah 9:1-2 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

Matthew 4:15-17 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The child was born of a virgin. Isaian 7:14 He is the "mighty God" Isaiah 9:6

The child will be born in the lineage of Jesse.

Isaiah 11:1-5 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

Here are the verses that speak of the child grown into a man suffering for the sins of His people.

Isaiah 53:2-6 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

This is the New Testament explaining the Old...

The entire bible is centered around Christ the promised seed.

Many Jews have come to a saving knowledge of Christ by careful study of both the Old and New Testament.

 

[bibleberean]

One of the reasons the Jews rejected Christ is because they were so focused on the parts of scripture that Christ was going to rule and reign forever that they "cherry picked" only what they wanted out of the Old Testament.


John 12:32-36 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Christ had to rebuke His own disciples for not understanding the fact that He had to suffer and die as shown in the Old Testament.

Luke 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I don't think I am the one that is "cherry picking".

The Old Testament is revealed and expained in the New to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of billions of believers. The fact that those who choose not to believe this is not an issue I lose sleep over.

Luke 1:31-35 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

:D

 

[einstein]

messiah

I will only attempt to deal with one prooftext at a time. I will address the common missionary position about the prophet addressing "you" in the singular and the plural. A careful examination of the Hebrew texts easily refutes your position.

The missionaries contend that the prophet addressed Ahaz in both the singular and the plural. They point out that Isaiah is addressing Ahaz as well as the House of David. Therefore, they conclude that whenever the prophet is addressing the latter or spoke in the plural "you", he was addressing the future Davidic dynasty (Jesus). Whenever the singular "you" was used this was to address the immediate military situation.

In this chapter, it is clearly demonstrated that both the House of David and Ahaz were threatened by the situation, not just the king. Every reference to the House of David and the plural "you" referred only to the potential military crisis. In the second verse the prophet states that both were informed of the crisis and declares that both "his heart" (levavo) ie of Ahaz-singular, "and the heart of his nation" (ulevav ammo) ie (of Judah/the House of David-plural) were trembling with fear.

In fact by addressing Ahaz as the House of David in the plural "you" Isaiah was delivering a message that although Ahaz was not worthy of deliverance, he would be spared through the merit of the House of David, the dynastic line of his forefathers. The two kingdoms intended to conquer Jerusalem to undermine the throne of David (Isaiah 7:6). God promised David his dynasty would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king who occupied the throne (2Sam 7:12-16). Ahaz was thus saved by the merit of the House of David, not by his merit which was lacking.

Moderator, please provide us with an example of "cherry-picking" in the Tanach comparable to those I have cited in the NT. Also, while you're at it, please provide any examples of mistranslations of the original Hebrew comparable to those examples I have cited in the NT,\.

When time permits I will be addressing the question of seed and genealogy of Jesus

 

[bibleberean]

In this chapter, it is clearly demonstrated that both the House of David and Ahaz were threatened by the situation, not just the king. Every reference to the House of David and the plural "you" referred only to the potential military crisis. In the second verse the prophet states that both were informed of the crisis and declares that both "his heart" (levavo) ie of Ahaz-singular, "and the heart of his nation" (ulevav ammo) ie (of Judah/the House of David-plural) were trembling with fear.

In fact by addressing Ahaz as the House of David in the plural "you" Isaiah was delivering a message that although Ahaz was not worthy of deliverance, he would be spared through the merit of the House of David, the dynastic line of his forefathers. The two kingdoms intended to conquer Jerusalem to undermine the throne of David (Isaiah 7:6). God promised David his dynasty would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king who occupied the throne (2Sam 7:12-16). Ahaz was thus saved by the merit of the House of David, not by his merit which was lacking.

That is correct. The fact remains that there has been no King sitting on David's throne for well over 2,0000 years.

Why?

At the end of the book of Isaiah the child born of a virgin Isaiah 7 and the one who is called the "mighty God" the everlasting father" the prince of peace" Isaiah 9:6 was rejected by the Jews who neither understood the scriptures nor the power of God.

Isaiah 53:1-6 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Is not Israel without a king and a temple? Is not Israel filled with apostate and superstitious Jews? The Jews have gone their "own way".

Jesus said: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Luke 13:35

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Einstein, are you a Jew?

 

[einstein]

messiah

Before I go on to explain to you why I feel Isaiah9:5-6 and Isaiah 53 have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus I will be posting wrt to genealogy question. But before I do, could you explain to everyone on this form how is it possible for Jesus to be of the seed of David thru the "royal line" of Joseph, if you also believe in the virgin birth story which rules out Joseph as being the father?

 

[bibleberean]

Re: messiah

Before I go on to explain to you why I feel Isaiah9:5-6 and Isaiah 53 have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus I will be posting wrt to genealogy question. But before I do, could you explain to everyone on this form how is it possible for Jesus to be of the seed of David thru the "royal line" of Joseph, if you also believe in the virgin birth story which rules out Joseph as being the father?

Einstein,

I already know the argument against the royal line of Joseph but don't let me stop you from presenting your argument.

I already know Joseph was not the father of Jesus. The bible is very clear on that... and the reasons that his lineage rules out Christ being his son and how his lineage rules out Jesus sitting on the throne of David because of Jeconiah.

We know that God cursed Jeconiah. God stated that no descendant of his would prosper on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30).

Jeconiah is also called Coniah.

Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary.

Jesus was Joseph's adopted son and gave Jesus the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son but not the biological curse.

There are two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.


I was wondering... are you a Jew or a believer of any kind?

We are on the topic of "How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?"

So, please present how we are to do that as well.

We cannot let this simply be a debate on Theology or it is in the wrong forum.

 

[einstein]

messiah

Yes, I am Jewish and my belief is that the Tanach including the Torah was given by God to Moses and the Prophets and Writings in the Hebrew Bible are inspired works of great sages. I thought most devout Christians held the same belief.

Since much in the NT contradicts what is in the Tanach, I choose to believe in the latter.

What I post is for consideration of others on this forum, since it is obvious that the moderator has no doubts about the truth of his beliefs, even when presented with what I feel are legitimate questions regarding prooftexts which he freely quotes from the Greek Testament (NT) which, upon closer examination do not truly represent the meaning from the original Hebrew, or are taken out of context.

My aim is not to convert anyone to my beliefs, merely to show the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY. In effect, if this thread was started to demonstrate how to respond to Jews who do not feel the messiah has come, certainly it behooves everyone to try to gain some understanding why Jew feel this way :roll:

I would appreciate input from others, and from the moderator it would help if I could get some straightforward answers to my questions rather than reams and reams of what I can demonstrate to be mistranslated scriptures.

OK. The genealogy issue. Your position is that Luke's list is Mary's genealogy and this represents the biological line while Matthew's is the legal line.

You have stated that Joseph (not being the biological father of Jesus) passed on his tribal lineage by adopting Jesus. That is not correct Christians often use the example of Zelophehad's daughters but this only applies to tangible assets, not TRIBAL LINEAGE.

There are no examples in the Tanach of tribal lineage through adoption although there are adoptions for other reasons.

In the next post I will deal with the issue of Mary's lineage.

 

[Guest]

I started the post and after months of this and thinking about, the more I see the more I believe Christainty is a fraud. The Jewish scriptures speak for themselves, all the twisted christian use of the tanch and mistranlations, the lies and the inabailty to prove that christiansy is real is convincing me more and more that christians are frauds. I still cant find a christian letter on the websites or anywhere that can actually make sense against Jewish theology, why do you think none of these christian apologetics sites dont have judiasm listed, they cant defend christainsy vs it, and they try to hide and are scared to look at the facts because it challenges there faith, and christians go around and bash every other religion out there, but are too afarid to investigate judaism.

I was a born again christian since 1996, but are you hypocrite christians going to say that I was never truly born again? I was , once saved always saved is the biggest joke of the 20 and 21 century, all these pastors want is to sucker you in and depend on them and thee words for heaven and take your money, do you really think churches need to build million dollar buildings, or 30+ million dollar churches?

Then you look at the christian leaders for this day, dobson, robertson, these guys are the biggest judgemental fools around, if jesus does come back, he is the one that he would treat like the pharisees when he came in the 1 st century. They just want to tell everybody how to live there lives, what they and there family should watch, what they should buy, eat, and etc.... Last I checked god gave us free will, then why are these hyprocites judging the world and acting like they are so moral. They make me sick.