Is Jesus the Messiah?

[kenan]

einstein,

Isa 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.

How sir can the geneology of the biological father pass to one through a virgin.

The original hebrew actually said "a young girl", meaning a woman who is youthful but not explicitly a virgin.

 

[biblecatholic]

einstein,

Isa 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.

How sir can the geneology of the biological father pass to one through a virgin.

The original hebrew actually said "a young girl", meaning a woman who is youthful but not explicitly a virgin.

But the when the New Testament quotes Isa 7:14 it uses the LXX which says virgin. I personally believe(and I'm not an expert and I could be wrong) that the LXX was used by the Jews even 200 yrs before Jesus because of Hellenization. Jesus quoted from the LXX as did the early church fathers. I personally believe that the LXX is a more accurate translation as the hebrew cannon was not "canonized" until 70ish ad after the destruction of the temple and this in particular was done by Jew's that had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah

 

[einstein]

The question "Is Jesus the Messiah?" is still unanswered here. All the arguments that are not answering this question should be moved to separate topics or taken to PM.

Is Jesus the Messiah according to the Old Testament?

I suppose you call Mary meeting these two very stringent requirements a strange coincidence and nothing more. These were conditions given in the book of Numbers in the Old Testament.

Of course there is more, much more.

My time is limited so I will only respond to 2 posts starting with the above quote. In fact, I wonder whether GBU has read my initial response which clearly refutes what she (I assume you are female)alleges are "stringent requirements". Your argument fails since a)your translation of the verses from Numbers is erroneous and b) you have picked out 2 verses without any reference to contextual significance.

As I stated previously, tribal affiliation is designated according to one's biological father (Num 1:18). The 2 passages you have picked out have nothing to do with tribal affiliation. The key word in the Hebrew text is "nachala" which means inheritance, possession, estate or land. Num36:2 says in Hebrew " latet ha'aretz BENACHALA begoral"--to give the land for inheritance by lot. Again, as I stated previously, you cannot divide an intangble as tribal affiliation by lot. In summary, if you start with a mistranslation you can arrive at virtually any conclusion you want- even your so-called imaginary stringent conditions. Unless you have some substantive evidence that refutes what I have just stated I would suggest you not counter by simply repeating what you have already said.

 

[einstein]

einstein,

Isa 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.

How sir can the geneology of the biological father pass to one through a virgin.

The original hebrew actually said "a young girl", meaning a woman who is youthful but not explicitly a virgin.

But the when the New Testament quotes Isa 7:14 it uses the LXX which says virgin. I personally believe(and I'm not an expert and I could be wrong) that the LXX was used by the Jews even 200 yrs before Jesus because of Hellenization. Jesus quoted from the LXX as did the early church fathers. I personally believe that the LXX is a more accurate translation as the hebrew cannon was not "canonized" until 70ish ad after the destruction of the temple and this in particular was done by Jew's that had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah

I am no expert either, but you definitely are wrong. The LXX to which you refer is a Church-rendered version of the Tanakh. The original Septuagint commissioned by Ptolemy II of Egypt was a 3rd century translation into Greek of only the Torah ie the Five Books of Moses. This is attested to by linguistic data comparing variations of Greek in the LXX with that spoken in the 3rd century, scriptural variations which are outlined in the Talmud, as well as by historical accounts such as those of Josephus and St. Jerome.

Furthermore, the LXX does not use the Greek word "parthenos" exclusively to mean a virgin. For example in Gen 34:3 the LXX uses the word "parthenos" to describe Dinah after she is raped by Sechem!

I will not at this time, go into a lengthy discussion of Is 7:14 except to state that it is a classic example of mistranslation of the original Hebrew for Christological purposes. The Hebrew clearly says 'Ha-almah'--THE young woman or maiden---not "a virgin". A contextual analysis of the chapter clearly proves it has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[biblecatholic]

I am no expert either, but you definitely are wrong. The LXX to which you refer is a Church-rendered version of the Tanakh. The original Septuagint commissioned by Ptolemy II of Egypt was a 3rd century translation into Greek of only the Torah ie the Five Books of Moses. This is attested to by linguistic data comparing variations of Greek in the LXX with that spoken in the 3rd century, scriptural variations which are outlined in the Talmud, as well as by historical accounts such as those of Josephus and St. Jerome.

the LXX is from100-200 bc and the jewish community used this.... your translation was changed by the jewish community who denied Christ as messiah...

Furthermore, the LXX does not use the Greek word "parthenos" exclusively to mean a virgin. For example in Gen 34:3 the LXX uses the word "parthenos" to describe Dinah after she is raped by Sechem!

on this I'll have to look into it :D

maybe instead of saying "your wrong" you can speak and treat people with dignity

 

[GraceBwithU]

einstein,

Isa 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.

How sir can the geneology of the biological father pass to one through a virgin.

The original hebrew actually said "a young girl", meaning a woman who is youthful but not explicitly a virgin.

This only depends on the Lexicon that you reference. I have ten. They all indicate a woman that has not yet known a man. (virgin) you are mistaken sir.

 

[einstein]

I believe it was YOU who initially stated you might be wrong. I was merely confirming your suspicion. Sorry if your feelings were hurt. : Wrt "parthenos" try hypertext bible. click on "sep" go to gen 34:3- the 12th word in is "parthenos" which the KJB translates as "damsel" since it would be impossible for Dinah to have been a virgin after being raped.
"

 

[einstein]

einstein,

Isa 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.

How sir can the geneology of the biological father pass to one through a virgin.

The original hebrew actually said "a young girl", meaning a woman who is youthful but not explicitly a virgin.

This only depends on the Lexicon that you reference. I have ten. They all indicate a women that has not yet known a man. (virgin) you are mistaken sir.

This is getting off topic but nevertheless, please let me know which lexicon you are referencing wherein it states that almah is translated as "virgin". Thanks.

 

[kenan]

maybe instead of saying "your wrong" you can speak and treat people with dignity

at least he gave an explanation of why you were wrong, thats a bonus if you're living in this time and age :D

 

[GraceBwithU]

This is getting off topic but nevertheless, please let me know which lexicon you are referencing wherein it states that almah is translated as "virgin". Thanks.

There is very little anyone can offer a blind Jew as proof of the Messiah. Like I said before, I was married to one for 7 years. I have been to a Jewish wedding, even the rabbi was drunk.

Perhaps you are upset because the Messiah revealed himself to the Gentiles first.

Isa 65:1
65 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
KJV

Isa 9:2
2 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.
KJV


I can quote thousands of scriptures and you will not believe.

John 9:39-41
9 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

John 10:25-27
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
KJV

John 10:37-38
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
KJV

 

[GraceBwithU]

Einstein,
Just one more note it is not the Jews or the Romans or any other men that crucified our Lord.

John 10:17-18
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
KJV

:smt056 Amen

 

[biblecatholic]

I believe it was YOU who initially stated you might be wrong. I was merely confirming your suspicion. Sorry if your feelings were hurt. : Wrt "parthenos" try hypertext bible. click on "sep" go to gen 34:3- the 12th word in is "parthenos" which the KJB translates as "damsel" since it would be impossible for Dinah to have been a virgin after being raped.
"

actually I was trying to word my statement to sound nonthreatening.

 

[einstein]

This is what typically happens whenever I try to enter a rationale discussion with someone who cannot face up to the fact that their alleged proofs are worthless. I get labelled as a "blind Jew" or better "a son of Satan"etc. It's quite pathetic. You started a thread trying to show Jesus is the Messiah and as soon as you are confronted with problems regarding the genealogies you retreat to an argumentum ad hominem. I provide you with accurate translations from the Hebrew to refute your allegations and you come back with nothing but slurs Typical. btw any child who know Hebrew knows that almah means a young woman without any connotation of sexual experience, just as the male counterpart elem means a young man without any connotation of sexual experience. In fact, I could show you a passage in the Hebrew Bible which proves unequivocably that almah does not mean virgin but why bother- you would only come back with another derogatory remark. If anyone following this thread wishes to continue with an open mind, using properly translated passages from the Bible to prove their case, let me know. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.

 

[francisdesales]

This is what typically happens whenever I try to enter a rationale discussion with someone who cannot face up to the fact that their alleged proofs are worthless. I get labelled as a "blind Jew" or better "a son of Satan"etc. It's quite pathetic. You started a thread trying to show Jesus is the Messiah and as soon as you are confronted with problems regarding the genealogies you retreat to an argumentum ad hominem. I provide you with accurate translations from the Hebrew to refute your allegations and you come back with nothing but slurs Typical. btw any child who know Hebrew knows that almah means a young woman without any connotation of sexual experience, just as the male counterpart elem means a young man without any connotation of sexual experience. In fact, I could show you a passage in the Hebrew Bible which proves unequivocably that almah does not mean virgin but why bother- you would only come back with another derogatory remark. If anyone following this thread wishes to continue with an open mind, using properly translated passages from the Bible to prove their case, let me know. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Christians of ancient times used the SEPTUAGINT. Most Jews were living outside of the diaspora, and were reading the Septuagint. It is relatively accepted that many Jews living in PALESTINE were reading the Septuagint. The Septuagint interprets the word "virgin" rather than "young maiden". Since the apostles quote over 75% of the time from the Septuagint when quoting OT Scriptures, it is not surprising that "virgin" would be the accepted interpretation of Isaiah and considered part of Sacred Scriptures, since the Septuagint was considered divinely inspired.

Thus, refering to the Hebrew word obscures the point.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Perhaps you are upset because the Messiah revealed himself to the Gentiles first.

Isa 65:1
65 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
KJV

Although this may be only peripherally related to the issue, I do not think it is correct to say that Jesus revealed himself to the Gentiles first. Paul, in Romans, repeatedly distinguishes "ethnic Israel" from "true Israel", the latter group being thought of by Paul as those who will inherit the covenant promises. This "true Israel", in Paul's mind at least, is made up of both ethnic Jews and Gentiles. If anything, Jesus presents himself first in a Jewish context.

I do think that Paul presents an argument that God sovereignly causes the national of Israel (as a whole, not each individual) to "stumble" over the Messiah. But this does not mean that each and every Jew is somehow blinded to the truth. That cannot be the case - Paul himself is a Jew.

And even though I read Paul as saying that Israel was indeed "elected to stumble over Torah", that stumble now lies in the past. A person who accords authority to Paul and the picture he paints would properly hold that this "blinding" of nation of Israel is something that has achieved its purpose and no longer is in effect:

Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

While I have assumed the Messiahship of Jesus in this post (i.e. I have not argued for it), I suspect that einstein might disagree with me on at least the following:

1. He may not think Paul is authoritative;
2. Even if Paul is considered authoritative, einstein might not share my view that he wrote about a divinely guided "stumbling of Israel".

 

[einstein]

This is what typically happens whenever I try to enter a rationale discussion with someone who cannot face up to the fact that their alleged proofs are worthless. I get labelled as a "blind Jew" or better "a son of Satan"etc. It's quite pathetic. You started a thread trying to show Jesus is the Messiah and as soon as you are confronted with problems regarding the genealogies you retreat to an argumentum ad hominem. I provide you with accurate translations from the Hebrew to refute your allegations and you come back with nothing but slurs Typical. btw any child who know Hebrew knows that almah means a young woman without any connotation of sexual experience, just as the male counterpart elem means a young man without any connotation of sexual experience. In fact, I could show you a passage in the Hebrew Bible which proves unequivocably that almah does not mean virgin but why bother- you would only come back with another derogatory remark. If anyone following this thread wishes to continue with an open mind, using properly translated passages from the Bible to prove their case, let me know. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Christians of ancient times used the SEPTUAGINT. Most Jews were living outside of the diaspora, and were reading the Septuagint. It is relatively accepted that many Jews living in PALESTINE were reading the Septuagint. The Septuagint interprets the word "virgin" rather than "young maiden". Since the apostles quote over 75% of the time from the Septuagint when quoting OT Scriptures, it is not surprising that "virgin" would be the accepted interpretation of Isaiah and considered part of Sacred Scriptures, since the Septuagint was considered divinely inspired.

Thus, refering to the Hebrew word obscures the point.

Regards

I am not sure of what you are trying to say. There is substantial evidence from multiple sources that the original Septuagint was a translation only of the Law, ie the Five Books of Moses. Over the course of centuries additional Greek translations were made of the Prophets and the Writings most of which were not Jewish in origin with some exceptions (eg Aquila). By th 2nd century, the Septuagint had essentially become a translation of the Church. Aside from the Mosaic Law, the Septuagint translation were never used in any authoritative sense by ancient Jewry. In addition, as I have already stated, the Septuagint does not use the term "parthenos" as an exclusive word for virgin. As well the term is ha'almah ie THE young woman, ie a specific female known to the prophet, not some unknown virgin 700 years in the future. If you read the entire chapte of Isaiah, you will see contextually, it has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[einstein]

Perhaps you are upset because the Messiah revealed himself to the Gentiles first.

Isa 65:1
65 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
KJV

Although this may be only peripherally related to the issue, I do not think it is correct to say that Jesus revealed himself to the Gentiles first. Paul, in Romans, repeatedly distinguishes "ethnic Israel" from "true Israel", the latter group being thought of by Paul as those who will inherit the covenant promises. This "true Israel", in Paul's mind at least, is made up of both ethnic Jews and Gentiles. If anything, Jesus presents himself first in a Jewish context.

I do think that Paul presents an argument that God sovereignly causes the national of Israel (as a whole, not each individual) to "stumble" over the Messiah. But this does not mean that each and every Jew is somehow blinded to the truth. That cannot be the case - Paul himself is a Jew.

And even though I read Paul as saying that Israel was indeed "elected to stumble over Torah", that stumble now lies in the past. A person who accords authority to Paul and the picture he paints would properly hold that this "blinding" of nation of Israel is something that has achieved its purpose and no longer is in effect:

Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

While I have assumed the Messiahship of Jesus in this post (i.e. I have not argued for it), I suspect that einstein might disagree with me on at least the following:

1. He may not think Paul is authoritative;
2. Even if Paul is considered authoritative, einstein might not share my view that he wrote about a divinely guided "stumbling of Israel".

Drew, I view Moses as being authoritative, not Paul. Peace and shalom. :D

 

[Vic C.]

It doesn't matter what any of us think. The Lord chose him, just as he chose Moses; Peter and the others in Jerusalem conceded to an authoritative Paul. Paul spoke of Divine revelation; none of us here can disprove it.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I view Moses as being authoritative, not Paul. Peace and shalom. :D

Assuming that management is OK with this line of inquiry (and I will not complain if they are not), can you give me a thumbnail overview of where you think Paul is "wrong" in the sense of being at variance with those Scriptures that you do think are authoritative?

 

[GraceBwithU]

Although this may be only peripherally related to the issue, I do not think it is correct to say that Jesus revealed himself to the Gentiles first.

Don't be silly I was being sarcastic.

It is true that not all Jews are blinded, But some are. Have you ever spent time with Jewish people? Have you ever been married to one? Have you been to their worship services? I am only saying these things so you will know that I have had very close relationships with Jews and their customs today. The Jew of today is not the Jew of the time of Jesus. However there are still a remnant that one can find. Liby is one.(that was my mother-in-law)

I have respect for Israel and always will. But there are many today that claim to be Jews and are not.