About these prophecies

[behrgen]

About these propehcies


I would like to begin by introducing myself: my name is Dan Conelly, and I hail from Athens Ga. I am a decided non-believer in Christianity for a variety of reasons, but the one I would like to address here is Isaiah 7 and the "Immanuel" caper.

I have been banned from several Christian forums for bringing up this topic because I believe that this is the Achilles Hell of the traditional christian canon.

After browsing around on this site, I have gathered that it is comprised of members who do not mind having there faith challenged, and members like myself with my " heretical" questions are welcomed.

If you care to log onto " tribulation forces forum" and under the category " New to biblical prophecies" I started a thread entitled " About these prophecies: out of context?" My user name on that site is also " Behrgen"

You will see on that thread that only four people responded to my challenge, and while they only tossed up red herrings, I was immediately suspended. I did not make any sarcastic remarks or insults, as I am very conscious of that. In fact, before I click the " reply" or " add new topic" button, I review my posts to make darn sure that it is void of any insulting innuendos.

Now, on to my question/challenge.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The topic is Isaiah 7 and I will quote the passage in question for the benefit of the viewers:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isa 7:14-17
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread ( Israel and Syria) will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father's house--days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Now, my contention is that all these alleged messianic " prophecies" are a bit out of context.

The author of Matthew, when stating that the "prophecied" virgin birth was fulfilled only half quoted the Isaiah text with " a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and call His name Immanuel".

Have you ever wondered why the author of Matthew chose not to follow up with the rest of the text " curds and honey He shall eat, so that He may know to choose the good over the evil..."

It would'nt fit would it? It would be sort of incriminating to his narrative if he quoted the rest of it.

Did Jesus eat butter and honey so that He may know to choose the good over evil?

Did the nations of Israel and Syria fall during Jesus' childhood?

What did Assyria have to do with the times of Jesus?

His name was " Jesus" and not " immanuel". No one called him Immanuel.

The name " Immanuel" does not in any way mean that the one that bears that name is the very God. This "Immanuel" character was actually born around 700 bc as a sign to Ahaz...that is unless Isaiah was a false prophet.

According to the prophecy, a virgin was supposed to bear this " Immanuel" BEFORE Israel and Syria fell. And bear in mind that Isaiah was written before the books of Kings and Chronicles. These two books explicitly show that these two nations indeed fell as Isaiah propecied. So if Isaiah is a valid prophet, then Immanuel was born prior to the destruction of these two nations.

That being said, this Immanuel character, who's name means " god is with us" does not imply in any way that this 700 bc child was god.

I find it very interesting that all these messianic "prophecies" are taken out of context and are the foundation for the NT.

Any thoughts?

BEHR

 

[kc8tbe]

Well, yes; this would constitute a contradiction in the bible. One of many. Though not quite an Achilles heel. There's a database of them here; you might consider submitting this one.

I'm not surprised that you were booted from other religious forums. Most such forums will not tolerate doubt in their religion and will not admit it when they are wrong. So don't feel bad - it probably wasn't anything rude that you said.

 

[dan]

Have you ever wondered why the author of Matthew chose not to follow up with the rest of the text " curds and honey He shall eat, so that He may know to choose the good over the evil..."

In ancient Israel eating was a metaphor for reading the scriptures. If this is a metaphor it would be reason enough for His eating to have helped Him recognize the good from the evil. This is one of the great differences between Christ and ourselves: He made correct decisions from the very start. This is also substantiated by the fact that His scriptural knowledge astounded the people in the Temple when He was twelve.

Did the nations of Israel and Syria fall during Jesus' childhood?

The scripture doesn't say it will happen during His childhood, it says it will happen before He knows to choose good from evil. All of time lays before Christ learned as a child to choose good from evil, and that's a pretty big window. It may strain me to figure it out, but the fall of those nations did occur in the time that existed from Adam until Christ learned right from wrong.

What did Assyria have to do with the times of Jesus?

Same deal.

His name was " Jesus" and not " immanuel". No one called him Immanuel.

Actually, if you want to get all Jewish on us, His name was Joshua. He had many names. Immanuel means "god is with us." That pretty much defines the role of the Saviour. Also, the Alpha and the Omega, the Judge, the King of Kings, the Almighty God, the Son of Man, the Son of God, Shiloh, the Messiah, Lord, Jehovah, the Mighty One of Jacob, the Mighty One of Israel, the Saviour, the Redeemer, Wonderful, Counsellor, the Word of God, the LORD God, and a dozen others that I don't really feel like looking up. Abraham had more than one name, as did Jacob, Paul, Sarah and a bunch of others that I don't really feel like looking up.

There can be more than one "Immanuel" in existence. Look up the name "Jesus" in any phone book in Central or South America and tell me the New Testament speaks of all these guys as the Messiah.

You're the one taking these things out of context, and you do a poor job of it, as well.

 

[kc8tbe]

In ancient Israel eating was a metaphor for reading the scriptures. If this is a metaphor it would be reason enough for His eating to have helped Him recognize the good from the evil.

I concede I overlooked this point in my last post. You are correct, eating "curds and honey" refers to a Jewish tradition in which a young boy gets his first taste of Torah. Honey (and in some cases, curds) is applied to the Torah and the young boy gets to eat it (thus teaching him the lesson that Torah is "sweet").

Did the nations of Israel and Syria fall during Jesus' childhood?

The scripture doesn't say it will happen during His childhood, it says it will happen before He knows to choose good from evil. All of time lays before Christ learned as a child to choose good from evil, and that's a pretty big window. It may strain me to figure it out, but the fall of those nations did occur in the time that existed from Adam until Christ learned right from wrong.

Once a Jewish boy turns thirteen his sins are counted against him. Since Jesus supposedly had no outstanding sins, he must have learned the difference between good and evil by age thirteen (or have been very, very lucky). Therefore Syria should have fallen during Jesus's childhood.

Immanuel means "god is with us."

The name " Immanuel" does not in any way mean that the one that bears that name is the very God.

I'm glad the two of you are in agreement.

This "Immanuel" character was actually born around 700 bc as a sign to Ahaz...that is unless Isaiah was a false prophet.

There can be more than one "Immanuel" in existence. Look up the name "Jesus" in any phone book in Central or South America and tell me the New Testament speaks of all these guys as the Messiah.

First off, we're talking about the bible - not the moden day Americas. But given the commonality of "Immanuel" in the bible, why prophecize that the savior be named Immanuel? Especially when Jesus's birth name was Joshua?

And while we're at it, shouldn't Jesus be decended from King David?

 

[DontFearMe]

Isa 7:14-17
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.


As far as this tiny portion of the verse is concerned, I have heard from jews themselves that this is a mistranslation. Virgin, being the mistranslaion, they have told me that the correct translation is 'young woman.' Obviously in the original hebrew. Just a thought Im throwing out.

 

[dan]

That idea is jsut another theory. The Hebrew word of which you speak has several different meanings, with no real way to discern between them this late in the game.

 

[Pah]

Dan,

"The scripture doesn't say it will happen during His childhood, it says it will happen before He knows to choose good from evil. All of time lays before Christ learned as a child to choose good from evil, and that's a pretty big window. It may strain me to figure it out, but the fall of those nations did occur in the time that existed from Adam until Christ learned right from wrong. "

If Christ is of God (And John says he was from the biggining), then Jesus would already know the difference bewtween good and evil.

 

[dan]

Christ, when He was born, was just as innocent and ignorant as any human being. He had to learn as do the rest of us, the difference is that His learning was not hampered by the numbing effects of sin and wrong decisions. He was just as much an infant as any two year old, and just as confused by fire as any baby that touches a hot stove. He grew, precept upon precept, without the setbacks that we encounter because of our spiritual weaknesses.

 

[Pah]

Dan,

"Christ, when He was born, was just as innocent and ignorant as any human being. He had to learn as do the rest of us, the difference is that His learning was not hampered by the numbing effects of sin and wrong decisions. He was just as much an infant as any two year old, and just as confused by fire as any baby that touches a hot stove. He grew, precept upon precept, without the setbacks that we encounter because of our spiritual weaknesses."

If at twelve or so when he was at the temple, was he not aware of his "Father's" business? As this is the only story of his childhood, how can you extrapolate naitivity at an earlier age?

 

[dan]

Through revelation. That's how all matters of doctrine (biblical and extra-biblical) are decided.

 

[Pah]

That idea is jsut another theory. The Hebrew word of which you speak has several different meanings, with no real way to discern between them this late in the game.

Discernment is possible by examining the context of the use of the Hebrew word in the other verses where it is used.. It is also shown in the case where the contempory "forefillment" of the prophecy is detailed without the apologetics required to place it somewhere else.

Through revelation. That's how all matters of doctrine (biblical and extra-biblical) are decided.

I've been waiting for that answer from a Christian, Dan. I make the assumption that you think revelation and the "revealed" is a "good thing". I also assume that what what is revealed to one is of equivalent value to a revelation given to another.

With those in mind, I would like to look at the products of relevation. Foremost, there is the dismemberment of the Body of Christ. From the oral tradition of the Early Church there sprung the Gnostics, the school of Pauline thought and the Christian branch of Judaism. In the canonization of the scriptures, the Eastern Orthodox Church was established. The abuses of Rome lead to the reformation and Protestentism. All, it seems from revelation. This is but a very shallow survey.

Today we have hundreds of Protestant denominations, sects and cults, we have the Roman Catholic Church with "local flavor" and, of course, the Muslim community is also a product of relevation. We have doctrine and creed where Chist is only man - or only divine - or both. We have various understandings of the "end days". And even God has not escaped the revelation of Open View - that he has limited foreknowledge and does change his mind about commands. We have acceptance and rejection of the practise of homosexuality and polygamy today and historically on both sides of social morality - all given by divine guidance.

Is it any wonder that an Atheist would look at this discordance of revelation and conclude that it is, in fact, not divine.

 

[dan]

All, it seems from revelation.

No, all from human philosophy. None of it even purports to be revealed truth.

Is it any wonder that an Atheist would look at this discordance of revelation and conclude that it is, in fact, not divine.

You're right, none of that is divine. Luckily, the revelations of which I speak have nothing to do with what you share, and it is divine.

 

[Pah]

Dan,

Are you trafficking another meaning of revelation?

You equated doctine to revelation I merely listed those times where doctrine changed under revelation

 

[dan]

What you listed were actions taken by human beings acting under no authority but their own arrogance. God has authority, and it is necessary to run His church. This authority was lost when the last Apostle (John) died. No one on this planet even claimed to have the priesthood for almost two thousand years; the Catholic church didn't claim to have it, nor did Luther, Calvin, any baptist, evangelist, pentacostal or protestant. No one knows anything about the priesthood because they know they don't have it and they can't figure out how to get; so they just rationalize it right out of the way. They say it's no longer needed, or that Christ was the last one to have it. If you truly understand the scriptures then you know that's a load of garbage. None of the actions you named were done in accordance with the authority of God, or with His permission.

 

[Pah]

What you listed were actions taken by human beings acting under no authority but their own arrogance. God has authority, and it is necessary to run His church. This authority was lost when the last Apostle (John) died. No one on this planet even claimed to have the priesthood for almost two thousand years; the Catholic church didn't claim to have it, nor did Luther, Calvin, any baptist, evangelist, pentacostal or protestant. No one knows anything about the priesthood because they know they don't have it and they can't figure out how to get; so they just rationalize it right out of the way. They say it's no longer needed, or that Christ was the last one to have it. If you truly understand the scriptures then you know that's a load of garbage. None of the actions you named were done in accordance with the authority of God, or with His permission.

Dan, I just don't know what you are talking about. Can you please explain why your revelation is not the revelation that those men will claim.

 

[kc8tbe]

Sounds to me like Dan's using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Dan, are you implying that the revelations you speak of are from the one true God and are the only true and divine revelations? Do you imply that all other revelations are in fact false or misguided human philosophies?