Did Jesus say he was God???

[look3467]

Fortunately "spiritual understanding" has no bearing on whether one can understand the language being used, the context in which it's being used or the belief of the people at that time.

One has but to look back in time to find philosophers, great thinkers to find in their writings spiritual understanding of which in their time were far advanced in knowledge.
It is my understanding that God spoke through them as well. At least that's what I gleamed from their writings.
Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

What is a "Spiritual understanding" exactly?

 

[look3467]

What is a "Spiritual understanding" exactly?

Spiritual understandings are things understood not as mankind understands but as God understands.

For example, mountains ,hills, fire, beast etc. are not necessarily literal meanings.

Mountain, hills represent positions of authority, basically the High Priests who were in charge of managing the law of Moses.

Fire, meaning a fire that burns within us, as like yearning or as like a popular cliche "on fire for the Lord.

Beast meaning a lamb, not necessarily a beast of horror as depicted in the numbers 666.

It is easy to imagine all sorts of evilness perpetrated by God throughout the bible giving some to believe in an unjust God.

When in fact, quite the opposite.

For God so loved His creation that rather than destroy the whole, chose to destroy only one to save the whole.

The beast destroyed was the "lamb of God" who was God's sacrificial lamb, marked to die for the sins of the world.

That is what it's all about.

Jesus was destroyed at the cross, sent to hell, visited the imprisoned and then on the third day.......arouse from the dead as our Savior.

If then, the world is saved through Jesus, as I believe, then that makes Jesus the beginning of the end.

That means, Jesus as God was from the beginning and forever shall be.

Many generations prior to Jesus had no real informational knowledge of who God really was, and to them Jesus visited and saved them as well.

All of them and all of us are: Part of "for God so loved the world"...

Blessings, AJ

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

I thought those were all anecdotes, allegories, metaphores, hyperboles, etc.. Literary devices used to convey abstract concepts or to help explain something in a way the common folk could more easily digest.

Spiritual Understanding to me is more of a way to more closely understand that around us beyond simply what we see or hear. To hear/feel/see/understand the spiritual resonance in things.

 

[Shermana]

Spiritual understandings are things understood not as mankind understands but as God understands.

And you claim to understand the way that G-d understands?

For example, mountains ,hills, fire, beast etc. are not necessarily literal meanings.

There are indeed areas where it is explicitly implied as metaphor, what areas would you say that the Bible is not being literal where it specifically doesn't say "Parable" or as part of a declared vision? Name an example or two.

Mountain, hills represent positions of authority, basically the High Priests who were in charge of managing the law of Moses.

Please show an example of this, or two where mountains and hills represent such.

Fire, meaning a fire that burns within us, as like yearning or as like a popular cliche "on fire for the Lord.

Please show an example where Fire is used in symbolic way specifically.

Beast meaning a lamb, not necessarily a beast of horror as depicted in the numbers 666.

Yes, the word "beast" does in fact mean "Animals", which could be why the "Mark of the Beast" means "mark of the animalistic man" metaphorically. This is a decent example perhaps.

It is easy to imagine all sorts of evilness perpetrated by God throughout the bible giving some to believe in an unjust God.

I don't consider anything G-d does in the Bible as evil, not even the slaughter of whole populations, I see it as His personal sense of Justice of which no one can argue with.

When in fact, quite the opposite.

On this agree, I guess it's Spiritual understanding of sorts to recognize this and not complain and whine about the massacres like many do.

For God so loved His creation that rather than destroy the whole, chose to destroy only one to save the whole.

What does it mean "To destroy" exactly? Do you believe souls are destroyed if they don't believe in Jesus? To save the whole world? What of those who never heard of Jesus? What happens to them? What if the people who heard of Jesus never heard it convincingly from good messengers? What of those who abide by doctrines that you may deem to be heretical? Do you believe that his teachings are important? Do you believe it matters what denomination you are?

The beast destroyed was the "lamb of God" who was God's sacrificial lamb, marked to die for the sins of the world.

Which beast are you referring to specifically? You're not referring to "The beast" from whom the "Mark of the beast" comes from? Please explain which specific passage you are referring to where "The beast" refers to "The lamb of god", because "The lamb of god" is always called "The lamb" or "The lamb of God" from what I've read at least.

That is what it's all about.

I'm guessing you don't have many actual examples beyond the none-too-difficult meaning of "The beast" for the Evil one's greatest minion along with the False prophet.

Jesus was destroyed at the cross, sent to hell, visited the imprisoned and then on the third day.......arouse from the dead as our Savior.

The story of him going to hell is in the dubious epistles of Peter, I consider it "Spiritual Understanding" to recognize that the Epistles of Peter are false. But I do believe he rose from the dead and that ressurection is possible.

If then, the world is saved through Jesus, as I believe, then that makes Jesus the beginning of the end.

Please explain your logic. There's a big "Phase 2: ?" here. Beginning of what end?

That means, Jesus as God was from the beginning and forever shall be.

So hold on, you equate the concept of "Beginning of the end" with "The very beginning itself", and therefore derive that Jesus is G-d? Another big "Phase 2: ?" except you're completely changing the very idea of what "The beginning" means from your last example. What the text says is that he is "The beginning of all creation", the grammar read correctly meaning that he was the "First created being".

Many generations prior to Jesus had no real informational knowledge of who God really was, and to them Jesus visited and saved them as well.

And on what scriptural basis do you arrive at this idea?

All of them and all of us are: Part of "for God so loved the world"...

But apparently not the people who never heard of Jesus after he rose from the dead? What about them? How about the 1000 years before CHristianity reached Eastern China?

Blessings, AJ

Thank you, but I think your logic is not only missing a few pieces but you switch the concepts in ways that don't fit with your own idea.

 

[look3467]

Sherman
I will respond after I get off work due to limited cell phone abilities to my desk top computor.
Blessings, AJ

Ref: 6245

 

[Dirty Penguin]

One has but to look back in time to find philosophers, great thinkers to find in their writings spiritual understanding of which in their time were far advanced in knowledge.
It is my understanding that God spoke through them as well. At least that's what I gleamed from their writings.
Blessings, AJ

Good to know but none of that has anything to do with this topic.....:sad:

 

[LioneDea]

And you can't say that she is a virgin. The fact of the matter is the CJB and various Christian bibles render the verse showing the young woman is already pregnant. I, unlike you, do not base my sole understanding of the Tanakh on the scriptures rendered from the Septuagint (i.e. KJV, NIV etc.)

CJB
the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Common English Bible
The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel

RSV
the young woman is with child and shall bear a son

ERV
The young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a son.

GNT
a young woman who is pregnant will have a son

All of these Christian versions of the bible, and I suspect there are more out there, are in line with the CJB.

Lione D' ea: I'm not refuting the the fact the young woman according in verses is conceiving, I was refuting your conclude the young woman there is not virgin the passage didn't tell it why, is because the verse did not tell she had a husband nor men which link on her, the only passage state there that she is with her child meaning she is in the state of conceiving, but before she conceived in that moment she found as virgin in her youth. the TCJB says:


the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Lione D' ea: The translation is good, I not refute the fact she is pregnant there already, but you cannot consider her not a virgin, because the word young woman not meant to us not virgin, if that case was happened the all young woman in Israel are doing folly. Remember Isaiah 7:14 it is God word who spoke to Ahaz that a young woman He choose is virgin, God will not violate His own word because it is pure and truth. God make laws about good manners in Israel, it says there:

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: This is word of God which spirited in young woman mention in Isaiah 7:14 there is no reason she many not be a virgin because the passage in above is Law of God to Israel, He cannot disobey His own words remember that brother. The young woman there found as virgin in her youth before the conceiving happened and it is not the wife of Isaiah to say she is not virgin the fact is no man link on her according in the book of Isaiah itself, that is my answer to you.

Wrong. This is not "The Lord" speaking to Ahaz. It is incredible how much of Isaiah you don't know. The fact of the matter is this is all elementary and uncontested by any scholar I've read. Find me a scholar or theologian that says from 7:14 through chapter 8 it's the Lord speaking to Ahaz and not Isaiah delivering the message to Ahaz from "God".

Lione D' ea: False brother, the Lord ordered Isaiah went to Ahaz, let us read in Isaiah 7:3 and forward it say's:

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: God commanded Isaiah to go Ahaz, because there is news that God given to Ahaz and what is that new He given to Ahaz let us continue the reading?

Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. (Period)


Lione D' ea: This is the report which Isaiah bring to Ahaz which ends in verse 9, before the Lord ordered Isaiah went to Ahaz, the Lord spoke already to Ahaz, that is why in Isaiah 7:10 it say's there:

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Lione D' ea: So there is conversation happened there between the Lord and Ahaz before Isaiah appear to bring the news for Ahaz. Concerning the behalf on God which Isaiah speak, this is what Isaiah is saying "Thus saith the Lord GOD," this is the behalf you are talking about therefore it is not Isaiah who speak in chapter 8:1 that is my answer.

This has become frustrating because it is without a doubt a prophecy told by Isaiah to Ahaz and the people of Judah. I have given you commentary and links to historical events to substantiate what I've been saying. This is about a war that you can go and read in the books of 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings.

Lione D' ea: Where on there brother the event of was you are mentioning is occurred. The refuting I was saying is the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 which is it is not exclusive for Ahaz and Judah, because according the passage the child is the sign meaning it is specific this prophecy for child because through child not only Judah including Ahaz will be the sign, because the child which the young woman she born will reign in the house of David that is why in chapter 8:18 Ahaz told us:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: That is the scriptures tells us including Ahaz and the children are the signs from the Lord. And what is that children mention there, it is not the literal baby...it speaks spiritual side because in Isaiah 1:1 it say's:

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz,

Lione D' ea: Again I not refute the war happened there and history, but some chapter we are discussing chapter 7,8,9 are not occurred in their time that is my answer.

And this is why many scholars designate this to Hezekiah. Chapter 9 is STILL talking about the the war. It's not a prophecy about Yeshua unless you are prepared to throw out Isaiah 9:1-4 and 7-20 for the sake of holding on to your belief that 9:5-6 is talking about Yeshua. If you think that then how do you reconcile ALL of chapter 9 for Yeshua? I suspect you can't because nothing in chapter 9 fits Yeshua.

Lione D' ea: I was not here who throw verses you are referring, unfortunately your the one who throw the verse which you avoiding. Chapter 9:1 in TCJB it says there:

The people who walked in darkness, have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, light shone upon them.

Lione D' ea: This event was happened in Judah there brother because that particular time Israel do wickedly in the eyes of the Lord in that time. The left only that does not make much evil in the sight of the Lord was Judah. The people mention of the passage in above is referring the people in the House of David which in 11 tribe the only left which does not make much evil in the sight of the Lord because the 11 tribe of Jacob has walked in the darkness. And who is that Light which shone upon them in verse 5-6 Read:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

6. To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.


Lione D' ea: It is a son and who might be that son given to them which will be seat in the throne of David in Isaiah 7:13-14 Read:

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?

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.


Lione D' ea: The light mentioning of chapter 9:1 is referring the son which chapter 9:5-6 mention, and the son which mention in chapter 9:5-6 is the son that a young woman she conceive and that is Immanuel. This Immanuel which is the sign will coming from the House of David known as Judah. Concern in the war you are mention in chapter 9 brother is not specific only for war, because in verse 5-6 it is not the war which talking about there, and doesn't mean the war has occurred in that particular time it tells us it is not prophecy at all because it was happened already which is you are wrong to investigate in the scriptures brother, in my previous statement the event was occurred there can be happened again and some verses which mentioning are not occurred in that time it is prophecy like the passages of Isaiah 7:14, in 8:4 and forward, and chapter 9 that is my answer to you.



...

 

[LioneDea]

It is "The Lord" speaking through Isaiah and Isaiah is delivering the prophecy to Ahaz. This is shared by Jews and Christians alike. I have never heard anyone say that this is solely "The Lord" speaking to Ahaz. I have presented plenty of evidence to substantiate this.

Lione D' ea: You see brother you read the verse which testify to us the Lord spoke to Ahaz, the report which Isaiah heard in the Lord is in chapter 7:4-6 it say's there:

And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:


Lione D' ea: This is what Isaiah heard in the Lord which he will give to Ahaz and when Isaiah when Isaiah faced before Ahaz he said:


Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.


Lione D' ea: That is the report which Isaiah heard and give to Ahaz that is my answer there.

Yep, and this has nothing to do with Yeshua but everything to do with the son that is born to Isaiah and his wife (the prophetess).

Lione D' ea: You are wrong in thinking there brother. First how can you prove the chapter 7:14 the young woman which is you implying she is prophetess is the wife of Isaiah and the son she bare is son of Isaiah?

So who was the "prophetess" in your opinion because when you do that you ignore 8:1-3 which has nothing to do with Yeshua but you conveniently pick and choose the verses that fit your preconceived notion. The fact of the matter is this is the son born to Isaiah and his wife. YOU'RE the only one that contests this and unfortunately for you you're wrong.

Lione D' ea: Let us read first my bases Proverbs 30:6; I Corinthians 4:6 I read:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: I not assert which is my own personal opinion in the Bible, I let Bible opinion dominate and interpret itself. In you question who is the prophetess Let us read Isaiah 8:1-3 Read:

Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The verse did not tell the name of prophetess my brother and it is not Abi for you information because it is the wife of Ahaz which is the biological father of Hezekiah that is my answer.






...

 

[LioneDea]

Whereas the CJB says.....

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

This child was already born.

Lione D' ea: Let us read the transcript of the Bible late 2000 years before Christ was born Isaiah 9:5 it says:

עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד,
עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד,
שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם.

Translation:

Of that - a child - we, who gave - us, and let the job,
On - like, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty man, my father - until,
Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

Lione D' ea: The Bible itself telling us coming yet meaning it is future and this child is God not a man in chapter 8:1-3 you trying to attach that is my answer.

Because I'm not reading bias translations like you are. The CJB disagrees with your renderings.

Lione D ' ea: That is not my problem there as you see not only one translation I based, more than one




to be continue...

 

[Shermana]

Lione D' ea: The Bible itself telling us coming yet meaning it is future and this child is God not a man in chapter 8:1-3 you trying to attach that is my answer.

The word El can and often does mean "a god", your own translation says "Mighty man". The word "god" can mean quite a few things, from Israelite men (Psalm 82:6) to Angels (Psalm 8:5).

On - like, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty man, my father - until,

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: I'm not refuting the the fact the young woman according in verses is conceiving, I was refuting your conclude the young woman there is not virgin the passage

The passage doesn't say she was a virgin either. We have every indication that this is the child of Isaiah. There is no mention of any wife of Ahaz giving birth to a child. We do, however, have a verse at 8:3 showing that the wife of Isaiah giving birth. In context 7:14 is talking about 8:3.

the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The normal understanding "is with child" means that the woman is already pregnant. I know you so desperately want this to apply to a birth that supposedly happened 700 years later but the context of 2 Chronicles, 2 Kings and Isaiah has nothing to do with that. Isaiah delivering the prophecy to Ahaz and the people of Judah was to alleviate their worries and to ensure them that ("God was with them"). It was nothing more than that. Look, if if we went with some of the other rendering that say (will be with child)..this would still point to 8:3-4.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (King James Version)

"Virginity" there is not (almah) and it has little to do with (almah). The word used there is "bĕthuwliym" and it IS dealing with the woman's chastity.

Lione D' ea: False brother, the Lord ordered Isaiah went to Ahaz

I really can't argue this point any further with you. There is no scholar or theologian that believes that "The Lord" himself is speaking to Ahaz. All of them that I have come across agree that Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz on behalf of "God".


Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
"Thus spake Isaiah, and Jehovah through him, to the king of Judah."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
"The prophet reproved Ahaz and his court, for the little value they had for Divine revelation."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz,.... By the prophet Isaiah:"



Now do you see why you stand alone in this assumption that "God" is speaking directly to Ahaz? No one but you believes this.

Concern in the war you are mention in chapter 9 brother is not specific only for war, because in verse 5-6 it is not the war which talking about there

In context it is talking about the war and the aftermath of the war. It has nothing to do with 7 centuries to the future. Whether it's talking about Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah is besides the point because we know from the context it's not talking about Yeshua.

Lione D' ea: Let us read first my bases Proverbs 30:6; I Corinthians 4:6 I read:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The verse did not tell the name of prophetess my brother and it is not Abi for you information because it is the wife of Ahaz which is the biological father of Hezekiah that is my answer.

Which is why I didn't I gave you proper research on the matter. Trying to insinuate that I'm not being truthful is dishonest on your part. ALL of the "CHRISTIAN" commentaries I've given refute your claims about 8:3, like this one here;

Isaiah 8 Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"In Isaiah 7 the prophet had told Ahaz that God would give him a sign that the lad of Judah should be safe from the threatened invasion of the united armies of Syria and Israel. In this chapter Isaiah 8, there is a record of the primary fulfillment of that promise, Isaiah 8:1-4. From Isaiah 8:5 to Isaiah 8:8, the prophet resumes and repeats what he had said before in Isaiah 7:17-25, that although the land should be safe from this invasion, yet one more formidable would occur by the armies of Assyria. The cause of this is stated to be, that Judah had despised the Lord, and had sought alliances with Syria and Israel. The prophet then proceeds to exhort the people to put confidence in Yahweh - assuring them that if they refused to confide in him, they must expect to be destroyed, Isaiah 8:9-18; and the chapter concludes with denouncing punishment on those that looked to necromancers and diviners, rather than to the true God. The prophecy is intimately connected with that in the previous chapter; and was delivered, evidently, not far from the same time. "

Info concerning Albert Barnes
Albert Barnes (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lione D' ea: Let us read the transcript of the Bible late 2000 years before Christ was born Isaiah 9:5 it says:


עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד,
עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד,
שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם.

Translation:

Of that - a child - we, who gave - us, and let the job,
On - like, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty man, my father - until,
Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

Lione D' ea: The Bible itself telling us coming yet meaning it is future and this child is God not a man

No it's not.

CJB
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."


יֻלַּד (Yulad)= is born- present tense
נִתַּן(Nitan)= given present tense
וַתְּהִי(Vatehi) = and is - present tense
וַיִּקְרָא(Vayikra)= called past tense


This is not a prophecy set to the future. This could, however, be talking about Hezekiah. I have my doubts but I'm prepared to not rule it out. Hezekiah was somewhere between 7 and 9 at the time and he grows up, becomes the new king after his father Ahaz and was instrumental in reformation.

 

[LioneDea]

The passage doesn't say she was a virgin either. We have every indication that this is the child of Isaiah. There is no mention of any wife of Ahaz giving birth to a child. We do, however, have a verse at 8:3 showing that the wife of Isaiah giving birth. In context 7:14 is talking about 8:3.

Lione D' ea: First and foremost, Isaiah 7:14 the young woman mention in that passage did not tell you also she is not virgin there to conclude. You don't have to be above what is written in that passage because the Bible itself tell if any man will add in His word lest he reprove you and found a liar. Proverbs 30:6 it Reads:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: See that brother, concern in Isaiah 7:14 the verse did not tell there which she is not virgin. And the claiming like you implying to her that she had a first-born already is not true to apply the chapter 7:3 to her, because the child which the (TCJB) mention is in her bosom. The child which is in her bosom is the first-born child which she bare after she brought out there and it is not second child, the reason the child is first son is because it did not state the word second son. So the question there is if the second son did not state there, likewise also the first son because the verse did not state there, what is the explanation of the Bible about that, let us read Luke 2:7 it say's:

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: The Bible interpret itself about that calling which, if a woman brought forth her child the Bible call that son as first born. Concern in Isaiah 7:14 what is the possible the young woman there is virgin. Let us read in TCJB version Isaiah 7:14 again?

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: According to this passage, the Lord himself who brings a sign for them which He choose that a young woman is with child. So what kind of young woman He choose, of course the based is His Own Word which He give. And what is the word which spirited to young woman He choose, in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Read?

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


Lione D' ea: This is His own word that cannot violate which it spirited to the young woman HE choose mention in Isaiah 7:14, God cannot change nor lie James 1:17; Titus 1:2 Read:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Wherefore the young woman which He choose in Isaiah 7:14 is based on His word, God cannot change His own word. Concern in Isaiah 8:3 is not God, He is man because the Immanuel is God according of 9:6 of Isaiah it says:

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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Lione D' ea: To testify that He is God in Micah 5:2 Read:

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.


Lione D' ea: The Immanuel is not a man He is God according in Isaiah 9:6 and it testify also in Micah 5:2 which He is from of old and from everlasting so how he is only man you are implying to him that is my answer.

The normal understanding "is with child" means that the woman is already pregnant. I know you so desperately want this to apply to a birth that supposedly happened 700 years later but the context of 2 Chronicles, 2 Kings and Isaiah has nothing to do with that. Isaiah delivering the prophecy to Ahaz and the people of Judah was to alleviate their worries and to ensure them that ("God was with them"). It was nothing more than that. Look, if if we went with some of the other rendering that say (will be with child)..this would still point to 8:3-4.

Lione D' ea: We are on that brother I not refute the fact because she is in the state of conceiving, but to conclude the young woman is not virgin there is not true because God choose her. The young woman before she conceived there is found a virgin let us read again Isaiah 7:14 Read:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. (TCJB)

Lione D' ea: Implying the term with in passage in your previous answer back then, you want to showing that there is first-born already she brought out as you mention applying the chapter 7:3 to her and it disprove in the scriptures that she is the wife of Isaiah. Sorry brother I wasn't desperate that is my answer.

"Virginity" there is not (almah) and it has little to do with (almah). The word used there is "bĕthuwliym" and it IS dealing with the woman's chastity.

Lione D' ea: Let us read Bible Dictionary:

bethulah: a virgin
Original Word: בתולה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: bethulah
Phonetic Spelling: (beth-oo-law')
Short Definition: virgin

Lione D' ea: Let us read Deuteronomy 22:20 in Hebrew render in King James Version

wə•’im-’ĕ•meṯ hā•yāh, had•dā•ḇār haz•zeh; lō-nim•ṣə•’ū ḇə•ṯū•lîm [lan•na•‘ar ḵ]
if is true become charge this was not found A virgin
(lan•na•‘ă•rāh. q)
damsel


Lione D' ea: Bethulah means virgin( בתולה ), to testify the statement let us interpret the Bible itself what is bethulah in Isaiah 37:22 it read:

This is the word that the Lord has spoken about him: 'The virgin (בתול&#1492 daughter of Zion has despised you and has mocked you. The daughter has shaken her head at you.


Lione D' ea: It is same also it tells us the young woman there prove a virgin that is my answer.


...

 

[LioneDea]

I really can't argue this point any further with you. There is no scholar or theologian that believes that "The Lord" himself is speaking to Ahaz. All of them that I have come across agree that Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz on behalf of "God".


Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
"Thus spake Isaiah, and Jehovah through him, to the king of Judah."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
"The prophet reproved Ahaz and his court, for the little value they had for Divine revelation."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz,.... By the prophet Isaiah:"



Now do you see why you stand alone in this assumption that "God" is speaking directly to Ahaz? No one but you believes this.

Lione D' ea: Wrong, for them is yes, but in me it is not Isaiah you know why let us read the passage:

And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

Lione D' ea: If Isaiah on behalf of Lord was behind who conversing with Ahaz there, the out come thereof is Isaiah is Lord. What is my point I refer, there is no in servant of God in Bible called Lord in that capital letter L, except the fact small letter L as lord remember that. So it is not Isaiah because Isaiah speak on behalf in Lord are starting with Thus saith the Lord GOD, speaking of behalf. Chapter 7:13 it is not Isaiah who speak there it is Ahaz and chapter 8:1;18, the translation of the passage 7:10 you post is wrong that is my answer.

In context it is talking about the war and the aftermath of the war. It has nothing to do with 7 centuries to the future. Whether it's talking about Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah is besides the point because we know from the context it's not talking about Yeshua.

Lione D' ea: If you are referring the whole chapter of 9 speaks about war you are incorrect statement there because chapter 9:5-6 did not tell about war. Because IF we say the word about it is exclusive for something. About with Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah both these two your nomination to the child Immanuel is wrong because the Immanuel which is child is God, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Hezekiah is man. Then so what is the relation of Christ here in passages in Isaiah 8:16 read:

Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Lione D' ea: The scriptures in Bible called LAW a covenant of God to His people. Why it is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah let us read Isaiah 7:14,9:6-7, Micah 5:2 Read:

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

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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 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.

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.


Lione D' ea: Wherefore Immanuel is God not man.

Which is why I didn't I gave you proper research on the matter. Trying to insinuate that I'm not being truthful is dishonest on your part. ALL of the "CHRISTIAN" commentaries I've given refute your claims about 8:3, like this one here;

Isaiah 8 Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"In Isaiah 7 the prophet had told Ahaz that God would give him a sign that the lad of Judah should be safe from the threatened invasion of the united armies of Syria and Israel. In this chapter Isaiah 8, there is a record of the primary fulfillment of that promise, Isaiah 8:1-4. From Isaiah 8:5 to Isaiah 8:8, the prophet resumes and repeats what he had said before in Isaiah 7:17-25, that although the land should be safe from this invasion, yet one more formidable would occur by the armies of Assyria. The cause of this is stated to be, that Judah had despised the Lord, and had sought alliances with Syria and Israel. The prophet then proceeds to exhort the people to put confidence in Yahweh - assuring them that if they refused to confide in him, they must expect to be destroyed, Isaiah 8:9-18; and the chapter concludes with denouncing punishment on those that looked to necromancers and diviners, rather than to the true God. The prophecy is intimately connected with that in the previous chapter; and was delivered, evidently, not far from the same time. "

Info concerning Albert Barnes
Albert Barnes (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lione D' ea: This is my bases, first of what Isaiah told to Ahaz which the Lord ordered to give the report. Let us read Isaiah 7:3 it say's the Lord:

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

Lione D' ea: This is what Isaiah heard in the command by the Lord which give to Ahaz before he appear to Ahaz. So when Isaiah in the presence of Ahaz the deliver which he heard exact in the Lord was give to him saying:

Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.


Lione D' a: This is the report which Isaiah carry to give Ahaz that there was war happened and against to Judah. but before Assyria against in Judah happened, they exactly fighting each other in they will broken in that particular event, God saved them that's why in Isaiah 8:8-10 it read:

And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

10Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.


Lione D' ea: That is the explanation of the scriptures. So did the Child was existed already. the answer is No, because the save which referring there in passages is the nation against in Judah will broken according in scriptures let us read again in Isaiah 7:7-9 and 8:8-10 this is the save talking about and not the exist of the child Immanuel:

Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

Lione D' ea: In chapter 8:8-10 it say's:

And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

10Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.


Lione D' ea: This is the first save of the Lord God that scriptures referring, meaning it is the first therefore there is save which not kind of this save it is spiritual side event. Therefore Mahershalalhashbaz is not Immanuel, Mahershalalhashbaz was exist there already but the Immanuel wasn't appeared that time because it is future prophecy and it concern to Christ that is my answer.

 

[LioneDea]

No it's not.

CJB
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."


יֻלַּד (Yulad)= is born- present tense
נִתַּן(Nitan)= given present tense
וַתְּהִי(Vatehi) = and is - present tense
וַיִּקְרָא(Vayikra)= called past tense

Lione D' ea: The question is why it state will be called in original Bible saying?


עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד,

This is not a prophecy set to the future. This could, however, be talking about Hezekiah. I have my doubts but I'm prepared to not rule it out. Hezekiah was somewhere between 7 and 9 at the time and he grows up, becomes the new king after his father Ahaz and was instrumental in reformation.

Lione D' ea: Is that you final answer?


to be continue...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: First and foremost, Isaiah 7:14 the young woman mention in that passage did not tell you also she is not virgin there to conclude.

The context tells me she's not a virgin which is why it's rendered as "young woman" in many bibles including the Tanakh. You base the translation on the KJV which translated the word from the Greek (parthenos). We both agree that (almah) in CJB is a fine translation but you're interpreting it to mean "virgin" and Jews aren't rendering the word to mean that given the context that follows in 8:1-4.

You don't have to be above what is written in that passage because the Bible itself tell if any man will add in His word lest he reprove you and found a liar. Proverbs 30:6 it Reads:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (King James Version)

And this is a false accusation. The word means (young woman). It would seem you're guilty of what you're accusing me of if you continue to render it meaning "virgin" knowing full well it's not "virgin" in the strict sense of the word. This is amplified in the KJV where Isaiah 7:14 seems to be the only place (almah) is rendered virgin. elsewhere the KJV substitutes the meaning.

the reason the child is first son is because it did not state the word second son. So the question there is if the second son did not state there, likewise also the first son because the verse did not state there

The fact of the matter is, in context, it is her second son and NO...it doesn't have to say it was her second son nor does it have to state she was already a mother. This went without saying because that had been established in 7:3...and like you're finally admitting...7:14 doesn't even say she was giving birth to her ("first") son.

Lione D' ea: We are on that brother I not refute the fact because she is in the state of conceiving

You can't be "in a state of conceiving" and already "be with child".

Lione D' ea: Let us read Bible Dictionary:

bethulah: a virgin
Original Word: בתולה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: bethulah
Phonetic Spelling: (beth-oo-law')
Short Definition: virgin

Lione D' ea: Let us read Deuteronomy 22:20 in Hebrew render in King James Version

wə•’im-’ĕ•meṯ hā•yāh, had•dā•ḇār haz•zeh; lō-nim•ṣə•’ū ḇə•ṯū•lîm [lan•na•‘ar ḵ]
if is true become charge this was not found A virgin
(lan•na•‘ă•rāh. q)
damsel


Lione D' ea: Bethulah means virgin( בתולה ), to testify the statement let us interpret the Bible itself what is bethulah in Isaiah 37:22 it read:

This is the word that the Lord has spoken about him: 'The virgin (בתול&#1492 daughter of Zion has despised you and has mocked you. The daughter has shaken her head at you.


Lione D' ea: It is same also it tells us the young woman there prove a virgin that is my answer.


...

No it doesn't. Bethulah is definitely about a woman's purity (chastity) whereas almah isn't which it why it can simply mean (young woman, damsel, maiden). None of these mean that the woman IS a virgin in the sense of a bethulah (one who has never had sex).

Lione D' ea: Wrong, for them is yes, but in me it is not Isaiah you know why let us read the passage:

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. All of these commentators are Christian commentators/theologians. The last one by "Gil" is John Gil. He most certainly believed Yeshua to be "God" but there in that commentary he rightfully point's out that "God" is using Isaiah to deliver the prophecy.

Lione D' ea: If you are referring the whole chapter of 9 speaks about war you are incorrect statement there because chapter 9:5-6 did not tell about war. Because IF we say the word about it is exclusive for something. About with Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah both these two your nomination to the child Immanuel is wrong because the Immanuel which is child is God, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Hezekiah is man.

Wrong and this PDF document explains why.

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf

Lione D' ea: This is my bases, first of what Isaiah told to Ahaz which the Lord ordered to give the report.

And you're wrong. What you're saying is that every scholar, theologian, Jew, and Christian is wrong if they say "God" is using Isaiah to deliver the prophecy. Isaiah delivered more than a simple "report". In the book of Isaiah he delivers a whole prophecy to Ahaz and the people of Judah. You're the only person that contest this and you're simply off base.

Lione D' ea: Is that you final answer?

Yes. See the PDF above.

 

[look3467]

And you claim to understand the way that G-d understands?>>>Shermana

I will open with your first question, yes, I believe that God has given me spiritual understanding when it comes to answering my questions addressed directly at Him.

I will begin by asking you the meaning of the following verse and it's application and it's designed effect.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The purpose and intent of my question to you is to help establish the reason for the "Virgin birth of Jesus" and to the question posed on this thread, "Did Jesus say He was God"?

The correct rendering of the verse given will directly impact the designed effect of God's salvation plan.

I will address your other questions in the next post.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

I will open with your first question, yes, I believe that God has given me spiritual understanding when it comes to answering my questions addressed directly at Him.

So do I, what a coincidence, one of us has to be wrong then.

I will begin by asking you the meaning of the following verse and it's application and it's designed effect.

Jesus's teachings and sacrifice are the way, truth, and life. Adherence to his teaching is the way one stays righteous and keeps their soul undefiled. Belief in his sacrifice and place as the Messiah are part of the method of redemption for past sins, so long as one does not keep on sinning. As the one who sits at the Right hand of the Throne and entrusted with Earthly authority, he is the gatekeeper and as the highest of the angels, determines who is and isn't worthy and acts as the advocate and attorney of souls. Nonetheless, the Father has the final say.

The purpose and intent of my question to you is to help establish the reason for the "Virgin birth of Jesus" and to the question posed on this thread, "Did Jesus say He was God"?

Okay, but I don't see how that question has much to do with the Virgin birth or whether he declared to be G-d. Are you saying by declaring to be the way, truth, and life that he's declaring to be G-d?

The correct rendering of the verse given will directly impact the designed effect of God's salvation plan.

And how do you personally determine which of us has the correct understanding of this verse?

I will address your other questions in the next post.

Take your time.

 

[look3467]

There are indeed areas where it is explicitly implied as metaphor, what areas would you say that the Bible is not being literal where it specifically doesn't say "Parable" or as part of a declared vision? Name an example or two.>>>Shermana

There are many: Tree of knowledge is one that is not a literal tree.
(Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.)

What fruit, literally is both good and evil? And does not the words "eat of it" imply gaining knowledge verses eating of actual fruit?

Another is the story of Jonas. Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Was the story literal? Or was it a picture of the "son of man" Jesus?

There are plenty more.

The point is that God purposed His creation, the loss and the salvation of it.

ref: Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

That is the key to understanding why we are here, why God choose a people, (Creation) gave them the law (Condemnation) and why Jesus had to be both the "son of man" and the "Son of God". (Salvation)

Here's another verse that will help understand God's doubling things, if you had ever noticed.
Ref: Gen 41:32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.

1. First Adam (creation lost)
2. Second Adam (Jesus as God the Savior of Creation)
3. Third Adam is you and I, born again into His glorious Kingdom by birth, spiritual birth, that is....not of this world but of the next.

Can you see three numbers there? Clue. What is the number of a man?

Now, tie it in with the verse above ........you will see God's work in the event of human History....Jesus being the center of it all.

Trust me, this information can not be found in any main line religions or non religions.

The word says "Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Yes, the Holy Spirit, In Jesus' name "shall teach me all things".

The application of that verse was to His Apostles and His followers, for yet He had not yet gone to the Father, but that they will be reminded of the things He said to them prior to His death and resurrection by His own spirit as the Holy spirit indwelling us.

It was to them yes, but also to us who seek, who read and not understood, yet retained in memory those things which when the Holy Spirit deemed the right time, would reveal answers to us.

How do I know? because He promised me that: Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

God is love and loves us so that there is absolutely nothing we could do to prevent His not forgiving us, save sin in our lives of which we must own up to, pay while we're here and complete it's function with death.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does anybody have to loose save blessing that could be had....here and now.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

So do I, what a coincidence, one of us has to be wrong then.>>>Shermana

Neither of us is wrong! God has purposed our differences in order that we may learn to deal with them in a loving manner.

Don't you know why we have choices?

It may be to our benefit that we and many others would understand our differences without condemnation, and encourage each other to learn from one another the things pertaining to God.

Blessings, AJ