AK4
Well-Known Member
The "writer's" interpretation is of little importance. We can see the bias in both the writers of the NT scriptures and of those that later translated the scriptures into English. The writer of Matthew makes a claim referring back to the OT but the biblical Yeshua was never called this nor was it the name his mother was to give him. He was never referred to as Emmanuel/Immanuel.
Oh so all the different names given by God to reference Him means nothing then
In fact that OT reference was not a prophecy about Yeshua. The writer made an interpretation trying to establish Yeshua as the supposed prophesied savior. The OT prophecy was given to a king and that king was to see the prophecy unfold in his day..not given to the king in regards to a later (700 plus years) event. So Matthew 1:23 doesn't help in establishing Yeshua as "God".
And i guess we disregard all the other prophecies given by God about stuff that was to happen but not immediately. You know like the one in the garden, it took 400 years to bring the promise of Abrahams physical "children" to come out of Egypt. Shall we go on.
This is simply how you're interpreting it. You, like a lot of others who quote from that book seem to want to quote that which appears to fit your preconceived notions because the verse directly after that disagrees with your stance.
2 Peter 1:2
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
Peter (did not) think the biblical Yeshua was God. He shows a complete separation when talking about "God" and talking about Yeshua.
He further states....;
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Yes there is a distinction, hence no trinity, but anyways you know like in Acts i believe he says something like "the God of our Fathers who you slew on a tree raised up Jesus Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins....." Again since no one can see or hear the Father and there is only one Saviour, Peter is also telling us that Jesus was the God of the OT.
It doesn't say he will be the saviour or was coming to save them, rather he gave them a saviour that the people would see, in that day and time
Try looking up saviour again and see how many times He says He is the Saviour
2 Kings 13:5
And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.
More of this can be found throughout your bible.....;
Isaiah 19:20
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
So Yeshua was not regarded as the only "saviour".
Correct, but for all the world and for the sins of the world He is the only saviour, afterwards those in the first ressurrection will be the other saviours
First. That makes no sense. Second. That's not what the people believed. Third. That's not what the biblical Yeshua taught his followers.
This is what I meant by having a circular discussion. This will never end.....
Of course it would make since if you think that Jehovah was God the Father. What can i say, if you believe that then youll never see it and you will completly disregard the major truth of no one has seen or heard the Father at anytime.
There believe is what got them into trouble in the first place, they didnt believe who Jesus said He was.
You have no scriptures to support that he didnt teach them that. I do.