waitasec
Veteran Member
can you tell where in the hebrew bible does it mention the messiah was to be the son of god?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
can you tell where in the hebrew bible does it mention the messiah was to be the son of god?
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Is that "God with us", or "God is with us"?
I'm suspecting the second one. The two share a vastly different meaning.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Also, what the term "son of God" could mean.
waitasec
Veteran Member
it could mean many things...
but to those that believe in the trinity it's code for 'god is with us'.
InChrist
Free4ever
Psalm 2
The Messiahs Triumph and Kingdom
1 Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potters vessel.
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
The translations "Behold, the virgin shall be with child"....is incorrect not to mention this was a prophecy given to King Ahaz and the king would see the prophecy unfold in his day and time. It was not a prophecy about Yeshua who appeared 700+ years later. Furthermore, Yeshua was never addressed by the title Immanuel/Emmanuel.
Last edited:
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe it to be a correct translation. As with many of the prophetic passages this had double application, one aspect of immediate fulfillment ( during the reign of King Ahaz) and another future fulfillment in the birth of Christ. Whether Yeshua was addressed by the name Immanuel is beside the point. Matthew, being lead and inspired by God recorded the quote of this prophecy in Isaiah in reference to Jesus Christ/ Yeshua. Jesus has many names and titles given and applied to Him in the scriptures which He was never necessarily addressed by, but which demonstrate who He is and show the attributes He possesses.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
......I think there is a music one that is longer than this one.This is the age old question where none are truly satisfied with the answer so it goes on and on....I said something to this effect pages upon pages ago about it being circular.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Your quote from Matthew says "virgin" and that is incorrect. The OT reveals the word to mean (young woman).The writer of Matthew took part of a prophecy that was given to King Ahaz and applied it to Yeshua. This is incorrect as the prophecy was revealed and it came to fruition, according to your scripture..
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
We know the "young woman" was pregnant and actually gave birth to the child.
Isaiah 9:5
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder......
Not...'a child will be born unto us, a son will be given unto us and the government will be upon his shoulders.....'
Now the interesting thing to note is if you look at the word used for ("shall conceive") it can be a little misleading because in actually the word (hareh) basically means (is pregnant) or (is with child).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2030&t=KJV
Not this one. Not if you truly understand the context of Isaiah. It has nothing to do with Yeshua. A woman was to conceive and she did. A child was born and the scriptures show he was. None of this had to do with Yeshua. Take a quote here or there out of context and it can mean whatever you want it to.
You can't just throw it out there and quote it in bold none the less and then say it doesn't matter because the truth of the matter is...he was never addressed with that title. Also...you have no idea who penned "Mathew". Just because some church father assigned a name to it doesn't mean he was the author. Additionally, and I know I've said this before, Matthew and Luke drew the majority of their material from Mark. This is the consensus of scholarship on the matter. If anything..Matthew was inspired by Mark.
This makes no sense at all.
Last edited:
starlite
Texasgirl
My research reveals this: external evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthews account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.
It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.
InChrist
Free4ever
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.
Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?
Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?
[FONT="]The child born during the time of King Ahaz was not addressed Immanuel either, but had the name, Maher-shalal-hash-baz .[/FONT]
It does say, a Child is born and a Son is given, either way it was in reference to a future event. But the passage continues on to use will be in the remainder of the verse, (and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. )
Then this would apply to Mary because she was with child.Now the interesting thing to note is if you look at the word used for ("shall conceive") it can be a little misleading because in actually the word (hareh) basically means (is pregnant) or (is with child).
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20
I believe the verse is in reference to Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Yeshua. Neither the child born during the time of King Ahaz, or Christ at His first coming fulfilled the part of the prophecy referring to the establishment of the government and a kingdom of peace with no end or forever. There is no indication the child born during the reign of King Ahaz was called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Actually this prophetic passage in Isaiah has triple application, partial fulfillment during the time of King Ahaz, then the birth of Christ, and the completion when Christ returns and rules from the throne of David bringing peace at which time He will be acknowledged as and called by all of the titles: Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Again, the child Maher-shalal-hash-baz, born during the time of King Ahaz who you are saying was the fulfillment of this prophecy was not addressed by the title, Immanuel, either.
I believe that it was God who inspired all the writers of the scriptures to write down the information He wanted to communication to humanity and God has preserved His Word through history, including the prophetic passages He inspired to be placed in the NT in reference to Jesus Christ, the one weve been discussing and others:
Now when Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles:The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light,
And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death, Light has dawned. Matthew 4:12-16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. John 1:5-10
glass shadows
New Member
And what of the Angels in Heaven who were never born of a woman.Are they not also called sons of God?
InChrist
Free4ever
angels- sons of God...this expression is used in the plural in reference to creatures with a small, lower case s.
Jesus- only-begotten or one and only Son of God ...always singular, unique in reference to Christ with a capital, upper case S.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Do you really think that capitalization matters?
Are you thinking that in Greek or Hebrew "son" is capitalized in the singular with respect to Jesus but "sons" is lower case in the plural?
Begotten just means a literal son. Many christians talk of "only-begotten" like it is supposed to be some mystery. Why would God have to have a Son the way humans do? Either way it doesn't mean the Son is God unless your looking at it as some title. A king passes the title to the son but it doesn't change where the power is coming from. The son would be powerless without having been given the power.
InChrist
Free4ever
No, I am not referring to capitalization in Greek or Hebrew, but in the English translation which I do believe is warranted by the context in the Greek/ Hebrew words and manuscripts. Creatures, such as angels or men were at times symbolically called sons of God, but Christ was distinguished as the unique Son of God indicating His likeness, sameness in being, and equality in essence and nature to God His Father.
InChrist
Free4ever
If you believe begotten means a literal son, then I agree with you that God did not have to have a Son the way humans do, since God is eternal His literal Son is also eternal like His Father. Just as a human king, as in the example you gave, has a human son with human nature, Gods Son has all the nature and qualities of God. The title Son of God indicates this truth.
The Son came to earth in the Person of Jesus Christ, born as a human for the purpose of being the Savior of the world. It was not a necessity for God the Father to have His Son be born in human flesh or for the Son to become human. It was done for the sake of humanity. Therefore, Christ also has the title Son of Man to show His humanness.
At times in the scriptures, the term only-begotten, is used to show that one is unique, such as in the case of Abrahams son Isaac who was called Abrahams only-begotten son. Isaac was not Abrahams only-begotten son in the flesh, but Isaac was unique and had a special calling and purpose. Jesus, is called the only-begotten Son of God because He is the unique as the only being who is fully God (Son of God) and fully human (Son of man) and has a special purpose as Savior of the world.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And it's wrong which is why I gave you the link to the definition of the word from a known trinitarian online bible. The word "almah" doesn't denote virginity at Isaiah 7:14. "Bethula" denotes virginity.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Your link really didn't even address this.
Mehershalalhashbaz is in reference to one of Isaiah's sons (See: Maher-shalal-hash-baz (WebBible).
See: Who is the child in Isaiah 9:5-6 for more of a breakdown as to who Isaiah is speaking of.
Once again, the link above informs us this is not in reference to Yeshua as the prophecy says....Ahaz would be given the sign. He would see it unfold in his lifetime. It's not a prophecy projecting 731 year into the future. This is about a war with neighboring lands. The prophecy is describing the coming of a military leader against oppressors.
Isaiah 7:10-12
Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Remember, a lot of this was centered around Ahaz's lack of faith and the military struggles facing him so Isaiah comes to him to inform him all is not lost and this prophecy given to him would be one he would see come to fruition during his lifetime. It would have meant nothing to him to be given a prophecy designated to occur 731 years later. And it did. The young woman conceived and gave birth to a child.
It's easy to draw that conclusion from the writer's interpretation of the OT but this wasn't the case because the woman described in Isaiah was not being described as a "bethula" (virgin).
But it's not.
Well you have to read in 2 Chronicles where Ahaz was defeated. Isaiah's later chapters describe Israels trials and tribulations and what the people endured.
Which ones? The ones in the Catholic version containing 73 scrolls or the ones in the Protestant version containing 66?.......Are we only talking about the canonized scriptures or can we add the ones the early church leaders saw fit to reject? Were the rejected scriptures not inspired by "God" as well?
Case in point....
Zachariah 11:12-13
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Compare to Matthew
Matthew 27:9-10
Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.
This so-called "inspired word of God"....is confused here as to whom the prophet is....Not to mention Zacharia 11:12-13 is not even a prophecy......
....There was no prophecy given and Matthew 27:9-10 vaguely resembles Zachariah but still is a ways off.
Last edited: