IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Because the idea of a "double prophecy" is ridiculous. There is only one question: what exactly did the person who wrote it intend it to mean?
-
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!
If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?
- Thread starter rubi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christ christainity debate
Brian2
Veteran Member
It certainly means that peace has not come yet, but there is nothing in either passage that says that when the Messiah comes peace will automatically start.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Well yes, with the era of peace and the child ruling on the throne of David forever, that is a good question.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It means that it is prophesied that the messiah will bring world peace, so if it hasn't happened yet, we can conclude the messiah has not yet come.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That sounds reasonable for someone who does not believe the Messiah was to rise from the dead and rule on the throne of David forever, but just be an ordinary person who lives and dies.
But that child is to rule on the throne of David forever and the word of God is to go out of Jerusalem to the world and people come to the God of Jacob according to Isa 2.
There is no timeline for this, and with a risen Messiah who is immortal, the last days, the Messianic times, can go on until the job is done, even for 2000 years or longer.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
OMGod you are so obsessed about the "child on the throne." Dude, when the messiah reigns, he will be a grown man. Sheesh.
Brian2
Veteran Member
He is a grown man.
But we were talking about the child of Isa 9:7 who is said to rule on the throne of David forever.................... and of course He does not remain a child all that time.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I think you mean Isaiah 9:6. Verse seven does not mention a child.
As I explained, the passage is about Hezekiah. But think what you want. Your mind is obviously made up. Be well.
Isaiah 9:6 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, Counsellor, 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.
Sure doesn’t sound like Hezekiah. Someone else?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hezekiah.
BTW, your translation is a little flawed (as are most Christian translations of this verse). In Hebrew, linking verbs are implied. For example, Dani-El literally means "God my judge." That's awkward. The linking verb is implied. "God IS my judge."
In the same way, you have to supply the linking verbs in English when you translate. "A wonderful counselor IS the mighty God. The everlasting Father IS the prince of peace."
It is very, very common for Hebrew names to make such statements ABOUT God. Samuel (aka Shmu El; God has heard), Elijah (aka Eli-yah(u); the LORD is God), Jeremiah (aka Yirme-yah(u) the LORD will exalt), Joshua (aka Yeh-oshua; the LORD is salvation)... etc etc etc.
Last edited:
This is what motivated reasoning looks like. Your motivation is to try to reconcile OT messianic prophecy with your faith-based belief that Jesus fulfilled it. Absent that, you'd see what the skeptic sees. You'd see a list of qualities of the Messiah from the OT and those of Jesus from the NT, and you'd see that they contradict one another in a variety of places, one being that the era of world peace didn't arrive during Jesus' life, and that therefore this was not the one predicted. But you simply will not allow your mind to be led to that conclusion, so you look for ways to overlook the contradiction as you're doing here.
What you're ignoring is that the description of the Messiah is how one identifies him. You're willing to say that Jesus didn't need to satisfy these requirements in his lifetime, which is not what a skeptic would say. And if one is free to that, then he can call himself the Messiah and that he fulfill those requirements someday. The skeptic says, "On that day if it comes, I'll know that you are the Messiah, but today, you're just another guy who doesn't match the description and I have no reason at this time to believe that you ever will."
That's how an open-minded person evaluates evidence. He lets it take him to sound conclusions about it, which in this case is that Jesus didn't fulfill messianic prophecy. But a person who has decided by faith that Jesus was the person described is a motivated thinker, and will come up with anything that he can to try to make that round peg fit into that square hole, including just simply ignoring the discrepancies or allowing for them to manifest in the future.
Imagine a fortune teller telling you that you would be killed one day by an old, bald man and you believed that. Later, a young man with a full head of hair is glaring at you menacingly, and you shoot him dead thinking that this must be the one the fortune teller warned you about. Never mind that a list of the prophecies one (old, bald) doesn't match the description of the person you are convinced is that person. When the glaring contradiction is pointed out to you, you say that the oldness and baldness haven't manifest yet, but the guy you killed was definitely the person the fortune teller foresaw.
THAT'S motivated thinking, and its only use is to defend wrong beliefs from evidence. That's also the description of a confirmation bias. And that's what you're doing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jerome's Bible Commentary, which is an excellent Catholic commentary btw, states that the book of Isaiah does not deal with the emergence of Jesus but with the return of Jews from Babylonian captivity. I have read Isaiah several times from beginning to end and I do have to agree with that commentary on this.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
According to Judaism, the answer is in the names chosen. The name ‘Hezekiah’ which in Hebrew is ‘Chizkiyah’ comes from the words ‘chazak’ and ‘Ya.’ ‘Chazak’ means ‘strong’ or ‘mighty’ and ‘Ya’ is the shortened name for Gd used as a suffix. Many might recognize the Ya’ in the word, ‘halleluyah’ which means,’praise Gd.’ Judaism believes that Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, who reigned for almost 30 years. The name Hezekiah, Chizkiyah, is the same name in meaning, as one finds in the verses from Isaiah 9:6-7, a ‘Mighty Gd.’ -- Isaiah 9:6 – What Jews Believe
The full article explains in more detail.
Great creativity. - Still doesn’t sound like Hezekiah.
and yet the Jewish people in the NT understood it differently. Can we put this under the category of “Two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions?
I see the possibility that those who don’t want it to be about Jesus Christ will formulate their position within that light.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually, how could we actually know how they thought about this at Jesus' time as theology evolves, and some take centuries, such as with the concept of the Trinity?
When symbolism is used, there can be and often are differing interpretations.
The early Church even struggled with Jesus' parables in terms of whether these were real events or myths for teaching purposes. They eventually chose that it didn't make a difference as it's the moral of the stories that's most important.
Trinity is another subject but the context of Isaiah by the Gospels that were written (I would think)
True… tre
It is true that the moral of the stories are of utmost importance.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But I don't think anyone today can actually know when the first connection was made.
As I said in a previous post, I've read Isaiah from beginning to end at least several times, and there simply is no evidence that I can see that states or implies it will be about someone like Jesus. Matter of fact, when read in context, it simply cannot apply to him. And just because it doesn't, imo, that doesn't take away the significance of his presence and what he taught. It's his message that's most important, I do believe.
Well… I guess I tend to follow Matthew’s view.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Obviously, your choice and his. I choose to read it in context, and there's a lot more to this story with me that I prefer not to get into.
Take care, my friend.