• 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!

Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

gnostic

The Lost One
Why should I bother to reply to you.

You're doing it again.

First you give me imaginary link of Isaiah 7:14 with Paul's Ephesians 4:24. I know that Paul's is saying the novus homo - "new man" is about Jesus, the messiah, but in no way this is linked with Isaiah 7:14.

Post 675 is nothing more than you spinning each verse out of context. You are making everything up.

InvestigateTruth said:
I suggest, take some rest and come back, we will continue.

No. You should try not to make thing up. And only then we can continue.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Why should I bother to reply to you.

You're doing it again.

First you give me imaginary link of Isaiah 7:14 with Paul's Ephesians 4:24. I know that Paul's is saying the novus homo - "new man" is about Jesus, the messiah, but in no way this is linked with Isaiah 7:14.

Post 675 is nothing more than you spinning each verse out of context. You are making everything up.



No. You should try not to make thing up. And only then we can continue.

Well, the fact is these verses are unclear, and it is undeniable they are figurative and symbolic. However, I am not claiming my interpretation is without error.
I am just giving you my personal view on this. The verses are quite open to intepretation.

Second is that, my view on Religions tends to be broad. I view them from the same source.

For example:

7:13 "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?"


There is a simillar verse in Quran:

"Are We wearied out with the first creation? Yet are they in doubt with regard to a new creation!" Qur’án 50:15


These verses are all about creation of a New Human through guidance of God. Both are talking about God is not wearied from creating, because He is a creator, and continues to create always. And creation is not only limited to physical creation, but also spiritual creation. The emmanuel is a spiritual creation of a new human.

Third, there is also a reference in Baha'i Scriptures regarding Emmanuel being the Bab, who was the forerunner of Baha'u'llah:


"In reality Emmanuel was the forerunner of the second coming of His Highness the Christ and the herald of the path of the Kingdom."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 536-540

So, the Emmanuel is not necessarily a particular person. It is a symbolic representation for any Prophet who has eaten Honey and Butter, and knows False from True. This is why both Matthew and Abdulbaha has Refered to Emmanuel for Two different Prophets.

 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Hey Investigate Truth,
Christianity explains the symbolism of the Hebrew Scriptures also but a lot different than the Baha'is. Adam and Eve sinned, causing all of humankind to be cursed. The only way to be redeemed is through a perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The NT explains God's purpose. It explains the "true" meaning and "symbolism" of the Hebrew Scriptures. That purpose is way different than what Jews thought God was telling them. It's funny how Christianity thinks it knows Jewish Scripture better than the Jews, but now with the Baha'is? Where are you going with all of this? Are you saying that none of the religions understood their own writings?

Well, in Baha'i view, everytime a Prophet came, He corrected the misunderstanding of the past. However, over centuries that Original Message was changed gradually, and misunderstood.

Moreover, every prophet had left certain figurative verses that is for the Next Divine Prophet to reveal its True interpretations. I believe in Baha'i Scriptures also there are verses that are related to the Next Prophet who comes after 1000 years, but they are veiled, and the next Divine Prophet as a Proof of His Truth will reveal them. In fact in my understanding, one of the proof of any prophet is the ability to unveil the mysteries in previous scriptures without any formal religious education.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by CG Didymus
Hey Investigate Truth,
Christianity explains the symbolism of the Hebrew Scriptures also but a lot different than the Baha'is. Adam and Eve sinned, causing all of humankind to be cursed. The only way to be redeemed is through a perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The NT explains God's purpose. It explains the "true" meaning and "symbolism" of the Hebrew Scriptures. That purpose is way different than what Jews thought God was telling them. It's funny how Christianity thinks it knows Jewish Scripture better than the Jews, but now with the Baha'is? Where are you going with all of this? Are you saying that none of the religions understood their own writings?


Well, in Baha'i view, everytime a Prophet came, He corrected the misunderstanding of the past. However, over centuries that Original Message was changed gradually, and misunderstood.

Moreover, every prophet had left certain figurative verses that is for the Next Divine Prophet to reveal its True interpretations. I believe in Baha'i Scriptures also there are verses that are related to the Next Prophet who comes after 1000 years, but they are veiled, and the next Divine Prophet as a Proof of His Truth will reveal them. In fact in my understanding, one of the proof of any prophet is the ability to unveil the mysteries in previous scriptures without any formal religious education.

Thanks CG D, You almost presented the Christian/GOD inspired redemption for the reconciliation of mankind throughout the ages since that need arose. Yes, Since GOD did not create but one "people"/human beings, GOD has sought to reconcile all who choose to have HIM as their GOD to HIMself.

At the time of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, there were only those two persons--No Jews--No Gentiles(all other peoples). However, at that Time, GOD began the Restoration of all things via a plan which was made "before the foundation of the world" was laid. It was seen in one verse amidst other penalties for the disobeying. Gen.3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. "
The understanding of that meaning is initially alluded to in vs.21 when GOD made covering for their "nakedness" from the skin of an animal(s).
Since Adam willfully sinned and Eve was "beguiled", that promised "seed" would come from the woman only. That promised "seed" was the looked for through the ages--Messiah.
Isaiah is one of many Prophets who were sent to the "chosen people" who were called out to teach "the nations"/to be a "light to the world" concerning GOD'S plan of redemption. Not only were they not teaching, but had strayed from GOD and disobeying GOD'S requirements.
That is the picture we are seeing in these chapters. This phase begins with Isa.1:1--not 7:1. Yes, GOD was assuring Ahaz that any disbelief on his part---of not Believing the Prophecies and the relying of other than the true GOD would not change the Restoration/Atonement/Reconciliation Plan made from the "Beginning".
Yes, Maher-shal-alhash-baz was born who was the child that Isaiah spoke to Ahaz about which would fulfill the "immediate threat", but that wouldn't stop the Babylonian captivity/predicted punishment for Judah's persistent disobedience.
Isaiah's prophecies didn't stop at Chapters 7/8, but continued to the "end of this world" and the life expected in "the earth made new."

Hi Investigate Truth, What you have written isn't according to the Scriptures of the Bible.
The "scriptures" given from the Quran didn't come from Gabriel, but from "Iblis".( another topic).
 

gnostic

The Lost One
InvestigateTruth said:
Well, the fact is these verses are unclear, and it is undeniable they are figurative and symbolic.

Actually the verses about the sign is not really all that hard to understand at all...that IF YOU REALLY BOTHER TO READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER (Isaiah 7) from start to finish.

Look, I'll be the first to say that I don't always understand symbols or metaphors in religious scriptures, but with regards to Isaiah's sign (7:14-17, and not just 7:14) it is fairly easily understand what the symbols in Isaiah's sign mean, and how it is all connected to the rest of the chapter.

I don't know about you, but I have no doubt in my mind that Isaiah 7:14 and all other verses had nothing to do with a messiah.

I know that with any poetic work, whether they are religious in nature or non-religious, can tends to be open to all sort of interpretations. But often, there are scopes or limits to any work of literature, on how far we can interpret the verses (religious or otherwise).

Since we are dealing with religious text, for example, any good scholar would try to understand any passage (verses, like Isaiah's sign for example) on how they connect to other parts of chapter. Once you understand the verses relation to the chapter, you will expand the search, to see if the verse in any way to connect to other chapter(s). For example, I can see how chapter 7 be connected to Isaiah 8. You don't go beyond the other those chapters, like other books, unless there are connection. Since Isaiah flourished in the time of Ahaz and that of Pekah, then we can safely follow up with another 2 books, like 2 Kings 15 (about Pekah) and 16 (about Ahaz) and the Chronicles; don't know which chapters in this book (Chronicles), but it is not really important, because this is just example of what I mean about scopes and limits.

You, however, have based on some wild interpretations on some individual verses.

You are inventing something that not really thee, basing something loosely on what Paul wrote about Jesus. You are making up links to those verses with this non-existent connection to the messiah. Your post 675, sounds more like tabloid trash writings than good investigative scholarship.

InvestigateTruth said:
Second is that, my view on Religions tends to be broad. I view them from the same source.

And that's the thing. You're using sources that have no bearing at all with what happening in Isaiah 7 (or 8, or 2 Kings 15 & 16).

This thread is about Matthew and Christians changing the meaning (or context) of a single verse (7:14). Why he didn't use the complete sign?

And you're doing exactly the same thing, changing the context to each verse with that post of yours (post 675), with your own brand of version.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Since we are dealing with religious text, for example, any good scholar would try to understand any passage (verses, like Isaiah's sign for example) on how they connect to other parts of chapter. Once you understand the verses relation to the chapter, you will expand the search, to see if the verse in any way to connect to other chapter(s). For example, I can see how chapter 7 be connected to Isaiah 8. You don't go beyond the other those chapters, like other books, unless there are connection. Since Isaiah flourished in the time of Ahaz and that of Pekah, then we can safely follow up with another 2 books, like 2 Kings 15 (about Pekah) and 16 (about Ahaz) and the Chronicles; don't know which chapters in this book (Chronicles), but it is not really important, because this is just example of what I mean about scopes and limits.
Well, all you say is true assuming the Book does not contain unclear mysteries.
But according to Scriptures that is not what the Author said, because He said, it won't be possible to understand the mysteries of the Book neither by the Learned (scholar), and unlearned:


Isa.: 29:11-12:

"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."


The way I understand this as well as most interpreters of Bible is that, the Book that contains visions and Prophecies is sealed, and is veiled so the "Mysteries" in it won't be understood by anyone regardless of learning. "Cannot Read" within the context means cannot understand its meaning (not that actually cannot read).

Note I am not saying everything in it cannot be understood, but, there are certain signs and mysteries that no one can understand through learning, but only the Wise can understand. And "Wise" within the Book is the One that follows the Path of God and is sincere. And the only ones that are Wise and Sincere are True Prophets of God and chosen ones. They are the one that can understand and explain to others. And Mathew was one of them in my view.




Now, the question is "how the Book is sealed that even the learned cannot read?"
In my view it is sealed using "symbolic language", using "Parabols", using "Figures"​

So, outwardly it appeares as if it is talking about "Honey", but it could be that "Honey" is the symbol for a Heveanly Word of God, that is recieved by the Prophet.​

You, however, have based on some wild interpretations on some individual verses.

You are right about my interpretation appear wild.



You are inventing something that not really thee, basing something loosely on what Paul wrote about Jesus. You are making up links to those verses with this non-existent connection to the messiah. Your post 675, sounds more like tabloid trash writings than good investigative scholarship.

I don't mind that this is how you thought about my interpretation, and in fact you could be right that my interpretation is false, however, I would be interested a discussion, going through my interpretation and tell me why exactly it cannot be right, based on scriptures and logical argument.


All you said is you think, the things I said, are unrealated to the subject in Isa 7. But I explained a way of connection there, which are supported by other verses.

So, for example, when I said, "Honey" and "Butter" symbolically represent the spiritual food, that is the Word of God that makes one Wise, I said that Based on the fact that throughout the Bible you see examples of this. For example Jesus said:


John 6:33- "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."



Obviously by bread of God is meant the word of God. So, Likewise "Honey" and "butter" are the Word of God, that makes Him Wise.


And that's the thing. You're using sources that have no bearing at all with what happening in Isaiah 7 (or 8, or 2 Kings 15 & 16).


Well, you do realize that I have already explained 7 verses in a way that are connected to each other. It would be time consuming to expect me to go through all of them.



I was just demonstrating a good portion of it as you already agreed it is FOUR verses, and even i went further to SEVEN.

Having said that, I can interpret all the way to the end of chapter 7, and show how all of it is in essence is related to a new Revelation from God. In my next Post i will do that when I get some time.





This thread is about Matthew and Christians changing the meaning (or context) of a single verse (7:14). Why he didn't use the complete sign?


What do you mean by complete sign?



Note that there is no reason to think that the whole chapter is a sign. But could be that in it there is a sign.



If indeed the Lord had said He is giving a sign, and all the sudden He talked about a "Child", It is reasonable to say this "child" must be someone important, not just a regular child, you know what I mean?
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Hi Investigate Truth, What you have written isn't according to the Scriptures of the Bible.
The "scriptures" given from the Quran didn't come from Gabriel, but from "Iblis".( another topic).

Unfortunately the Image of Islam is totally misrepresented througout History, by both some who called themselves Muslim, but acted in opposite, and as well as non-moslem Religious leaders that misrepresented the Image of Islam and Muhammad, because they were biased.
Having said that, Christianity has already gone through this 1000 years ago, when many of Christian Leaders ruled people and killed many in the name of God.
In my view, many people also view Christianity as a false religion, if we see how many Atheist are even on this Forum, who used to be Christian before. In my view, all of these is because these religions has been misunderstood, and misrepresented by mostly their followers as well as others.
 
Last edited:

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
If indeed the Lord had said He is giving a sign, and all the sudden He talked about a "Child", It is reasonable to say this "child" must be someone important, not just a regular child, you know what I mean?

The child is the child of a woman who Ahaz knows.... and before that child grows to maturity, something incredible will happen... Rezin and Pekah will no longer be a threat to the kingdom of Judah.

It really is that simple.

The child is important. As a chronological marker for the sign. Set to happen in Ahaz' lifetime.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
The child is the child of a woman who Ahaz knows.... and before that child grows to maturity, something incredible will happen... Rezin and Pekah will no longer be a threat to the kingdom of Judah.

It really is that simple.

The child is important. As a chronological marker for the sign. Set to happen in Ahaz' lifetime.

Are you talking about Emmanuel or Maher-shalal-hash-baz?
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
And you're doing exactly the same thing, changing the context to each verse with that post of yours (post 675), with your own brand of version.

Here is everything in the context:

7:13 O People of Land your Lord shall not be frustrated, For God is powerful and full of Wisdom.
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign so you may know He shall not leave you alone, and He shall be with you. He shall create you again and feed you by His Word, so you may walk in the Path of God.
7:15 For the Word of God is as rich as Butter and sweet as honey.
"Son of man, eat this Word I am giving you and fill your stomach with it."
7:16 For before the Word of God shall come to make Him wise, the Land shall be empty of the Heavenly food, of every guidance and light.
7:17 For The LORD shall bring upon the people of transgression a Day that the people of the past never witnessed.
7:18 For in that day, the LORD shall rebuke all the people of the Land for they have forgotten their Lord and has gone astray.
7:19 And thus they shall find themselves in a Land empty of every guidance, a desert in the middle of darkness, for they have no where to go except in desolated valleys of darkness, and in the holes of the rocks with no light of God.
7:20 In the same day shall the Lord clean you from every sin and transgression.
7:21 For on that Day the man Christ shall nourish the flock of God.
"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
7:22 And it shall come to pass, for the Word of God shall be given to every one that has remained Faithful to God on the Hills.
"my Father giveth you the true Food from heaven", and you shall be wise and know false from True.
7:23 But for the unfaithful there is nothing to eat except briers and thorns.
7:24 and they shall kill each other With arrows and with bows for their land is empty of the Spirit of God.
7:25 But in the hills shall the Word of God be planted for nourishing the Flock.
"The LORD is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys of darkness"
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
InvestigateTruth said:
What do you mean by complete sign?

What do you mean by what I mean?

Haven't you been reading my posts?

Clearly you haven't. :mad:

I have repeated again, first with sincerly but now with you, by posting the same verse numbers of the COMPLETE SIGN, over and over again.

Ok, let's try it again.

When I am talking about the complete sign, I mean Isaiah 7:14-17. The sign may start at verse 14, but it doesn't end till the very last verse of this sign - verse 17, when Isaiah stop at this point.

Isaiah 7:13-17 said:
13*Then Isaiah*said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also?*14*Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman*is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.*15*He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.16*For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.*17*The*Lord*will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

So Isaiah started speaking at verse 13 with - 'Then Isaiah said...', which is follow by immediately with a DOUBLE-QUOTE, and then later, end it with another DOUBLE-QUOTE at the end of verse 17.

The COMPLETE SIGN falls within that pair of DOUBLE-QUOTE.

Do you understand what I'm geting at now about the DOUBLE-QUOTE?

Of course the sign may also include everything else after verse 17, hence Isaiah 7:18-25.

InvestigateTruth said:
Here is everything in the context:7:13 O People of Land your Lord

No it isn't. If truly want the CONTEXT of EVERYTHING, then you would have to start at the very beginning of Isaiah 7, starting at verse 1, and ending with verse 25.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the Image of Islam is totally misrepresented througout History, by both some who called themselves Muslim, but acted in opposite, and as well as non-moslem Religious leaders that misrepresented the Image of Islam and Muhammad, because they were biased.
Having said that, Christianity has already gone through this 1000 years ago, when many of Christian Leaders ruled people and killed many in the name of God.
In my view, many people also view Christianity as a false religion, if we see how many Atheist are even on this Forum, who used to be Christian before. In my view, all of these is because these religions has been misunderstood, and misrepresented by mostly their followers as well as others.

And "in your view" and posted opinions you have given various opinions which point to your own beliefs/bias as "a religion".
Both "Houses of Jacob" one has totally apostatized and Judah/Ahaz is doubting the leadership of GOD. In vs.7 Isaiah with his one son has told Ahaz not to fear, IT WILL NOT COME TO PASS--that which had been planned.
GOD is still in charge of setting up kingdoms and debasing them. Both kingdoms will be without their kings as a result of Disobedience and they will be in bondage for 70 years.( As the Scriptures revealed and history recorded.)Isaiah's New born son is the one referenced in the prophecy.
All the interpolation is seen in/by those who are trying to denounce Jesus as the Prophesied Messiah and being Fathered by the Holy Spirit and a Female Virgin human Being.
Ahaz should have been aware of that Prophecy, as the "Anointed One" had been looked for---for centuries. Gen.3:15 was a reminder in the "Sign" of Promise. Isaiah 9:6-7 are more(prophecies) about the Virgin's SON seen in 7:14.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Are you talking about Emmanuel or Maher-shalal-hash-baz?

They are one in the same.

Isaiah 7 points out that the mother is to name the child Immanuel.

Isaiah 8 points out that the father calls the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

So there is no conflict.

Jacob was also called Israel
Jethro was also called Reuel
Immanuel was also called Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

How do we know? CONTEXT. The words of the chapters make it clear that we're talking about the same child.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
InvestigateTruth said:
Are you talking about Emmanuel or Maher-shalal-hash-baz?
poisonshady313 said:
They are one in the same.

That was exactly what I was going to write, when I got home. :)
poisonshady313 said:
Jacob was also called Israel
Jethro was also called Reuel
Immanuel was also called Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

And to put in the NT perspective.

Simon, who was later called Peter.
Thomas was named Didymus ("Twin"), as well as Judas or Jude.
Jude and then there's Thaddeus.
And lastly Matthew, who was also called Levi.

And then in OT Abram and Abraham, and there's Sarai and Sarah.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
They are one in the same.

Isaiah 7 points out that the mother is to name the child Immanuel.

Isaiah 8 points out that the father calls the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

So there is no conflict.

Jacob was also called Israel
Jethro was also called Reuel
Immanuel was also called Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

How do we know? CONTEXT. The words of the chapters make it clear that we're talking about the same child.
I don't think it is that clear they are the same.
Even if they are. The whole thing is most likely visions that came to Isaiah. So, it's not necessary that there was actually a woman who concieved right at the time of Isaiah, but He saw these things in a vision that is a prophecy for future times.
The statement "the LORD said unto me" denotes that He was inspired about all these things in visions. and as you know, a vision is different from a physical thing that happens.

And as I post previously for gnostic, and perhaps you read it, the Book is sealed, and the meaning of these visions are not literal facts. It requires symbolic interpretations.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Both kingdoms will be without their kings .

It doesn't say both kingdoms will be without kings, this is what it says:

"For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."

"The Lands will be deserted".
and in later verses, it describes that the land has turned to thornes.

This was my commentary verse to verse:

7:13 O People of Land your Lord shall not be frustrated, For God is powerful and full of Wisdom.
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign so you may know He shall not leave you alone, and He shall be with you. He shall create you again and feed you by His Word, so you may walk in the Path of God.
7:15 "Son of man, eat this Word I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." For the Word of God is as rich as Butter and sweet as honey.
7:16 For before the Word of God shall come to make Him wise, the Land shall be empty of the Heavenly food, of every guidance and light.
7:17 For The LORD shall bring upon the people of transgression a Day that the people of the past never witnessed.
7:18 For in that day, the LORD shall rebuke all the people of the Land for they have forgotten their Lord and has gone astray.
7:19 And thus they shall find themselves in a Land empty of every guidance, a desert in the middle of darkness, for they have no where to go except in desolated valleys of darkness, and in the holes of the rocks with no light of God.
7:20 In the same day shall the Lord clean you from every sin and transgression.
7:21 For on that Day the man Christ shall nourish the flock of God.
"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
7:22 And it shall come to pass, for the Word of God shall be given to every one that has remained Faithful to God on the Hills.
"my Father giveth you the true Food from heaven", and you shall be wise and know false from True.
7:23 But for the unfaithful there is nothing to eat except briers and thorns.
7:24 and they shall kill each other With arrows and with bows for their land is empty of the Spirit of God.
7:25 But in the hills shall the Word of God be planted for nourishing the Flock.
"The LORD is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys of darkness"
 
Last edited:

allright

Active Member
No, you and a couple other Christians believe he is correct. I only asked if it bothers Christians knowing that Matthew takes one small part of a whole chapter and spins it into the virgin birth story. Obviously, it doesn't bother you. Like I've asked several times, does it bother you when other religions take verses from the NT out of context? Obviously, you need your version of Christianity to be absolutely true and without flaws. It's just to some of us, it seems you're forcing the issue. I've mentioned several times that we could add the alleged trip to Egypt and the thing about some lady crying over her kids because "they were no more." Was the Messiah supposed to be called a Nazarene? So many things Matthew throws in there that seems contrived. Jesus is fine, and you're fine. You've shared why you believe it's true, but to me, it really sounds like Matthew did a lot of embellishing.

You dont think it might be Mathew understood the meaning of Scripture a lot better than unbelievers looking to find fault with it 2000 years later
 

Shermana

Heretic
You dont think it might be Mathew understood the meaning of Scripture a lot better than unbelievers looking to find fault with it 2000 years later

You don't think it might be the case that the Ebionites had what was closer to the original version which began at Chapter 3 and this Virgin Birth episode was interpolated into later versions of "Matthew" by someone who had no idea about the meaning of scripture because they wanted to spruce things up for their gentile audience? You don't think it might be the case that it seems odd that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to include? Or that Joseph's long geneology was important enough to include even though he was of no relation?

And in any event, you don't think it might be the case that there's good arguments as to why the episode in Matthew is wrong? Do you at least consider the counter arguments or do you brush them off with a handwave?
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
You dont think it might be Mathew understood the meaning of Scripture a lot better than unbelievers looking to find fault with it 2000 years later
A lot of good religious people are happy in their beliefs systems. Since there is such a great variety of religious beliefs and so many variations within Christianity itself, some of them or all of them might be wrong. Did Matthew the apostle write the gospel? Shermana thinks there's a different version out there, is there? Catholic Christians added in a lot of things into Christianity. At what point in early Church history was everything perfect? When did all Christians agree on which books were to be included into the canon? When did all Christians know exactly what it meant to be a Christian? And then, when did it all go wrong? Did the reformation make it right? Or, are there still some controversies?

All I did was ask a Jew for clarification as to why Christianity, Islam and the Baha'is all say the Jews had it right--at one time, but now they are wrong. He showed me the verses that were taken out of context by Christians. He showed me the unfulfilled prophecies concerning their Messiah. If you think you've got it right and everybody else is wrong, fine. But what you did to Judaism is what Islam and the Baha'i Faith is doing to you. They reinterpreted your Holy Book and told you what it really means. If you can honestly say that the writer of the gospel of Matthew didn't pull one verse out of context and create a virgin birth story than great. I guess it doesn't bother you.

As is painfully obvious, Bible verses can be interpreted to mean just about whatever you want them to. I was shocked to find out that Judaism didn't have the Christian concept of the devil, heaven, hell, salvation, the trinity and original sin. Where did these ideas come from if not from Judaism? For several hundreds of years of Judaism, God never told the Jews the "real" truth?

And now we have Investigate Truth, a Baha'i. He says that Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead. He doesn't believe in the trinity, hell or the devil like Christians do. He believes in a new prophet, a new messenger. He's saying all of it was symbolic. Is he right? I'm sure you believe he is completely and totally wrong. Why? Because you know what the Bible really says. For one thing, the Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. So Jesus couldn't have already come and gone. But did Jesus really do the things the Messiah was supposed to do? Was the Messiah supposed to be God? Was he supposed to die to save us all from our sins? Maybe, but why are so many intelligent, Bible-literate people questioning the standard Protestant version of what God's truth really is? Do you know it in your heart? Who doesn't believe their religion in their heart? By the Word of God? The words can be turned and twisted to mean several things, like a young maiden or a virgin. And, they can be taken out of context. And that sure seems like what Matthew did to Isaiah.
 
Top