Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[InvestigateTruth]

Did Matthew the apostle write the gospel? .

I think there are a few things to consider regardless if we don't know who wrote the scriptures:
One is that, once scriptures were written and spread among early believers, it is very unlikely that anybody could have added or removed from it. Because it wasn't only one copy. It was spread among people. Then how could a person convince others to add his own writing to a Book that everyone including himself believed is from God?

Second, if the New testament was indeed from beginning from God but somehow got corrupted, God would have raised a new Prophet with irrefutable proofs to give the correct scriptures again, for how would God leave His people with a corrupted Book, and expect them to follow the right path?

Third, although it is possible to argue and try to show the Bible is corrupted, it is also possible to show that it is just fine.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Actually what Bible says, is "kingdom shall rise against kingdom". Virtually there is no more kingdom in the World. The kings existed up till early 19th century. There was period up till 18 and early 19th century that Kings were raising against each other, and that period has ended.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think there are a few things to consider regardless if we don't know who wrote the scriptures:
One is that, once scriptures were written and spread among early believers, it is very unlikely that anybody could have added or removed from it. Because it wasn't only one copy. It was spread among people. Then how could a person convince others to add his own writing to a Book that everyone including himself believed is from God?

Second, if the New testament was indeed from beginning from God but somehow got corrupted, God would have raised a new Prophet with irrefutable proofs to give the correct scriptures again, for how would God leave His people with a corrupted Book, and expect them to follow the right path?

Third, although it is possible to argue and try to show the Bible is corrupted, it is also possible to show that it is just fine.

Then what is Shermana talking about? Plus, something funny is going on with the end of the gospel of Mark. On your second point, you say a new Prophet would have come with irrefutable proofs and give the correct scriptures again? Hindu's, Jews, everybody is doing things differently and believing different things. Somebody is giving all of us misinformation. The Christians have an easy answer, it is Satan. But, Baha'is and many others don't believe in the Christian Satan, so there is more misinformation. On your third point, Christians are perfectly happy believing their Bible is perfect. They don't need another prophet. Yet it is your prophet that is telling them that what they believe and how they practice their religion is wrong, corrupted or at least out-dated. Or, am I wrong and Baha'is believe Christianity is perfect as is? For me, I think it took some manipulating of Hebrew Scriptures and mixing them with some pagan beliefs to come up with what Christians believe--like the virgin birth, like heaven and hell, like the Savior/human/God vs the devil. Baha'is don't believe those things, so where did Christianity get them from?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then what is Shermana talking about? Plus, something funny is going on with the end of the gospel of Mark. On your second point, you say a new Prophet would have come with irrefutable proofs and give the correct scriptures again? Hindu's, Jews, everybody is doing things differently and believing different things. Somebody is giving all of us misinformation. The Christians have an easy answer, it is Satan. But, Baha'is and many others don't believe in the Christian Satan, so there is more misinformation

.
That the Christian say it is Satan that has caused all the bad things to happen is true. However, is Satan another person or is it our own selfish desires that makes us go the wrong way?
Baha'is say Satan is not another Person. They say it is our own selfish desires.

On your third point, Christians are perfectly happy believing their Bible is perfect. They don't need another prophet.

The Baha'is believe Bible is legitimate to use.

Yet it is your prophet that is telling them that what they believe and how they practice their religion is wrong, corrupted or at least out-dated. Or, am I wrong and Baha'is believe Christianity is perfect as is?

Baha'is believe what Bible teaches is essentially the Truth, however it was for previous Ages. Now as Promised by All religious Scriptures, another Manifestation of God was to appear, and Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled that Promise, and has brought the teachings for our New Age.

For me, I think it took some manipulating of Hebrew Scriptures and mixing them with some pagan beliefs to come up with what Christians believe--like the virgin birth, like heaven and hell, like the Savior/human/God vs the devil. Baha'is don't believe those things, so where did Christianity get them from?

If you are asking Baha'i belief where New Testament came from, then IOV it is inspired by God. As regards to interpretation of Bible, Baha'is believe there are many symbolic verses in Bible, which should not be taken literal. For example Heaven and Hell are not physical places. There are also some Christians that share the same belief.

 

[gnostic]

I think there are a few things to consider regardless if we don't know who wrote the scriptures:
One is that, once scriptures were written and spread among early believers, it is very unlikely that anybody could have added or removed from it. Because it wasn't only one copy. It was spread among people. Then how could a person convince others to add his own writing to a Book that everyone including himself believed is from God?

Second, if the New testament was indeed from beginning from God but somehow got corrupted, God would have raised a new Prophet with irrefutable proofs to give the correct scriptures again, for how would God leave His people with a corrupted Book, and expect them to follow the right path?

Third, although it is possible to argue and try to show the Bible is corrupted, it is also possible to show that it is just fine.

Look. I may not always agree with what were written in Jewish or Christian scriptures, and I could also think and believe that there may have been interpolation, editing and redaction involved.

However, this nonsense about the bible being corrupted as claimed by the Muhammad and Báb or Bahá'u'lláh, and that anyone of them would arise and correct the bible, have not produced a new and modified bible to show the correction. All that Islam and Baba'i Faith have done were to completely produced new scriptures.

You can''t compare Hebrew Tanakh / Hebrew Bible against the Qur'an or any of the canonical Baba'i scriptures to find errors, because the writings are all so different.

The LDS Joseph Smith had attempted to reproduce some part of "Books of Moses" as Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST), found in their manuscript of Pearl Of Great Price. The JST is not a translation at all, but rather that Smith editing parts of the Bible from the King James Version (KJV). It is only read by LDS, so it has little to no impact on the non-LDS world. But at the very least, we can compact what KJV (on books attributed to Moses) and JST.

Neither the Qur'an or Baba'i scriptures provide such comparison, to actually show where the errors or corruptions lie.

This Baba'i Messengers didn't reproduce perfect New Testament gospels. Do the Baba'i have a new and improved gospels or epistles?

The thing you have to understand about the writings from either Jews or Christians is that their works may have been inspired, but they were still humans. Humans that they were describing they were writing about their relationship with God, with their prophets or with Jesus; their writings were never written by God, like the way Muhammad claimed about the Qur'an. Sure, some of the writings may record whatever direct revelation from God, but not everything were through revelation.

The very idea that a new prophet or messenger needs to be raised for the reasons you have given seemed illogical, and only sounds like self-promotion of your religion, when you can't produced a new and improved bible to compare it with your so-called corrupted bible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

However, this nonsense about the bible being corrupted as claimed by the Muhammad and Báb or Bahá'u'lláh, and that anyone of them would arise and correct the bible, have not produced a new and modified bible to show the correction. All that Islam and Baba'i Faith have done were to completely produced new scriptures.

I am not sure where you got the idea that Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah claimed the Bible is corrupted?
They all confirmed that Bible is NOT corrupted.

Do the Baba'i have a new and improved gospels or epistles?

Baha'is do not believe a new gospels are required as the gospels are legitimate and no need for a corrected Bible.

However, Baha'is believe in progressive revelations, and that every Age requires new teachings, and God reveals a new Book in every Age (not because the previous scriptures are corrupted, but because as humanity advances, a more advance teaching comes from God)

 

[Shermana]

I am not sure where you got the idea that Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah claimed the Bible is corrupted?
They all confirmed that Bible is NOT corrupted.


Baha'is do not believe a new gospels are required as the gospels are legitimate and no need for a corrected Bible.

However, Baha'is believe in progressive revelations, and that every Age requires new teachings, and God reveals a new Book in every Age (not because the previous scriptures are corrupted, but because as humanity advances, a more advance teaching comes from God)

Which manuscript text-type do Bahais think is the uncorrupted Gospel, the Western Alexandrian or the Byzantine-majority? Quite a bit of differences. What about the Western Non-interpolations in the Alexandrian?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Which manuscript text-type do Bahais think is the uncorrupted Gospel, the Western Alexandrian or the Byzantine-majority? Quite a bit of differences. What about the Western Non-interpolations in the Alexandrian?

Yes, there are some differences between the Manuscripts, but using textual criticism it was possible to put a "legitimate" New Testament together.
The result would contain minor and negligible inaccuracies, but Baha'is believe it is essentially the truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually what Bible says, is "kingdom shall rise against kingdom". Virtually there is no more kingdom in the World. The kings existed up till early 19th century. There was period up till 18 and early 19th century that Kings were raising against each other, and that period has ended.

Matt 24:6 NASB says "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom..." verse 11: "many false prophets will arise..." etc. etc. verse 14 "then the end will come." So, I could be wrong, but if these things are literal then the end hasn't happened yet. Another problem, you take the Bible symbolic in other areas, but when it says, "kingdom" you play the literal card? That's a little inconsistent. And consistency is what I'm talking about with Matthew and Isaiah. Christians can't say they take the Bible literally and don't allow cherry-picking and taking verses out of context, yet that is what one of their prime gospel writers did. I don't know if God inspired Matthew, but I need some proof that what he said is the truth. Anybody can come up with a story after the fact and say it fulfills a prophecy. As pointed out, Isaiah 7 was not a messianic prophecy. Between him and Luke, you'd think they would have gotten the story straight. So who were their sources? They weren't there. Why did their sources give them different information? It doesn't sound like it's from God; it sounds made up.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Matt 24:6 NASB says "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom..." verse 11: "many false prophets will arise..." etc. etc. verse 14 "then the end will come." So, I could be wrong, but if these things are literal then the end hasn't happened yet.

Which one of them did not happen?

Another problem, you take the Bible symbolic in other areas, but when it says, "kingdom" you play the literal card? That's a little inconsistent.

Well, I don't think everything in Bible is symbolic. It has both literal and symbolic. If this is symbolic what would it mean?

In my understanding there are verses in Bible that are symbolic, and there are verses literal. However, there are stories that are completely symbolic verse by verse. These are the ones that are "Visions" the visions are always symbolic, so, the Isa. 7 is a vision, and every single verse of it is symbolic.

But the signs that Jesus is giving is not a vision, however, He has used symbolism in some of the verses regarding the signs of End. For example, "Stars fall"
These stars are religious leaders who would fall when He returned for they did not recognize Him.


For the symbolic verses there are key verses.
For example:

Isa. 17:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."
I said this verse is symbolic because, that which causes a person "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" is not honey and butter, but the Word of God.

And the key verse is:

"Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth." Ezekiel 3:3

 

[Shermana]

Yes, there are some differences between the Manuscripts, but using textual criticism it was possible to put a "legitimate" New Testament together.
The result would contain minor and negligible inaccuracies, but Baha'is believe it is essentially the truth.

Some of those inaccuracies aren't exactly that minor and negligible.

How about the Ethiopian Bible? They include Enoch and Clement as Canon, would those not be legitimate?

 

[CG Didymus]

...visions are always symbolic, so, the Isa. 7 is a vision, and every single verse of it is symbolic.

Where did it say Isaiah's conversation with King Ahaz was a vision?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Isa. 17:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."
I said this verse is symbolic because, that which causes a person "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" is not honey and butter, but the Word of God.

And the key verse is:

"Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth." Ezekiel 3:3

The butter and honey isn't supposed to cause anything. It's supposed to be a chronological marker. When the child is old enough to know good and evil, he'll eat butter and honey... signs of prosperity in a formerly war torn land.

Regarding the verse in Ezekiel.... randomly finding a verse with one common word (honey) does not make a connection... certainly doesn't make it a "key verse".

 

[gnostic]

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

In what way is Matthew "right"?

In that Matthew quoted his verse (in Matthew 1:23, cf Isaiah 7:14) from the Greek translation instead of verse of original and intended language (Hebrew). The Book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

In the Greek Septuagint bible, the disputed verse say parthenos "virgin", which in Hebrew is betulah. But in Hebrew, the Book of Isaiah (7:14) uses the word almah, which means "young woman", and almah doesn't necessarily mean a young woman have to "virgin" or "unmarried"; it (almah) has nothing to do with the marital status, nor status of her virginity or the lack of it (virginity).

The almah or young woman was already pregnant "", so it can't mean Mary.

But that's not really the worse problems.

The worse problem is that Matthew chose to ignore the COMPLETE SIGN - Isaiah 7:14-17. The sign is not only about the child, but the state of Judah with its neighbors, and the sign is how the situation with WHEN crisis (Isaiah 7:1-9) will be over and resolved.

And the majority of Christians - past and present - also blindly followed Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ignoring the context of the entire chapter (Isaiah 7:1-25).

If you're going to read a sign or revelation, don't you think it would be wise to read the whole message of that sign, instead of just reading only a partial message?

If so, then you should know that Matthew (in Matthew 1:23) had only quoted a partial message (Isaiah 7:14), and not the whole message given as given in 7:14-17. So what Matthew had quoted in his gospel, IS NOT THE COMPLETE SIGN.

Clearly the child (Immanuel) has a small part to play in 7:15-16. But his (Immanuel's) role is not that of messiah or prophet. Immanuel's importance come from his age. When Immanuel reached a certain age, Ahaz's crisis (see Isaiah 7:1-9, and 2 Kings 16:5-9, and 2 Kings 15:29 about Pekah of Israel) would be over by the time child eat honey and curds BUT BEFORE he would know how to distinguish right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16), or BEFORE learn how to say "my father" or "my mother" (8:3-4).

When read this sign - 7:14-17 - is read as a whole, Jesus doesn't fit the bill, because he doesn't live in the time of the TWO KINGS nor that of the King of Assyria.

Immanuel is mentioned again (8:8), in Isaiah 8, with the king from Samaria (ie Pekah) and the King from Damascus (ie Rezin), as well as with the King of Assyria (who is identified as Tiglath-pileser (III) in 2 Kings 16:5-10 about Ahaz, and 2 Kings 15:29 about Pekah).

Isaiah's son - Maher-shalal-hash-baz - fit the bill quite neatly as Immanuel (cf Isaiah 8:3-4 and 8:6-8 WITH 7:14-17).

 

[gnostic]

For the symbolic verses there are key verses.
For example:

Isa. 17:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."
I said this verse is symbolic because, that which causes a person "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" is not honey and butter, but the Word of God.

Honey and butter is not really all that important, but the timeline or the age of the child that marked when a specific event was to occur.

I think I said something like this before, as did poisonshady313, repeatedly.

Don't you understand?

Clearly you don't.

Why are you damn ignoring the next verse.

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.
15He 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.”

I had divided 4 verses of the sign between red and green.

RED denotes specific time, in the future. The GREEN part event that has either already taken place or will take place.

1. So, the only part of sign that's in the present tense is "Look, the young woman is with child..." The rest of this verse is future event, thus "...she shall bear a son..." and she "...shall name him Immanuel".
2. Second, by the time the child know good or evil, he shall eat honey and butter...BUT BEFORE he know how to choose good over evil, the following events will occur - "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

Verse 15 and 16 should be read together (actually all of the sign should be read together as one, from verse 14 to verse 17). What connect the two verses (15 & 16) together is -

(a) the child, and
(b) "he (the child or Immanuel) knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good", which are repeated in both verses.
​

The land of the two kings symbolized Aram and Israel, hence with Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel.

Why do you keep insisting on separating verses from one another?

And the key verse is:

"Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth." Ezekiel 3:3

Are you joking?

You're doing again. You reading just one verse without considering the context of the entire chapter. Did you even bother to read the 1st TWO VERSES???!!!!

1 He said to me, O mortal, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. 3 He said to me, Mortal, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it. Then I ate it; and in my mouth it was as sweet as honey.

If you even bother to read the 1st verse, clearly God was speaking to the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel, if he was the author of the book that was named after him, was written in 1st person. It was Ezekiel who ate the scroll that tasted "...as sweet as honey."

Now unless you think Ezekiel himself is the messiah, I don't think verse Ezekiel 3:3 had anything to do with a messiah or with Jesus. And it certainly had nothing to with Isaiah 7:15.

Ezekiel is an adult and a prophet, while Immanuel is supposed to be a very young child and not a prophet. Ezekiel was writing about himself, about his experience; whether you want to take his experience literally or metaphorically, it is up to you, but this quote of yours (Ez 3:3) has nothing to do with this thread.

Are you really that ignorant or that dishonest that you would have to link to 2 unrelated verses together? (Right now it is the later.)

This is what we talk about cherry-picking. But now you're trying to push new meaning into Isaiah 15?

If there was button for de-frubalizing your post, I would press it again...or shoot you down. :redx:

 

[CG Didymus]

Gnostic, I can't wait to read your commentary on the whole Bible. You're awesome.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, I can't wait to read your commentary on the whole Bible. You're awesome.

I had read the whole bible years ago, from cover-to-cover, probably about 24 or 25 years ago. Only about dozen books hold my interests, and have read a number of time, from Genesis to 2 Kings, and the 3 main prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) from the OT, and the gospels and revelation in the NT; these I have read at least half-dozen times if not more. Some I have read more than once. And then there are large part of it, I've only read the one time, so I don't remember them that well, like proverbs, psalms, some of Paul's letters.

What really interested my is the creation myth of Genesis (1 to 11), and I've lost count the number of times that I have read the whole Genesis. I've read it forward, backward, side-way, a chapter here or a chapter there. What I haven't done is read it upside-down.

edit:

ps the only reason why I've read revelation a number of times, is because it is not easy understood. I'm afraid that my understanding of the Book of Revelation is the same as it was when I first read it - I don't understand it, and I think I never will. And my conclusion is the same now as before, it was written by someone psychologically deranged...or someone who was on LSD or something. :rainbow1:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

When the child is old enough to know good and evil, he'll eat butter and honey... signs of prosperity in a formerly war torn land.

Oh, when the child is old enough he eats butter and honey? wowww that is big sign that God was giving. Wowww no one knows that when the child grows old enough he can eat honey and butter. What if he has allergy? sorry, but i don't think that's what the verse is saying...

Regarding the verse in Ezekiel.... randomly finding a verse with one common word (honey) does not make a connection... certainly doesn't make it a "key verse".

It is not randomely finding verses.
The God that revealed to Ezekiel is the same God the Revealed to Isaiah (as per Authors of Bible and Jewish belief)
So, if you see it this way, then you should not say these verses are not related.
How could a Prophet eat a scrole and say it was sweet like honey?
Now, if another prophet from Lord brought a Message that a child would eat honey to become wise, are you saying this honey is not the Word of God?
The argument is quite logical if you see it with fairness.

,....signs of prosperity in a formerly war torn land.

You believe in reading Bible literally, I don't. I read these verses Figuratively.
And what you have ignored from my previous posts, is when I described why these verses are visions, and that the visions are sealed in the Book. You ignored all those replies, and randomely pick part of my posts and reply. How fair is that?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why do you keep insisting on separating verses from one another?

I did not. You ignored several of my posts. The one about the Book is sealed.
The one that I gave a commentary verse by verse, and many more.

If you even bother to read the 1st verse, clearly God was speaking to the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel, if he was the author of the book that was named after him, was written in 1st person. It was Ezekiel who ate the scroll that tasted "...as sweet as honey."

The God that spoke to Isaiah is the same God spoke to Ezekiel. He is using the same Terminalogy and Symbolism. Is that too hard to see?



I have said this before, and you ignored a reply to it. I have to say it again, and I demand you a reply to this, because that is the main point of our disagreement.


What we see in these verses is that several times Isaiah says such words: "The Lord has spoken" (refer to the content of chapter 7 and 8)


The question that we need to ask ourselves is How the Lord has spoken? Did the Lord appear physically and spoke in Hebrew Language? Is the Lord like human?
The answer must be No. The invisible God is beyond the comprehansion of everyone. No one has ever seen Him.
But when these Prophets say "Lord Spoke" they do not mean someone physically spoke to them, but they mean they were inspired through visions, and dreams.
So they saw all these things through dreams, and visions, and believe in their Heart that the Lord has inspired them through these visions. then they came to people and said "Lord spoke to ME"


This is the fundamental teaching of Jewish Scriptures, and has many times been repeated, such as:


"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." - Numbers 12:6


So, let's try one more time: According to Jewish Scriptures, How does God speak to Prophets? I want to hear your answer please to make sure we are on the same page. Thank you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Where did it say Isaiah's conversation with King Ahaz was a vision?

I think I have explained this to others as well several times, but it was ignored.

You and others have asked me, why do I think these are visions. I have replied to this before, but I do that once again. If you do not agree with this it is better you say it now with good reasoning, because this is the first point to make clear.

What we see in these verses is that several times Isaiah says such words: "The Lord has spoken" (refer to the content of chapter 7 and 8)

The question that we need to ask ourselves is How the Lord has spoken? Did the Lord appear physically and spoke in Hebrew Language? Is the Lord like human?
The answer must be No. The invisible God is beyond the comprehansion of everyone. No one has ever seen Him.
But when these Prophets say "Lord Spoke" they do not mean someone physically spoke to them, but they mean they were inspired through visions, and dreams.
So they saw all these things through dreams, and visions, and believe in their Heart that the Lord has inspired them through these visions. then they came to people and said "Lord spoke to ME"

This is the fundamental teaching of Jewish Scriptures, and has many times been repeated. This is the Key verse:

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." - Numbers 12:6


So, let's try one more time: According to Jewish Scriptures, How does God speak to Prophets? I want to hear your answer please to make sure we are on the same page. Thank you.