• 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

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
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.

Well, I think the reason you don't understand the Book of revelation is beacause the Book is sealed with Seven Seals:


Rev 5:1 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals."

So, who can read and understand it? The answer is in the same Book:


5:2 "....Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?"




5:5 ".... the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."



That is the return of Christ who is fulfilled in Baha'u'llah (in our view)

 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
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...

READ THE WHOLE DAMN CHAPTER! THE SIGN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HONEY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT OF REZIN AND PEKAH.

You hanging on that one little phrase and making a big deal out of it is causing you to foolishly misunderstand the passage, and ask stupid questions.

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.
Same God that spoke to Moses... but that doesn't mean a random verse in Leviticus that uses the word "honey" has anything whatsoever to do with what's being spoken in Isaiah 7.

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,
The key word is "if". Because that's not the message being brought by Isaiah.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Same God that spoke to Moses... but that doesn't mean a random verse in Leviticus that uses the word "honey" has anything whatsoever to do with what's being spoken in Isaiah 7..
I think the Key is these are visions, and therefore the same terminolgy should be used to understand the symbols.

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.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I think the Key is these are visions, and therefore the same terminolgy should be used to understand the symbols.

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.
Still, everyone thinks they know the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews. If the Baha'is are right then there should have been a smooth transition from religion to religion and prophet to prophet, but there isn't because they are all different. They are not like one grade in school moving to a higher grade.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Some of those inaccuracies aren't exactly that minor and negligible.
Well, that would be different topic to discuss by examples.

How about the Ethiopian Bible? They include Enoch and Clement as Canon, would those not be legitimate?
I haven't looked into those yet. Well, Actually I was just reading 1 Clement for the first time now, I have to say it is for sure inspiring. I don't see any reason why shouldn't be part of New Testament.
 
Last edited:

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
I think the Key is these are visions, and therefore the same terminolgy should be used to understand the symbols.

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.

With the exception of Moses who spoke to God directly while awake and lucid, the answer is in visions, or dreams. However, that doesn't mean that every single word is a metaphor. And even if it was, it seems reasonable that the prophet, by virtue of being a prophet, would have done the interpreting himself, so that by the time the prophet communicates to us (via the very text we're talking about), his message is clear.

So... just picking out one word from one prophet and claiming a link to another passage from another prophet using that same individual word is completely unreasonable. It's the defining example of taking something out of context. Which is the topic of this thread.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
InvestigateTruth said:
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.

You mean post 697?

Oh, no...I've read it alright.

If you are really serious about wanting to know my opinion on the commentary, then I'll be brutally honest with you.

I have never seen so many hare-brained and outlandish verse-by-verse interpretations in just one post. You had almost twisted meanings of every single verses.

The commentary is highly speculative, with no basis in reality, context of the text.

It not only totally make no sense, but Judah, Israel, Aram and Assyria with their respective kings vanished into thin air. Not a single verse referred to messiah or Christ, but you are either too blindly obsessed to see it, or you're fanatical born liar.

It is even worse than any Christian interpretation that I have ever seen in this thread. I have never seen so many BS during my whole time since I have been here.

If I didn't know any better I would think this was some sorts of pranks, but I think you are damned serious about what you're saying.

Anyway, I have no other comments about your commentary @ 697 (or post 690) because you have twisted the verses too much that is barely recognizable.
 
Last edited:

YeshaYaHu

Archistrategos
The one you are looking for would bear/reveal the Sign/Seal of the covenant...
Does anyone know what that is?

The second Advocate that Jesus said he would send when he got to heaven...who would come is His name. What did Jesus say his main purpose was while he was here?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
YeshaYaHu said:
The one you are looking for would bear/reveal the Sign/Seal of the covenant...
Does anyone know what that is?

Sign, yes.

Nothing in Isaiah 7 reveal anything or hint of either seal or covenant.

As far as I understand it, not all revelations or signs are covenants.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
With the exception of Moses who spoke to God directly while awake and lucid, the answer is in visions, or dreams. However, that doesn't mean that every single word is a metaphor. And even if it was, it seems reasonable that the prophet, by virtue of being a prophet, would have done the interpreting himself, so that by the time the prophet communicates to us (via the very text we're talking about), his message is clear.

So... just picking out one word from one prophet and claiming a link to another passage from another prophet using that same individual word is completely unreasonable. It's the defining example of taking something out of context. Which is the topic of this thread.


You mean post 697?

Oh, no...I've read it alright.

Ok, now, I think we might be able to start understanding our views.
But we need to go step by step.
When Isaiah said the Lord spoke, these things actually appeared in His dreams and visions and figures.

So, for example, in His dream He must have seen "a Mother with a child". He must have seen "a Man with a Flock who is nourishing",etc. So all of these appeared in His dream as Visual Figures.

The question is should this dream interpreted literally or Figuratively?

I think Figuratively, and I tell you why.
Because, let's go back to an example, where a Man Saw a dream "Seven Caws ate another Seven Caws"
We should note although He saw 7 caws, in reality, the event of future had nothing to do with caws! it had to do with seven years of Prosperity and Seven years of without Food.
So, as we see, these Figures have symbolic meanings. Seven fat Caws Represented seven years with lots of food. (this is in Genesis 41)

So, this tells us, just because, He saw "a Woman with Child", or if he saw a man nourishing a flock, does not mean, that in the future a Woman or a child or a Shepered literally would appear.
So, how can we know the meaning of these symbols?
We don't! there is no way we know it ourselves.

Even as it was written that the Book is sealed! Neither a learned and unlearned can understand (you chose to ignore this!)
And I quote the verse again:

Isaiah: "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: 29:12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."


So, why it is sealed and cannot be understood? Because these visions are symbolic, and their meaning is different from what we usually expect in literal interpretations.

Just as we would have not been able to know seven caws means seven years if it was not told in the Book!​


So, if we are unable to understand a sealed Book what can we do? we need to use the knowledge from Prophets. But as much as people think their prophet is the last and no more prophets come, they chose not look anywhere outside of their religion.
But Fine. SO, then the only choice left is we look into Hebrew scriptures to see,what could be the symbolic meaning of Honey in other places? what could be the symbolic meaning of a Sheppard? what could be the symbolic meaning of a flock?​

And this is what I have done in this thread.
But what others do, they are inconsistant. They interprete some words in the dream symbolic, and some other parts literal. There are others who completely interprete it literally. That is even worst. A vision is a vision. It appeared as figures and needs to be interpreted as figures, not literal. The Sheppard in other Part of Bible is the symbol of Prophet, for they Sheppard anf Nourish the Flock of God (People of a Prophet).​


As Far as I am concerned I am done with this thread. it was nice chatting with ya all.​
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth
I think the Key is these are visions, and therefore the same terminolgy should be used to understand the symbols.

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.




Still, everyone thinks they know the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews. If the Baha'is are right then there should have been a smooth transition from religion to religion and prophet to prophet, but there isn't because they are all different. They are not like one grade in school moving to a higher grade.

Hi IT, Re How GOD communicates with HIS Prophets/Messengers to the people. Numbers 12:1-16says there are three ways. HE does this.
Aaron and Miriam were considered Prophets, also. They were speaking against Moses because he had married a Ethiopian woman. God Corrected them. Miriam became leprous .
Yes, GOD did speak vs.6, but also, 7-8, "My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

GOD can speak by anyone HE Chooses. OR to anyone HE desires.
What was the problem that caused 40 years to lapse before the Israelites entered the Promised land? Whose "Arm" were the Israelites to depend upon in their battles with those who sought to overthrow them Man's(their own or other men) or GOD'S?
What was the mission the Children of Israel were to accomplish in this Promised Land"? How were they to treat the land every seven years? Ahaz wasn't obeying GOD in many respects.
However, GOD would remain faithful to HIS WORD and bring about HIS PROPHECIES--including the initial one at Eden---"a woman's seed" would not be frustrated by Ahaz's being disobedient.
The northern kingdom(Israel) was already alienated from GOD and the Southern Kingdom(Judah) was soon to go into captivity(Babylonian)----a land left desolate of it two kings.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
When Isaiah said the Lord spoke, these things actually appeared in His dreams and visions and figures.

So, for example, in His dream He must have seen "a Mother with a child". He must have seen "a Man with a Flock who is nourishing",etc. So all of these appeared in His dream as Visual Figures.

The question is should this dream interpreted literally or Figuratively?

I think Figuratively, and I tell you why.
Because, let's go back to an example, where a Man Saw a dream "Seven Caws ate another Seven Caws"
We should note although He saw 7 caws, in reality, the event of future had nothing to do with caws! it had to do with seven years of Prosperity and Seven years of without Food.
So, as we see, these Figures have symbolic meanings. Seven fat Caws Represented seven years with lots of food. (this is in Genesis 41)


...As Far as I am concerned I am done with this thread. it was nice chatting with ya all.​
Where does it say Isaiah had a dream of a woman and the child? Is 7:3 "...the Lord said to Isaiah..." In Gen 41:1 "...Pharaoh had a dream..." Then Joseph interpreted the dream. The only dream in Isaiah is the one in your head. If you want to be consistent then how did God speak to Jesus and to Baha'u'llah? In figurative dreams? There's dreams, visions, prophesy, hearing God's word, all mixed in the Bible as if it is a literal, as it happened story. If you tell me the writers made some of the things up, I'd say sure that's very possibly true. But whatever the writers did, they tried to tell a story that would get people to believe and follow God and to do his will. It had to have things in it that were not a mystery but were easy to understand. To the Jews, easy, follow the Law. To the Christian, easy, follow Jesus, believe in his name and be saved.

You want people to believe Baha'u'llah is the return of Jesus and every other promised messenger from every single religion. Great, but to do that you have to make a figurative, symbolic mess out of every teaching that every religion gave. And now you say "you're done?" What do you mean by that? It sounds cocky and arrogant as if you think that you have enlightened us all with your presence and wisdom but now you must move on to teach others that need to hear your truth.

I don't understand Judaism. I don't understand their God, but Christians and Baha'is say they believe in the same God as the Jews. Yet, I don't see any understanding and very little respect for how Jews really believe. Christians at least kept some of the Hebrew Scriptures in their religion. The Baha'i Faith makes all the other Holy Books irrelevant. The words don't mean what they say and the followers of every religion are believing and worshiping wrong is essentially what you are saying.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Where does it say Isaiah had a dream of a woman and the child?
I don't understand Judaism. I don't understand their God,....

Hi CG D, Look at Isa.1:1, "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah."
Isaiah was GOD'S prophet over four generations of Kings. Ahaz disobeyed GOD in seeking help from the king of Assyria---see Isa.8:20. But get a more full understanding of the situation by reading, for yourself, 2 Kings Chapters16-20 and
2 Chron.28:1-16.
Did Ahaz believe GOD? No! as seen in those above verses. Did Adam and Eve Believe GOD? No! were they established? Not they were driven out because of disobedience and a promised sign was give them concerning GOD'S ultimate purpose and outcome of the SIN problem. "The seed of the woman". Ahaz as a Jew had knowledge of that promised Messiah. The sign given would remind him of that fact--- with the "surely ye shall not be established."

To the Jews, easy, follow the Law. To the Christian, easy, follow Jesus, believe in his name and be saved.

Jesus Christ was asked, (Matt.19:16-19), "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. "

Those who truly Love Jesus and the Father will keep HIS Commandments.(John 14:15), "If ye love me, keep my commandments. "

Yet, I don't see any understanding and very little respect for how Jews really believe. Christians at least kept some of the Hebrew Scriptures in their religion.

CG D, There is nothing wrong with the Scriptures of the OT. Jesus Christ who is the subject of the Redeemer seen in the OT came to/and did fulfill those prophecies which are included therein concerning HIM.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
A little bit of basic reading comprehension indicates that yes, the whole chapter is about the prophecy. Gnostic's fingers must be bleeding from all the typing he has done to show you exactly how the whole chapter is about the prophecy.

Ignoring... and yes, excluding context is exactly what you're doing.

It's very convenient to pick out one sentence from a whole chapter and declare that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the chapter. It's also illogical, and perhaps even downright stupid.

That is your opinion for which you have no supportive evidence.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
You are at least very colorful, but how did you "learn the truth?" Who taught you how to interpret Scripture? I was taught by Catholics and Protestants how to "know" the truth, but when I listened to a Jewish interpretation, it was clear that Matthew had done quite a bit of cherry-picking--the lady crying for her children because they were no more, out of Egypt I called my son, he will be called a Nazarene, along with the virgin story. You can believe he had the "correct" interpretation, but there's problems. Was there a child in Isaiah's time? If so, was he virgin born? Of course not, there has only been one "virgin" born child. So the child in Isaiah's time fulfilled the sign but wasn't virgin born? Somebody is twisting something, and I think it was Matthew, and all Bible-believing Christians are forced to find a way to justify what he said. You only convince each other. You read into, or ignore, what you want out of Isaiah. Which amazes me, that non-Christians are the ones arguing for taking the Bible in context. You are the ones that are supposed to be saying it is God's word and people shouldn't pick and pull verses out to suit their needs. Christians don't take Judaism and build off of it. They dismantled it and took what they needed and moved on and created their own religion.

It is Jesus who knows all and conveys that information through me.

I believe you are blind in following blind guides. I believe Matthew wrote after reciving The Holy Spirit and therefore wrote according to what The Holy Spirit gave him to understand.

There was a child born in Isaiah's time and not by a virgin birth. His birth is prophesied as a separate prophecy. The child in Isaiah's time did not fulfill the sign. I believe this is not twisting but is what the text says.

They are hypocrites saying context and then ignoring it.

Christians didn't create Christianity, Jesus did.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Only Christians, like yourself believe in the virgin birth.

7:14-17 doesn't denote in any way that the would be a virgin birth. Normal reading of the verse say nothing about the woman being a virgin.

7:14 say almah "young woman" not a betulah "virgin", and this almah in the context of this verse, say that the woman was already with a child, ie pregnant, but she has not given birth yet.

A young woman havin a child is not a sign otherwise how would you know it among the millions of women having children. For it to be a sign it has to be an unusual event such as a virgin birth. The verse says that the woman will conceive and bear a son.

You believe the other verses are sign or prophecy? That's amazing. :sarcastic

I am confused by what you mean by this. I am not amazed that I find you confusing and confused though.

The thing I find is that even though you admit it as part of the sign, you don't understand the full context of the sign in relation with Isaiah 7 (as in the whole chapter of Isaiah 7).

I understand the context perfectly. What is it in particular that you think I don't understand?

Isaiah (as in the prophet, not the book) doesn't start speaking about the sign at verse 13. He didn't stop speaking to Ahaz until the end of verse 17. That mean the complete sign is 7:14-17, AND NOT JUST 7:14-16.

What is your justification for including 17?

And if Jesus is truly the child (Immanuel) in 7:14, then Jesus should also be the child (Immanuel) in 7:15-16.

He is.

And here is the KICKER:

The thing is that the sign (about 7:16) include the TWO KINGS, as well as the child, who is none other than Immanuel.

I've told you before about the fallacy of inclusion.

Where do Jesus fit in with the TWO KINGS or the lands of the TWO KINGS, that will be deserted by the time the child knows how to choose good over bad?

Both are later events.

Jesus doesn't fit the bill in 7:16. So if Jesus doesn't fit in with the 2nd part of the verse ("...the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."), then Jesus can't possibly be the child born to the young woman.

I believe you are in error. These events did occur before Jesus.

If you seriously think that Jesus is Immanuel, then - who are these TWO KINGS (in 7:16) if they are not Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram (7:1)?

That is immaterial and irrelevant.

Until you have some ways of linking Jesus to some TWO KINGS (as well as the lands of the TWO KINGS), then there is no way for Jesus to be the child Immanuel.

I beleive you are fantasizing that a link is needed. The context does not require one.


Are you saying that Immanuel of 8:8 is not the same as the Immanuel 7:14? If so, then are you saying that there are 2 Immanuels?

I believe it is the same Immanuel, God and child.

That doesn't make sense.

Due to the relation between the 2 chapters (7 & 8), both relating to the sign given to Ahaz (via Isaiah), both about the TWO KINGS, both about the KING OF ASSYRIA, and both about the EVENTUAL OUTCOME of Israel and Aram, then it stand to reason that the child Immanuel has everything to do with Ahaz, and not a prophecy to be fulfilled over half-millennium later.

This is a jump to a conclusion which is a logical fallacy either that or a non-sequitur. It may be both.

And if Jesus was the intended child/sign, then why did God (via Isaiah) give the sign to Ahaz during the current situation in Judah? Was the sign not meant for Ahaz? If the sign was about Jesus, then how does this sign help Ahaz or his kingdom?

I beleive it is due to the fact that Ahaz refused a sign. In effect God was saying if I tell you about a sign that should be good enough.

Until you understand all of this, then you are simply twisting the sign with no regards of the time and place of Isaiah.

ps. I wish you would answer with your points or view, after each quoted part, instead of using one BIG quote, and using colors. It is rather confusing.

I can accomodate but I love my colors, lol.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It is Jesus who knows all and conveys that information through me.

I believe you are blind in following blind guides. I believe Matthew wrote after reciving The Holy Spirit and therefore wrote according to what The Holy Spirit gave him to understand.

There was a child born in Isaiah's time and not by a virgin birth. His birth is prophesied as a separate prophecy. The child in Isaiah's time did not fulfill the sign. I believe this is not twisting but is what the text says.

They are hypocrites saying context and then ignoring it.

Christians didn't create Christianity, Jesus did.
So you don't learn it through reading the NT and listening to Bible teachers? You get it direct from Jesus?

How do you know Matthew wrote the gospel and how do you know the Holy Spirit guided him into what to write? Lots of people wrote "gospels" and most of them are rejected for some reason or another. Who made that decision to reject them and what was the criteria?

Your blue colored point: The complete description of the sign is not fulfilled by Jesus and whether or not the woman was ever supposed to have conceived without having sex is questionable.

Everybody has a different take on what the Bible really says. You believe all Jews have it wrong and you believe Catholics and many other "Christian" groups have it wrong. But, when it comes to practicing true Christianity, who doesn't fall into the category of being a hypocrite? That's why so many of us question Christianity because even the believers can't live up to the standards, so there must be something wrong with how it is being taught.

A very good argument can be made that reformers were inspired by Paul to create modern Protestantism and a bunch of bishops created Catholicism. Jesus didn't write the NT. It is other people telling us about him and we have to piece the information together. I like the example of the snake handlers. They are taking a questionable verse from Mark and taking it literal. Are they correct? Most thinking Christians say "no." There is a more reasonable way to practice Christianity. Are you taking some verses too literal? Maybe, maybe not, but that's why we're questioning you and challenging you to prove what you say is true.

And thanks for coming back and commenting. The Baha'i tangent was getting a little very the top. And, still, your posts are the most colorful, literally.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
So you don't learn it through reading the NT and listening to Bible teachers? You get it direct from Jesus?

I read and Jesus tells you what it means through me.

How do you know Matthew wrote the gospel and how do you know the Holy Spirit guided him into what to write? Lots of people wrote "gospels" and most of them are rejected for some reason or another. Who made that decision to reject them and what was the criteria?

Matthew was a tax collector and the signs of it are all through his gospel. The Holy Spirit makes sure His word will be written. People decide by The Holy Spirit which gospels are valid. For instance the JW's studied with me for a while and they would enunciate some belief of theirs and the Holy Spirit would say, "that isn't true" and I would have to look it up to verify what The Holy Spirit told me.

Your blue colored point: The complete description of the sign is not fulfilled by Jesus and whether or not the woman was ever supposed to have conceived without having sex is questionable.

The complete description of the sign is wrapped up in the virgin birth. The rest of the prophecy does not have to be about the sign.

Everybody has a different take on what the Bible really says. You believe all Jews have it wrong and you believe Catholics and many other "Christian" groups have it wrong. But, when it comes to practicing true Christianity, who doesn't fall into the category of being a hypocrite? That's why so many of us question Christianity because even the believers can't live up to the standards, so there must be something wrong with how it is being taught.

Christianity is not entirely about living up to a standard. It is more about Jesus living in us. For some this is easier than for others.

A very good argument can be made that reformers were inspired by Paul to create modern Protestantism and a bunch of bishops created Catholicism. Jesus didn't write the NT. It is other people telling us about him and we have to piece the information together. I like the example of the snake handlers. They are taking a questionable verse from Mark and taking it literal. Are they correct? Most thinking Christians say "no." There is a more reasonable way to practice Christianity. Are you taking some verses too literal? Maybe, maybe not, but that's why we're questioning you and challenging you to prove what you say is true.

I beleive the sanke handlers are not literal enough. There is no requirement for people to handle snakes. A literal understanding would perceive that.

And thanks for coming back and commenting. The Baha'i tangent was getting a little very the top. And, still, your posts are the most colorful, literally.

I sometimes tell colorful parables. I don't beleive religion needs to be drab and boring.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I sometimes tell colorful parables. I don't beleive religion needs to be drab and boring.
Christianity is not entirely about living up to a standard. It is more about Jesus living in us. For some this is easier than for others.
I think that's the biggest difference between Christians. Some just don't have that spark of love in them. They might know a lot and think they have Jesus in their hearts, but it just don't seem like it. But another thing, it is amazing how often we all misspell words or omit words or use the wrong word. Which concerns me with who and how the Bible came to be. I've heard theories of multiple Isaiahs. Now with Investigate Truth, I've heard a completely symbolic interpretation of the Bible. With words that might mean one thing but really mean something slightly different, like young maiden or virgin, and sentences like a woman will have a child or a woman is with child, there is so much room for colorful interpretations. You sound like a very independent Christian thinker. What do you do when you feel your take on a verse is the right one and the majority view is wrong? That's kind of like what is happening here. The majority takes Matthew as the word of God but so is Isaiah. They seem to be saying very different things for very different reasons. The one verse from Isaiah fits into Matthews story just fine until I looked at the whole of the chapter. I'm not coming from a place where I assume or "know" that Matthew is correct. When I look at it from a non-Christian view, it looks as if whoever wrote Matthew took only a piece of a story, a piece of a sign and spun it into the story he wanted to tell. I know you and Sincerly and others mean well, because you believe that is the real truth, but I'm worried that your Christian bias doesn't allow you to be completely objective in your analysis of the situation. I've asked many times, if you were in a discussion on a Bible doctrine with a Christian sect, what would you do if they were basing their belief on only a partial verse taken out of context? Well, in a way Judaism and Christianity are sects of the same religion. What should Jews do when the majority of Christians take one verse and make it a prophesy about a virgin birth that happens 700 years later? Christians are doing exactly what Investigate Truth is doing--coming up with figurative and symbolic reasons to make it all work. But that only convinces believers. I know too many nominal Christians that don't think about those things. They don't want to think have to think about their questions and doubts. That is why this is so important. If Matthew made up the virgin birth then something is really wrong here. If the NT is absolutely true then we should all join in and follow Jesus. Is it without a doubt really true? I don't know. It seems a little flaky in a few places and this thing about a virgin birth is a biggy.
 
Top