Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Christianity is certainly not free of error as its adherents believe. Have you read Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill? He shows that the anti-Jewish Romans wrote the extant gospels mock and ridicule the Judean attempts to break free of the Roman yoke.
Jon

 

[gnostic]

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.[/QUOTE ]

The 2nd sentence, if taken literally, sounds like demonic possession. :devil:

Do we need to be exorcized? LOL

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Muffled
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.

Hi CG D, as I posted on another thread/topic, You claim not to know, but you have taken the position that the Scriptures are just myths basically---Only a hint of possibly true/truth.
No one can prove anything Scripturally that you have concluded to be false.

Yes, The Scriptures did/does give some very important truths. I have NO DOUBTS about the validity of those Scriptures which are under discussion. It is your opinion that suggest such by Believers. Others on this topic, have concluded their stand and all have that freedom of choice.

Mankind is still making "theories"/speculations concerning the "Origins" of all one sees. Those Scriptures explain it all.
Mankind questions the "evil" one sees in the earth, but continues in the "inhumanity to humanity". The Scriptures specify the reason and the cure/rectifying of the source.
The Scriptures inform mankind of the planned redemption of obedient mankind from the the effects of disobedience and the full restoration from such.
That was seen in Genesis 3:16 in the seed of the woman. Ahaz was reminded in Isaiah 7:14 of that Sign/future birth----in revealing another birth(Isaiah's son) as showing to Ahaz that his and the king of the kingdom of Israel would not deter GOD'S Plan by their disobedience.

You assume that "the Jewish leaders" were/are correct when the very scriptures and their action were recorded as rebellious----then and now.
GOD is and has always sought for Obedience and Repentance---Those Scriptures reveal that only a few will do so. Again, one chooses for themselves to believe or disbelieve/false or myth.

 

[sincerly]

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.[/QUOTE ]

The 2nd sentence, if taken literally, sounds like demonic possession. :devil:

Do we need to be exorcized? LOL

Those who truly Believe in the Jesus and HIS atoning Sacrifice understand the meaning.
Those who don't believe---the Scriptures tell a different story. You decide?

 

[sincerly]

Christianity is certainly not free of error as its adherents believe. Have you read Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill? He shows that the anti-Jewish Romans wrote the extant gospels mock and ridicule the Judean attempts to break free of the Roman yoke.
Jon

Hi Jon, mankind hasn't been free from error since Eden and the scriptures state that until the end of time mankind will only wax worse and worse until that event.

 

[gnostic]

I find it awfully staggering that some people can base their whole view on one verse, overlooking the entire chapter, for the sake of their belief. I don't understand how some Christians (and even a Baha'i here) can read something, and take it so completely out of context.

Are they so blind that they can't see the connection between the sign and what was happening in Judah (Aram and Israel attacking the kingdom)?

If Jesus was truly the child in the sign, then why on Earth would Isaiah pass this sign to Ahaz? Why did God and Isaiah bother to reassure Judah would be safe as soon as the child Immanuel could eat honey, but before learning right and wrong? Why would Jesus be in any way be connected to Ahaz, the TWO KINGS or the KING OF ASSYRIA?

The whole Jesus and the virgin doesn't make sense in Isaiah 7. Are people so willfully blind that they can read a chapter from the 1st verse to the last without changing the meaning of the chapter?

The only fallacies I am seeing come from those who choose not take the context of Isaiah 7 as a whole, just so they can bolster their religion through either utter ignorance or utter dishonesty.

 

[CG Didymus]

You claim not to know, but you have taken the position that the Scriptures are just myths basically

Every religion has a different story. How do you explain that? The Greeks and Romans had their own religion during the time of Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? Islam and the Baha'is build off of both Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? They say it is from the one true God, yet it contradicts what Catholic and Protestant Christianity says. So I'm sure you would have to say that their Scripture isn't true--What do you call it? Myth or just plain false? What should a modern Jew say about the NT? Does it fulfill the prophecies correctly? To them, following their Scripture, that you say is true, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus and Christianity isn't true. So who do I believe? You or them? You both can prove your points by Scripture.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

CG,
Doesn't 'scripture' just mean script or writing?

 

[CG Didymus]

CG,
Doesn't 'scripture' just mean script or writing?

Scripture, with a capital "S", means God wrote it, endorsed it, dictated it, or something "official" like that. Since so many religions have "Scripture", and it's all different, then either God is giving different people misinformation or people are misinterpreting what God is telling them. So did God give the Jews the whole story or did he misguide them with the Law to show them that they couldn't do it by trying to follow the Law? In the case with Isaiah, did he tell Isaiah to give a sign to Ahaz, and be very specific about the sign, and then, 700 years later reveal the true message of the sign in a virgin born God/man, Jesus? Or, is it all just writing and people made it "Scripture"?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Well, of course it is humans who have decided to capitalize Scripture whereas 'God' has remained silent for all of history. Religion and Scripture are the inventions of humans who merely claim to speak for God.
Jon

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, of course it is humans who have decided to capitalize Scripture whereas 'God' has remained silent for all of history. Religion and Scripture are the inventions of humans who merely claim to speak for God.
Jon

That's what worries me. If Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, and even Joseph Smith all claim to have a connection to the same God, yet all say different things, somebody's probably making up a good story. With this thread I'm mainly concerned with fundamental Christians who say they believe the Bible literally, yet they take it symbolically when it suits their pov. The verses in question have some symbolism going on, but the event itself and the purpose of the "sign" don't seem symbolic at all. They seem like they were meant for King Ahaz and to be fulfilled in the near future. Or, if we want to make it all symbolic, why not follow Investigate Truth's interpretation? The honey and the curds are really the word of God, or whatever he was trying to say.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

CG,
If we accept that "The honey and the curds are really the word of God, or whatever he was trying to say", then the NT is in error, and the Christian claim to Truth fails. End of story.
The larger question would then be: Which humans created the NT and for what purpose?
Jon

 

[CG Didymus]

CG,
If we accept that "The honey and the curds are really the word of God, or whatever he was trying to say", then the NT is in error, and the Christian claim to Truth fails. End of story.
The larger question would then be: Which humans created the NT and for what purpose?
Jon

That has been the main point. If Isaiah 7:14 was a Messianic prophesy than what about the rest? Which humans determined that? Two people who weren't there report the story of Jesus being born of a virgin, for what purpose? It seems very possible to me that those types of stories impressed the people in those times. In fact, the story still impresses people. Jesus being raised from the dead is the bigger story, and the world changing story, but for what purpose? To save sinners from hell? In all your years have you ever heard those concepts taught in Judaism? If not, who made them up and for what purpose? And, what is weird, for most of the Christian era, the Catholics didn't teach being "born again" like the Protestants teach it. So even if that was the reason Jesus came, then why did his people get so far off base? I'm with you. People seem to be behind it all, but like you say: For what purpose?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

CG,
After many years, I have come to think the gospels were written by Hellenistic Jews and Herodians for the purpose of lampooning and ridiculing the efforts of zealous Jews to raise up a messiah who would free the nation from the Roman yoke (just as the Maccabeans had freed the Jews from the Greeks). They wrote the gospels as a satire for the Roman's entertainment who they were trying to please so they could continue to rule the area as a Vichy style government. Some of the tales in the gospels are so transparently phony and so clearly misinterpret Hebrew scripture, it is easy see how they would elicit great laughter from the audiences to whom they were read.

Joe Atwill has accounted for much of the events in the gospels in his book, Caesar's Messiah, though I think there is more to be said that he does not address, but I will in forthcoming posts or even a book of my own.

As to the 'born again' phrase, that is really an obvious mistranslation of the Greek word, 'anothen'. Its primary meaning is "born from above" (which puts the phrase in a past tense and which resonates with verse 49 of the GThomas.
Jon

 

[outhouse]

CG,
After many years, I have come to think the gospels were written by Hellenistic Jews and Herodians for the purpose of lampooning and ridiculing the efforts of zealous Jews to raise up a messiah who would free the nation from the Roman yoke (just as the Maccabeans had freed the Jews from the Greeks). They wrote the gospels as a satire for the Roman's entertainment who they were trying to please so they could continue to rule the area as a Vichy style government. Some of the tales in the gospels are so transparently phony and so clearly misinterpret Hebrew scripture, it is easy see how they would elicit great laughter from the audiences to whom they were read.

Joe Atwill has accounted for much of the events in the gospels in his book, Caesar's Messiah, though I think there is more to be said that he does not address, but I will in forthcoming posts or even a book of my own.

As to the 'born again' phrase, that is really an obvious mistranslation of the Greek word, 'anothen'. Its primary meaning is "born from above" (which puts the phrase in a past tense and which resonates with verse 49 of the GThomas.
Jon

Except for one big problem your completely ignoring.

There was a division between Hellenistic Jews who were more or less on the same team as the Roman oppressors, many worked hand in hand with Romans and were even Roman citizens. This cultural divide between the Israelite Jews and Hellenistic Jews was also a socioeconomic divide.

Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism factaully formed the Christian movement, past the Israelite Jews. The Hellenistic sect which was given freedom early on because they were still considered a minor sect of Jews by Roman authorities. Only after time did it become outlawed because this sect would not sacrifice too and for the Emperors divinity.

We do Have a Hellenistic Jew Paul, factually a Roman citizen who steered the small movement the best he could after hunting down the Israelite Jewish sect of this movement. But in no way was thi spart of the early movement anything other then a religious sect fighting for its own belief.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Outhouse,
I did not say the gospels were written by the entire Hellenistic community.
Jon

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse,
I did not say the gospels were written by the entire Hellenistic community.
Jon

They were not written by the whole community, nor does it apply to a single thing I wrote bud.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

With all respect, you seem to write your posts in such haste (and also with many spelling and grammatical errors) that your meaning is not always clear.
Jon

 

[CG Didymus]

Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism factaully formed the Christian movement, past the Israelite Jews.

Is that part of the problem we're dealing with here? Hellenistic Jews using the Greek translation and reading the Greek work for "virgin" rather than the Hebrew word that meant "young maiden"? Would they also have different views on what the Messiah was supposed to do?

 

[sincerly]

Is that part of the problem we're dealing with here? Hellenistic Jews using the Greek translation and reading the Greek work for "virgin" rather than the Hebrew word that meant "young maiden"? Would they also have different views on what the Messiah was supposed to do?

Hi CG D, The problem is one in which the "word"/"almah" translation from Hebrew is insisted to mean only "young woman" when the context it is found in within other texts/scriptures carries the Virginity of the "young woman".
That fact is acknowledged by the most ardent of critics.