Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[roger1440]

Is that a mistake? I mean treating allegory as "literal fact"?

Good question. I wouldn’t use the word mistake. The literal translation starts us on our journey. As we traverse the path we must leave everything behind us. Oh yeah, and not look back. You wouldn’t want to turn into a pillar of salt would you?

 

[roger1440]

I want to turn this around 180°. Christians and Jews take Matthew 1:22 out of context. The key word is “fulfill”.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I want to turn this around 180°. Christians and Jews take Matthew 1:22 out of context. The key word is “fulfill”.

Jews don't take Matthew at all.

 

[roger1440]

Jews don't take Matthew at all.

At least one did, Matthew himself. LOL

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At least one did, Matthew himself. LOL

... whoever he might have been.

 

[sincerly]

I start from the premise virgins do not have children, dead people do not rise from the dead, bread does not magically appear from thin air to feed 5000 people and demons do not possess people.

Hi Roger, welcome to the debate forums.
Thanks for above explanations of some of your beliefs.
From those, I fail to understand your designation of Christian?

This being the case how then can these events be explained. I believe in all likelihood these stories started as allegory. As the stories left the time and place where they had originated they became to be interpreted as literal fact.

At this point, "your target" is appropriate for your post. Missed in every case. Do you want to clarify your "premise"?

Matthew's Gospel confirmed the account written by Luke of the events in the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matthew's Gospel confirmed the account written by Luke of the events in the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

No, it does not. See Luke, including ...

The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1–4). Some critical scholarship suggests the two-source hypothesis as probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At this point, "your target" is appropriate for your post. Missed in every case.

This is rather audacious coming as it does from someone who accomplishes little more than shooting himself in the foot.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by gnostic
Is that a mistake? I mean treating allegory as "literal fact"?

There are so many "literal" fundy Christian "facts." Jesus' birth and resurrection, if they happened, are the most important "facts" in human history. God came down in the form of his son and lived with us. He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, at his death the sky turned dark and dead saints came out of their graves and walked around, and he ascended into heaven in front of witnesses. Were the witnesses lying to make Jesus bigger than life? Could be and why not?

Hi CG D, Yes that's right---they are "facts" and are/were "literal" and attested to by eyewitnesses and those who were companions with HIM for three and a half years. Those accounts were written for all who were not there to know the Truth concerning the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ.(Believe or disbelieve as you choose.)

All other religions and cultures have their myths and miracles. Why are only the Christian ones the only true ones, and why is only the interpretation of the fundy Christians the only valid one? It's too important not to question it and see if it's true.

It it really so hard to distinguish between the truth of Homer's Odyssey and the voyages of Christopher Columbus?

Yes, it is important to know the difference between the Scriptural facts and the lies of men.

I don't think it is, because if anybody did what he did there would be even more talk and more stories. But then again, there is, the apocryphal stories. Does anybody believe them? Not many, because they are too farfetched. Not like "believable" things like virgin births, walking on water and rising from the dead. I'm with you Gnostic. Great stories, important spiritual stories, but it sounds like they were embellished.

Your choice.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi CG D, Yes that's right---they are "facts" and are/were "literal" and attested to by eyewitnesses and those who were companions with HIM for three and a half years.

Hi Sincerely, my question to you is this:
The Bible says Jesus showed Himself to many after crucifixion. We know that in Bible sometimes 'Seeing' means Recognizing the Truth with the Spiritual eye.
How do you know that in the case of those who saw Jesus after Crucifixion, the term 'Seeing' should not be interpreted Spiritually.
Moreover Jesus said:

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." John 14

Do you believe the above saying is figurative or physically the Father and Jesus come to them?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Matthew's Gospel confirmed the account written by Luke of the events in the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

No, it does not. See Luke, including ...

The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1–4). Some critical scholarship suggests the two-source hypothesis as probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel.

Hi Jay, Since when does the opinions of mankind take priority over the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the recording of Truths of GOD?
"Suggests", "probable", "hypothetical", are not "facts", but an attempt to deceive.

 

[sincerly]

This is rather audacious coming as it does from someone who accomplishes little more than shooting himself in the foot.

I see you are still projecting.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly Hi CG D, Yes that's right---they are "facts" and are/were "literal" and attested to by eyewitnesses and those who were companions with HIM for three and a half years.

Hi Sincerely, my question to you is this:
The Bible says Jesus showed Himself to many after crucifixion. We know that in Bible sometimes 'Seeing' means Recognizing the Truth with the Spiritual eye.
How do you know that in the case of those who saw Jesus after Crucifixion, the term 'Seeing' should not be interpreted Spiritually.

Hi I T, Those "seeings" were physical meetings with the Apostles and Disciples. There were no more general appearances to the population---to my knowledge.
Those starting on the evening (last hours of that day of the resurrection) and during the forty days afterward to HIS Ascension.

Moreover Jesus said:
"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." John 14

Do you believe the above saying is figurative or physically the Father and Jesus come to them?

Both. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for the redeemed of earth and will return to take them from this prophesied earth to perish---to a "earth made new".
But in the time one has left upon this earth(alive or dead), the redeemed have the promised Word within their hearts and minds awaiting that resurrection day.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi I T, Those "seeings" were physical meetings with the Apostles and Disciples.

Well, you just stated what you believe. Though you did not provide a reason why you interpret them physically seeing.

There were no more general appearances to the population---to my knowledge.

Why is that? why do you think Jesus showed Himself in early days but did not anymore?

Both. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for the redeemed of earth and will return to take them from this prophesied earth to perish---to a "earth made new".

Couldn't Jesus stay here on earth and prepare those things remotely through His Miraculous power? Or through the Holy Spirit and also the Father Himself's Will?

But in the time one has left upon this earth(alive or dead), the redeemed have the promised Word within their hearts and minds awaiting that resurrection day.

In many places of Bible by Resurrection of dead is meant, Resurrecting the Spiritually Dead to the Life of Belief and Righteousness. How do you know by resurrection Day was not meant the Day another Revelation comes to Resurrect the Spiritually Dead again?
Moreover according to the Prophecies of Bible, the Day of resurrection was to come 6000 years after Adam, and from other verses of Bible that is the year 1844. Then how do you believe part of the Bible while the other parts you do not believe?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly Hi I T, Those "seeings" were physical meetings with the Apostles and Disciples.

Well, you just stated what you believe. Though you did not provide a reason why you interpret them physically seeing.

I T it is no secret that in all writings the Lord Jesus Christ met with the Disciples physically--he ate with them---they "handled" HIM--HE communed with them just as HE did prior to HIS death, burial, and resurrection.
Jesus did not escape death as some claim.

Why is that? why do you think Jesus showed Himself in early days but did not anymore?

After the Resurrection, HIS mission was completed. The Scriptures attested to the seeking and saving of lost humanity. In HIS death, Burial, and Resurrection, HE accomplished all that was prophesied of HIM.
Today Jesus is before the throne of GOD pleading HIS saving Blood in the case of all who Believe that HE is their Redeemer from the curse/penalty of Sin.
The next time HE will be seen by people of this earth is when HE returns to transport them (the redeemed) to their "Fathers house" as "adopted children".

Couldn't Jesus stay here on earth and prepare those things remotely through His Miraculous power? Or through the Holy Spirit and also the Father Himself's Will?

Would your belief been any greater had HE chosen to do as you(options) believe?

In many places of Bible by Resurrection of dead is meant, Resurrecting the Spiritually Dead to the Life of Belief and Righteousness. How do you know by resurrection Day was not meant the Day another Revelation comes Resurrect the Spiritually Dead again?

The Scriptures regard all as dead in trespasses and sins and all who Repent and Believe are revived to newness of life, but that isn't the same as the Day when those who have physically died and returned to dust(or on the way to becoming dust) will be restored to---not just life---but immortal life.

Moreover according to the Prophecies of Bible, the Day of resurrection was to come 6000 years after Adam, and from other verses of Bible that is the year 1844. Then how do you believe part of the Bible while the other parts you do not believe?

I T, your assumptions are incorrect. The scriptures state that when Jesus returns every eye will see HIM---and that will be the first resurrection.
The Bab isn't Jesus Christ; nor did the day of Resurrection occur in 1844.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I T it is no secret that in all writings the Lord Jesus Christ met with the Disciples physically--he ate with them---they "handled" HIM--HE communed with them just as HE did prior to HIS death, burial, and resurrection.

Here you are assuming the scriptures cannot be written metaphorical.
If Jesus was physically resurrected with flesh and blood, He couldn't have inherited the Kingdom of God in Heaven according to the scriptures:

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" 1 Corinthians 15:50

Jesus did not escape death as some claim.

Of course He was crucified and died.

After the Resurrection, HIS mission was completed. The Scriptures attested to the seeking and saving of lost humanity. In HIS death, Burial, and Resurrection, HE accomplished all that was prophesied of HIM.
Today Jesus is before the throne of GOD pleading HIS saving Blood in the case of all who Believe that HE is their Redeemer from the curse/penalty of Sin.
The next time HE will be seen by people of this earth is when HE returns to transport them (the redeemed) to their "Fathers house" as "adopted children".



Would your belief been any greater had HE chosen to do as you(options) believe?

My belief that Jesus was the Messiah and is Spiritually alive does not depend on Jesus being physically resurrected, as that view is not biblical for it does not reconcile.
But I was just asking you, since your belief depends on Him being resurrected physically with flesh and blood, why did He not stay on earth.

Being before the throne of GOD pleading Sin, does it require Him to be in physical Body? In your view the Father has physical body?
And Moreover, He could come and go, being here and there to do both.
I am just trying to understand how you put these scenarios together according to the scriptures.

The Scriptures regard all as dead in trespasses and sins and all who Repent and Believe are revived to newness of life, but that isn't the same as the Day when those who have physically died and returned to dust(or on the way to becoming dust) will be restored to---not just life---but immortal life.

Here you are assuming on the Day of Resurrection a physical resurrection was meant. As you know the scriptures talks about Flesh and Spirit. You believe that the Flesh is Resurrected. Flesh means physical body in the scriptures.
Can you show me a single verse in Bible where it says 'Flesh' is resurrected, or after death, a man is or shall be resurrected in flesh? Because I can show the scriptures talks about resurrection of the spiritual body, not the flesh.

I T, your assumptions are incorrect. The scriptures state that when Jesus returns every eye will see HIM---and that will be the first resurrection.

Here again you assume 'Eye' means a physical eye. In scriptures there are many instances by 'Eye' is meant Spiritual Eye. Every Spiritual Eye shall see Him, but not the blind.
That's the reason He said He comes like a thief in the Night therefore watch. Perhaps He comes and leaves like a thief and the owner of the home does not know! Therefore Watch.

The Bab isn't Jesus Christ; nor did the day of Resurrection occur in 1844.

Who the Bab is, would be the matter of investigation. But surely the year can consistently be calculated as 1844, and that the Talmud and some Saints have known the World would be ended in 6000 years from Adam, which is already passed!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jay, Since when does the opinions of mankind take priority over the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the recording of Truths of GOD?

Your baseless opinions concerning the Holy Spirit takes priority over very little as far as I'm concerned.

 

[roger1440]

Hi Roger, welcome to the debate forums.
Thanks for above explanations of some of your beliefs.
From those, I fail to understand your designation of Christian?

You are asking me to define Christian, right? The message of the Jesus of the canonical and most of the non-canonical Gospels is and was very simple. The message has nothing to do with a literal virgin birth or dead people being raised from the dead. A very, very old message.

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

 

[sincerly]

Here you are assuming the scriptures cannot be written metaphorical.
If Jesus was physically resurrected with flesh and blood, He couldn't have inherited the Kingdom of God in Heaven according to the scriptures:

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" 1 Corinthians 15:50

Of course He was crucified and died.

My belief that Jesus was the Messiah and is Spiritually alive does not depend on Jesus being physically resurrected, as that view is not biblical for it does not reconcile.
But I was just asking you, since your belief depends on Him being resurrected physically with flesh and blood, why did He not stay on earth.

Being before the throne of GOD pleading Sin, does it require Him to be in physical Body? In your view the Father has physical body?
And Moreover, He could come and go, being here and there to do both.
I am just trying to understand how you put these scenarios together according to the scriptures.

Here you are assuming on the Day of Resurrection a physical resurrection was meant. As you know the scriptures talks about Flesh and Spirit. You believe that the Flesh is Resurrected. Flesh means physical body in the scriptures.
Can you show me a single verse in Bible where it says 'Flesh' is resurrected, or after death, a man is or shall be resurrected in flesh? Because I can show the scriptures talks about resurrection of the spiritual body, not the flesh.

Here again you assume 'Eye' means a physical eye. In scriptures there are many instances by 'Eye' is meant Spiritual Eye. Every Spiritual Eye shall see Him, but not the blind.
That's the reason He said He comes like a thief in the Night therefore watch. Perhaps He comes and leaves like a thief and the owner of the home does not know! Therefore Watch.

Who the Bab is, would be the matter of investigation. But surely the year can consistently be calculated as 1844, and that the Talmud and some Saints have known the World would be ended in 6000 years from Adam, which is already passed!

Hi I T, None of this is on topic and since this is Biblical debates, just which forum would be appropiate for you to start such-----General???

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi I T, None of this is on topic and since this is Biblical debates, just which forum would be appropiate for you to start such-----General???

I agree we may have gone out of topic a bit. Though that is still biblical debates. Feel free to find or start another thread to address those if you want.