The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[wizanda]

Are we there yet?

So like the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, you've done exactly the same, and rather than interpret a text for what it says is going to happen, you're implanting your own hopes of Bahá'u'lláh on to it.

Read the Baha-i expectations, and realized why you're using certain wording about clouds, etc.

Which is why asked this question specifically for scriptural references that get us to that point, not the time of being at world peace....

As there are exact events to take place first, and you're missing all the scriptural precursors like a Jew or Muslim does to fit an agenda.

See now why you're not really interested in the reality of the Deception already taking place or how it is interwoven across the text.

Now within it, what is sad is you're all preventing the real Messiah from fixing the Deception through knowledge, thus the only way next prophesied is for God to remove those who follow it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So like the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, you've done exactly the same, and rather than interpret a text for what it says is going to happen, you're implanting your own hopes of Bahá'u'lláh on to it.

Read the Baha-i expectations, and realized why you're using certain wording about clouds, etc.

Which is why asked this question specifically for scriptural references that get us to that point, not the time of being at world peace....

As there are exact events to take place first, and you're missing all the scriptural precursors like a Jew or Muslim does to fit an agenda.

See now why you're not really interested in the reality of the Deception already taking place or how it is interwoven across the text.

Now within it, what is sad is you're all preventing the real Messiah from fixing the Deception through knowledge, thus the only way next prophesied is for God to remove those who follow it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The clouds can be the words of God themselves, and the traditions that build around those that follow them.

We just have a different perspective. We all start with what we know and work from there.

 

[wizanda]

The clouds can be the words of God themselves

Exactly, the text is specifically talking about physical clouds, possibly the ones from Heaven; yet not a metaphor for spiritual revealing, that is just what Bahá'u'lláh says to make himself fit.

Matthew 24:29-31 But immediately after the oppression of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; (30) and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. (31) He will send out his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Daniel 7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Revelation 14:14-16 I looked, and behold, a white cloud; and on the cloud one sitting like a son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. (15) Another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Send your sickle, and reap; for the hour to reap has come; for the harvest of the earth is ripe!” (16) He who sat on the cloud thrust his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

The clouds can be the words

I've tried to do the same as you, don't get me wrong...

Maybe the word 'fire' could be meaning the word comes as a fire, as it says 'my word is like a fire'...

Yet this was trying to make things fit to suit my own wishful thinking; rather than understanding the text for its own meaning.

We all start with what we know and work from there.

That is what your thread is about, why people have totally different views on the same text...

Because some people don't care what the text says, they have their own presuppositions that they're trying to supplant within the text, to make it fit with what they want it to say.

The logical method of working is to create a blank unbiased perspective before reading any religious material, as each is unique, and should be seen within its own merit.

Then work within the guidelines of what is there within all that specific religious text first, before looking at any presuppositions by other peoples commentaries, and opinions.

Like if we're not going to try to comprehend the line of thought Isaiah had when he wrote it, and check if the other prophets have the same line of thought; how can we ever find the right destination, if we just make the text fit with our own line of thought?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Exactly, the text is specifically talking about physical clouds, possibly the ones from Heaven; yet not a metaphor for spiritual revealing, that is just what Bahá'u'lláh says to make himself fit.

Of course you could make the same argument in regards to Jesus fitting the OT prophecies. The prophecies are circumstantial and can be interpreted in many ways.

I came from a Christian background and have been a Baha'i for over 25 years. I am very comfortable with symbolism, metaphor, and allegory in scripture, but appreciate many are not. I look to history and world I live in. I'm a medical doctor so being pragmatic is central to what I do.

I have heard many Christians over the years espouse literal interpretations of prophetic scripture and it simply makes no sense. I feel no obligation to believe in these fantastic supernatural events like the rapture and Jesus coming on physical clouds. They have not happened previously in recorded history and I find it implausible that they will in the future. I consider how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and there was nothing particularly supernatural about it, certainly not along the lines as proposed by the Christian fundamentalists.

I'm a Baha'i because Baha'u'llah makes sense, and although I have had mystical experiences and dreams, that is the icing on the cake.

I've tried to do the same as you, don't get me wrong...

Maybe the word 'fire' could be meaning the word comes as a fire, as it says 'my word is like a fire'...

Yet this was trying to make things fit to suit my own wishful thinking; rather than understanding the text for its own meaning.

We all need to consider different points of view. Clearly if the scriptures contradict the reality of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, then I can not be a Baha'i. However they seem to fit and make sense. Much of my interpretation is personal. As Christ did not comment on too many verses from the OT in regards to prophecy, nor did Baha'u'llah regarding the bible.

That is what your thread is about, why people have totally different views on the same text...

Because some people don't care what the text says, they have their own presuppositions that they're trying to supplant within the text, to make it fit with what they want it to say.

That is exactly what my thread is about. However we all have preconceived ideas and the best we can do is be aware of them. None of us can truly have a blank screen because we all have experiences in life, and ideas about how the world works. The Jews can make the scripture say one thing, and the Christians another, and of course the Baha'is another. The question for me is what is the most plausible narrative? The Jewish narrative is very well considered and compelling but completely disregards the reality of Christ. The Christian narrative disregards basic science and other religions.

The logical method of working is to create a blank unbiased perspective before reading any religious material, as each is unique, and should be seen within its own merit.

If you genuinely feel that you can do that, then well and good. Lets consider your interpretations. You may be right in which case it will all be unmistakable as the Christian fundamentalists would have us believe. The problem if I'm right, then the world will have to endure unimaginable suffering until it comes to its senses.

Then work within the guidelines of what is there within all that specific religious text first, before looking at any presuppositions by other peoples commentaries, and opinions.

This thread is an opportunity to have discussions about prophetic verses. If one person has a view diametrically opposed to what I think, no problem. I don't get upset about hearing different ideas. I struggle when it becomes personal as we all do.

Like if we're not going to try to comprehend the line of thought Isaiah had when he wrote it, and check if the other prophets have the same line of thought; how can we ever find the right destination, if we just make the text fit with our own line of thought?

I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from and I do appreciate hearing your thoughts and contributions to this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Jews can make the scripture say one thing, and the Christians another, and of course the Baha'is another.

When a Jew, Christian, or Baha'i finds herself or himself repeatedly exerting a great deal of effort making the (Hebrew) text say something, perhaps s/he should focus instead on the plain meaning of the text - what Jews call p'shat.

 

[MJFlores]

The book of Isaiah is an outstanding work in the Old Testament that would distinguish Isaiah as one of the greatest prophets of his time. It contains numerous messianic verses and some of these would be recognised by both Jews and Christians in regards to the signs of the coming of their Messiah. Using Christian language we have Jesus the Christ fulfilling some of these prophecies and then the second coming of Christ fulfilling others.

The question I have is how can we know which verses refer to his first or second coming?

Do some verses relate to both?

Are there other meanings? For example the Jews would consider Isaiah 9:6-7 as referring to King Hezekiah.

Here are some examples to get us started:

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Isaiah 13:10

"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isaiah 40:4-5

There are many more.

I have raised the bible references so we could view the context and their meanings. I like to use NIV because its easy to read. Then we could draw our conclusions later:

Isaiah 13:9-13 New International Version (NIV)

See, the day of the Lord is coming
—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.
I will punish the world for its evil,
the wicked for their sins.
I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty
and will humble the pride of the ruthless.
I will make people scarcer than pure gold,
more rare than the gold of Ophir.
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
and the earth will shake from its place
at the wrath of the Lord Almighty,
in the day of his burning anger.

I think it is...

Isaiah 40:3-5 New International Version (NIV)

A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the Lord;
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

I think it is...

 

[wizanda]

Of course you could make the same argument in regards to Jesus fitting the OT prophecies. The prophecies are circumstantial and can be interpreted in many ways.

Which bits do you think are circumstantial?

2nd temple destruction, diaspora because of 30 pieces of silver paid, and put into the potters field in the House of Israel. (Zechariah 11)

Where the leaders of the flock denied him, and thus they strike the shepherd, and the flock will be scattered (Jeremiah 25:34-38).

Notice the interlinking Howling of the Lions (House of Judah), that it is referring to the flock for slaughter, that it makes 'desolate' (same word as Abomination of Desolation), and the reason being the brutish shepherds over the people, who we see Yeshua speaking against.

As Christ did not comment on too many verses from the OT in regards to prophecy

Most parables are similes in someway of some of the prophetic utterances within the prophets; so Isaiah states God shall make them a threshing instrument, references the wheat and tares, the harvest, planting of different seeds in the right places, etc...

The most complex tho is the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, which is found in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19), and the Gospel of Thomas...

The scene is based on Isaiah 5 (the vineyard setting, with the wine-press in Matthew), the affects of his death is that they shall be removed from the vine-yard, as stated in Isaiah 5:13....

I feel no obligation to believe in these fantastic supernatural events like the rapture and Jesus coming on physical clouds.

The rapture idea is Paul's, didn't make sense properly to begin with.

The other part is to do with where in the timeline Yeshua's statements are; his return where everyone see's him, is when the sun and moon no longer give their light, stars have fallen...

Science knows that eventually our sun will explode, they also know that Betelgeuse our nearest star is also ready to blow....

Which see as what Isaiah 13:10 refers to, the 'constellations' is Orion, and its right arm is Betelgeuse...

So what if Yeshua was part of a rescue team sent to offer help, and we've misunderstood what was being offered?

You may be right in which case it will all be unmistakable as the Christian fundamentalists would have us believe.

We wouldn't tho as Christianity is John's, Paul's, and Simon the stone's Ministry..... So somethings won't be taking place that they've ascribed.

Plus I'm looking for world peace, which is why spent my life to understand some of it, to try to resolve it....

Yet realized stuck in the same situation as the thread, though we can justify Yeshua in the Tanakh; peoples own expectations and predispositions, will override any logic that can show it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

When a Jew, Christian, or Baha'i finds herself or himself repeatedly exerting a great deal of effort making the (Hebrew) text say something, perhaps s/he should focus instead on the plain meaning of the text - what Jews call p'shat.

How about these verses? Should we interpret literally or metaphorically?

Then wolves will live in peace with lambs,
and leopards will lie down to rest with goats.
Calves, lions, and young bulls will eat together,
and a little child will lead them.
Cows and bears will eat together in peace.
Their young will lie down to rest together.
Lions will eat hay as oxen do.
A baby will be able to play near a cobra’s hole,
and a child will be able to put his hand into the nest of a poisonous snake.
They will not hurt or destroy each other
on all my holy mountain,
because the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
as the sea is full of water.
Isaiah 9:6-9

The sun, moon, and stars will dissolve,
and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll.
The stars will fall
like dead leaves from a vine
or dried-up figs from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about these verses? Should we interpret literally or metaphorically?

Then wolves will live in peace with lambs,
and leopards will lie down to rest with goats.
Calves, lions, and young bulls will eat together,
and a little child will lead them.
Cows and bears will eat together in peace.
Their young will lie down to rest together.
Lions will eat hay as oxen do.
A baby will be able to play near a cobra’s hole,
and a child will be able to put his hand into the nest of a poisonous snake.
They will not hurt or destroy each other
on all my holy mountain,
because the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
as the sea is full of water.
Isaiah 9:6-9

The sun, moon, and stars will dissolve,
and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll.
The stars will fall
like dead leaves from a vine
or dried-up figs from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

I'm not going to play this silly game with you. The Tanakh is replete with all manner of verse, but when each becomes untenably coerced to support a particular theology one must wonder about the integrity of the interpretation. So. for example, there is zero reason to twist Isaiah 7:14 into a prophesy of a virgin birth some 7 centuries in the future.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not going to play this silly game with you. The Tanakh is replete with all manner of verse, but when each becomes untenably coerced to support a particular theology one must wonder about the integrity of the interpretation. So. for example, there is zero reason to twist Isaiah 7:14 into a prophesy of a virgin birth some 7 centuries in the future.

This is serious business considering ancient scripture for all sorts of reasons. I think the question about the so called virgin birth is one of the those Christian - Jewish points of disagreement. I'm vaguely acquainted with the differing points of view. I can see your point. Have the Christians distorted these words into something it isn't? I don't know. The authors of the two gospels Matthew and Luke who provide an account of Jesus's early life. I'm beginning to wonder who they were really.

The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, and now the Baha'is. Each one interested in ancient sacred scripture, each with their own particular world view, yet all believing that the God who inspired these scriptures has provided them with the latest message from God.

Each Faith with their own history, and relationship to the other faith communities. I'm interested in having respectful and courteous discussions in the hope of stimulating further learning. I appreciate your reluctance to engage in such an interfaith dialogue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is serious business considering ancient scripture for all sorts of reasons. I think the question about the so called virgin birth is one of the those Christian - Jewish points of disagreement.

The virgin birth may be "one of the those Christian - Jewish points of disagreement" but the relevancy of Isaiah 7:14 is not. There is a good deal of excellent Christian scholarship that debunks the idea that 7:14 refers to Jesus - one need only look at the NSRV or the NICOT translation and commentary.

Have the Christians distorted these words into something it isn't?

Many (but not all) Christian Bibles have clung to a faulty translation. Compare, for example, the NIV with the NRSV. To be fair, this difference stems primarily from the fact that both the author of gMt and the authors of many Christian Bible translations were informed, not by the Hebrew book of Isaiah but by a Greek translation (the Septuagint or LXX). As such, it is a translation of a translation.

In an interesting paper by Jan Joosten titled Interpretation and Meaning in the Septuagint Translation, Joosten summarizes:

To translate is indeed to interpret. The process of explanation inherent in any translation created many changes in the Septuagint. Because the translators weren’t up to the philological challenge involved in their task, the changes produced at this level were in fact greater than they needed to be. Publishing this interpreted text among Hellenized Jews in Alexandria introduced further semantic shifts.Words do not express the same meaning if they are said or read in completely different situations. Unfortunately, we know too little about the Jewish community in Alexandria in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE to retrace more than a bare outline of this aspect of interpretation in the Septuagint.
​

 

[wizanda]

So. for example, there is zero reason to twist Isaiah 7:14 into a prophesy of a virgin birth some 7 centuries in the future.

There are multiple reasons to see that the timeline referred to in Isaiah 7:14 is in the future....

First the child is after the two kings have been removed (Isaiah 7:16), it is also after Israel has been removed by Assyria (Isaiah 8:4)...

Next the reference to 'briers and thorns' (Isaiah 7:23-25), is used symbolically for the 2nd temple destruction within Isaiah 5:6, Isaiah 9:18 ('hand stretched out still').

The reference to whistling for the flock (Isaiah 7:18) is the remnant after the Tribulation, thus clearly it isn't all in one timeline.

Isaiah 5 talks of the vineyard being made desolate, which is the 2nd temple, all of this is repeated in Isaiah 7.

The references to 'snared and taken' (Isaiah 8:15) is an interlinking reference to Isaiah 28:13, which was the 2nd temple destruction, as we can see Ezekiel 7:26 quotes 'rumor on rumor'.

In Isaiah 8:17 the 'Lord has hid his face from the people', that didn't happen until after the 2nd temple destruction.

The most astounding point tho, is that in Isaiah 8:2 it references Zechariah son of y-Berechiah continuing the same prophecy on a large scroll by name, 500 years in the future (Zechariah 5)....

Shame Uriah was killed at the time of the Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 26:20-24), else there would be additional texts explaining it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The virgin birth may be "one of the those Christian - Jewish points of disagreement" but the relevancy of Isaiah 7:14 is not. There is a good deal of excellent Christian scholarship that debunks the idea that 7:14 refers to Jesus - one need only look at the NSRV or the NICOT translation and commentary.

Many (but not all) Christian Bibles have clung to a faulty translation. Compare, for example, the NIV with the NRSV. To be fair, this difference stems primarily from the fact that both the author of gMt and the authors of many Christian Bible translations were informed, not by the Hebrew book of Isaiah but by a Greek translation (the Septuagint or LXX). As such, it is a translation of a translation.

In an interesting paper by Jan Joosten titled Interpretation and Meaning in the Septuagint Translation, Joosten summarizes:

To translate is indeed to interpret. The process of explanation inherent in any translation created many changes in the Septuagint. Because the translators weren’t up to the philological challenge involved in their task, the changes produced at this level were in fact greater than they needed to be. Publishing this interpreted text among Hellenized Jews in Alexandria introduced further semantic shifts.Words do not express the same meaning if they are said or read in completely different situations. Unfortunately, we know too little about the Jewish community in Alexandria in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE to retrace more than a bare outline of this aspect of interpretation in the Septuagint.
​

Interesting paper that makes sense and some good points.

You may be interested in the thoughts of Abdu'l-Baha, son of Baha'u'llah.

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610

Clearly he echoes similar concerns.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting paper that makes sense and some good points.

You may be interested in the thoughts of Abdu'l-Baha, son of Baha'u'llah. ...

Thank you. I'm impressed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Interesting paper that makes sense and some good points.

You may be interested in the thoughts of Abdu'l-Baha, son of Baha'u'llah.

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610

Clearly he echoes similar concerns.

I can't believe how many threads you and the other Baha'is have going. Where do you find the time? Anyway, this little mistake in translation has a lot of repercussions. If Matthew and Luke got it wrong, then their gospels are wrong. They are not the "inerrant" Word of God. If that's true, then can we trust what they said about Jesus? So did they misquote Isaiah to make Jesus the Messiah?

Unfortunately for you Baha'is, you support the belief of the Virgin Birth. So that makes the Baha'is and Christians believing in a misquote. Now this is really getting interesting.

 

[wizanda]

They are not the "inerrant" Word of God. If that's true, then can we trust what they said about Jesus?

No piece of literature is the precise word of God; yet that doesn't invalidate it being a testimony by people who might have been divinely inspired.

Within the Gospel accounts, we've got more than one testimony to build a case of what might have been said, and happened. (Isaiah 8:16)

So did they misquote Isaiah to make Jesus the Messiah?

They've possibly misquoted Isaiah to make a case of what they thought the prophets said, and where as Yeshua was precise, they've made him look fake by misaligned prophecies.

Yet just as newspaper writers are poor; it doesn't mean we ignore their quotation of the person actually speaking.

So that makes the Baha'is and Christians believing in a misquote.

And Muslims, Gnostics, etc....

Though wouldn't say it is a misquote; it is an interpretation of a 'young unmarried woman', which is only questioned if she isn't a virgin.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Unfortunately for you Baha'is, you support the belief of the Virgin Birth. So that makes the Baha'is and Christians believing in a misquote. Now this is really getting interesting.

In life you have to chose your battles, and choose them wisely. In regards to Jesus fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy in 7:14 there is valid arguments either way. Its a point of intense dissention between the Christians and Jews. We can't definitively prove that Mary was a virgin, nor the prophecy referred to Jesus. On the other hand the gospel writers of Luke and Matthew arguably were referring to Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the virgin birth story. Then we have very real concerns about the translation into Greek with the Septuagint. If Isaiah wasn't referring to Jesus, then to whom? The Jews and Christians are each adamant their perspective is correct. My inclination is to avoid taking sides. What would you do if you were a Baha'i?

 

[wizanda]

We can't definitively prove that Jesus was a virgin, nor the prophecy referred to Jesus.

Now that is a different question to if Mary was a virgin, some people say Yeshua was married to be called a Jewish teacher.

We can prove it is specifically about Yeshua, as this post details.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Now that is a different question to if Mary was a virgin, some people say Yeshua was married to be called a Jewish teacher.

We can prove it is specifically about Yeshua, as this post details.

I meant Mary, not Jesus.

Clearly we know very little about the life of Jesus prior to His ministry so that's another story.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If Isaiah wasn't referring to Jesus, then to whom? The Jews and Christians are each adamant their perspective is correct. My inclination is to avoid taking sides. What would you do if you were a Baha'i?

If choosing Baha'i meant abandoning discernment, I wouldn't.