The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[CG Didymus]

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?

I thought Baha'is took the side of the "virgin". However, out of all the things you believe are symbolic in the Bible and the NT, why isn't the virgin birth one of them? Why would it be of any importance to the Baha'is? It's in two gospels written years later. But... I do love the Christmas songs, which wouldn't have been written without the virgin birth, so I guess it must be true.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe it isn't a different perspective but simply a false perspective.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe that can happen and why one need not take a translation verbatim.

I believe my favorite is the "Jesus is (merely) a messenger." The word merely does not exist in the text but Muslims want to deny the Jesus of the Bible His Godly authority so they slip the word "merely" into the translation. It constant;y amazes me that Muslims will talk about the text as though the "merely" was really there.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe a mistranslation does not equate to the original being wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

You still have not explained how they would find this child if its mother was not la virgin.

Who found the child because the mother is allegedly a virgin? The Magi followed a star. Is there a prophecy about the star and the Magi? And an angel told the shepherds about the child.

Also, the problem of a dual fulfillment. If Mary was a virgin, how about the child that was born as a sign to King Ahaz? Was that child born of a virgin or a "young" girl? Or, do you believe there was no child back then. The "sign" was only a prophecy about Jesus several centuries later not for King Ahaz?

 

[omega2xx]

Who found the child because the mother is allegedly a virgin? The Magi followed a star. Is there a prophecy about the star and the Magi? And an angel told the shepherds about the child.

Not one I would bet the homeplace on but Jesus is called the "bright morning star" in Rev 22:16 and Numbers 24:17 says "a star shall come forth from Jacob," and Jacob bis in the genealogy of Jesus in Mathew and in Luke.

Also, the problem of a dual fulfillment. If Mary was a virgin, how about the child that was born as a sign to King Ahaz? Was that child born of a virgin or a "young" girl? Or, do you believe there was no child back then. The "sign" was only a prophecy about Jesus several centuries later not for King Ahaz?

If the mother was only a young girl. It would be impossible to identify her and it could not be a sign. "sign" usually refers to a miraculous event and a son being born to a young girl in Jerusalem would have been a common everyday event.

 

[Muffled]

Who found the child because the mother is allegedly a virgin? The Magi followed a star. Is there a prophecy about the star and the Magi? And an angel told the shepherds about the child.

Also, the problem of a dual fulfillment. If Mary was a virgin, how about the child that was born as a sign to King Ahaz? Was that child born of a virgin or a "young" girl? Or, do you believe there was no child back then. The "sign" was only a prophecy about Jesus several centuries later not for King Ahaz?

I believe certainly not the Pharisees. They just were not interested in finding out if Jesus was the Messiah. They most likely missed the impact of the prophecy in Isaiah and so never asked if His mother was a virgin. They just assumed He was born in Nazareth and never bothered to ask Him where He was born.

I believe there is no record of that being the case and one would expect God to reveal the fulfillment of prophecy so the null hypothesis has weight.

I believe it served a double purpose.