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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dude you could be a fine addition to this forum, if I didn't think so I would not be offering help.
GASP!!
WHAT?
Okay but who says they are not truth seekers and not just a bunch of fanatics? They normally follow the precepts of scientific research.
The Piltdown man was a hoax that lasted about 40 years, it was not some bible puncher who stuck some human and ape bones together. He was a scientific archaeologist.
Reading many of your posts it is obvious that you show bias favouring atheism apart from the fact that some of your ego regarding your self knowledge sticks out its head.I have no bias. But I never stated you were not educated. Nor would I.
I don't think you have a biblical education, it seems pretty obvious. But we are here to serve those who have open minds.
So bringing "context" in a bit. When did "knowledge in context" get confused with lack of education?
He talks about the Jewish Messiah. Jesus did appear to fit the picture but the Jews rejected him because he did not come to smite their enemies with blood lust and the sword; Instead he preached love and forgiveness and a peaceful way of life. Emmanuel - God with us - was one of the proposed names.Isaiah does NOT talk about a future Jesus.
It talks about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, given to THEM as a sign that YHVH was with them in the war they were fighting.
*
He talks about the Jewish Messiah. Jesus did appear to fit the picture but the Jews rejected him because he did not come to smite their enemies with blood lust and the sword; Instead he preached love and forgiveness and a peaceful way of life. Emmanuel - God with us - was one of the proposed names.
Sorry you must have been typing when I added a link concerning the name Jesus.That is absolutely wrong.
We have had this discussion many times.
The text very specifically says the sign was for THEM.
The war is the start of the text, - and the same war is still being discussed after Isaiah goes into the maiden/virgin/prophetess, - and after the birth.
The Jews rightly reject this Christian twisting of THEIR text, because they know it is taking place right then during that war.
*
Sorry you must have been typing when I added a link concerning the name Jesus.
The link is as follows - http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm
Many Jews were the first followers of Yeshua and they accepted him as their Messiah. They became known as the Church of the Nazarene and were persecuted and slain to the point of extinction.
He who came later was seen as the new star who would smite their enemies. He started a disastrous war against the Romans. Ask Eliab Ben Benjamin whose lineage traces back to this man about this man.
He talks about the Jewish Messiah. Jesus did appear to fit the picture but the Jews rejected him because he did not come to smite their enemies with blood lust and the sword; Instead he preached love and forgiveness and a peaceful way of life. Emmanuel - God with us - was one of the proposed names.
The following is a link concerning the names of Jesus.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm
It contradicts your statement that what I said is possibly untrue. You can check it by Googling Essene, Naassene and/or the Dead Sea Scrolls.What is your point with this? It changes nothing I said.
*
It contradicts your statement that what I said is possibly untrue. You can check it by Googling Essene, Naassene and/or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As an aside and not relevant to the discussion -
1. When the "Visions of Isaiah" came to light in the Dead Sea Scrolls it was immediately suppressed for other planets and confirmation of the theory of relativity was too far for some to accept.
2. And just for a laugh - in the Dead Sea Scrolls Jesus explains how to give yourself an enema using a gourd.
...
Many Jews were the first followers of Yeshua and they accepted him as their Messiah. ...
I don't have any problems with your quotes as they mainly refer to the time of Isaiah.Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, (Isaiah is with him.)
Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
*
I don't have any problems with your quotes as they mainly refer to the time of Isaiah.
Isa 7:16 is more in line with the coming. The Kings and the land where long gone and forsaken when the birth came to pass.
Yeshua when we look at the name it was derived from and finally ending up with YHWE, to me has meaning in the debate.We were discussing Emmanuel not being the future Jesus.
You adding a bit about his name - which obviously does not become Emmanuel - in your posted text.
It thus has no meaning to our debate.
*
Yet it says those Kings will be gone and forsaken. And where do they confirm the pregnancy and birth by a virgin except far in the future?Not so - as is easily proven by reading the whole text.
The Kings are mentioned in verse one.
And it specifically says the sign is for Ahaz - which it obviously would not be if it was a future person.
*
Yeshua when we look at the name it was derived from and finally ending up with YHWE, to me has meaning in the debate.
for it indicates GOD and Emmanuel to me indicates God with us.
Yet it says those Kings will be gone and forsaken. And where do they confirm the pregnancy and birth by a virgin except far in the future?
No I am not missing the point, I tried to clarify where the name Jesus and the derivations of the original word came from.You seem to be missing the point that it says his name is to be Emmanuel, - not Iēsous, - which is also not Yeshua/Yehoshua.
Also the Christian page you sent us to said Jesus is a translation of Iēsous. This is not correct. Jesus is a guttural corruption of Iēsous.
*