Did Jesus fulfill (For unto us a child is born,Isaiah 9:6-7 )?

[back_to_faith]

The writer of the book of Matthew endeavors to make his readers believe that certain Old testament passages were fulfilled by Jesus ,He cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to him...he did it with Isaiah 7:14,Hosea 11:1,Jeremiah (31:15),Micah 5:2,Zech. 9:9, etc ...

the following so called peophecy never mentioned by NT writers as a prophecy of Jesus ,however translators and commentators have, of their own imagination, erected it into prophecy......

as a matter of fact It could be applied to any other religious figure but Jesus,
let us read the text:


"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with justice and righteousness from hence forth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)"

1-"his name" shall be called. It doesn't say He will be the.

2-Where in the NT Jesus ever been called Mighty God or The everlasting Father.These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus.

3-according the the writers of the New Testament, Jesus said and did many things which had elements which would disqualify him from the title of champion of peace.
For example, read Matthew 10:34 (Luke 12:51), "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Surely, this does not portray someone who is called The Prince of Peace.
what makes matters worse is this part of the passage(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end),in the light of the fact that Jeus caused (nations) to destroy the house of David by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them,such phrase can by no mean applied to Jesus, also such phrase describes the reign of a successful king, such as King Solomon whose reign was described in similar terms:

1 Kings 2:12 - And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established.


Apparently, this passage presented an opportunity for Church translators to infuse into the words of the Prophet Isaiah some Christological "spin" that would turn it into a messianic prophecy about Jesus.

[dougmusr]

The writer of the book of Matthew endeavors to make his readers believe that certain Old testament passages were fulfilled by Jesus ,He cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to him...he did it with Isaiah 7:14,Hosea 11:1,Jeremiah (31:15),Micah 5:2,Zech. 9:9, etc ...

the following so called peophecy never mentioned by NT writers as a prophecy of Jesus ,however translators and commentators have, of their own imagination, erected it into prophecy......

as a matter of fact It could be applied to any other religious figure but Jesus,

I assume you are including the prophet Muhammad in the word "any", yet he was involved in wars was he not?

For the sake of discussion, are you saying that you agree that Isaiah 9:6-7 is a valid prophecy, and just disagree with its application to Jesus, or are you saying that the verse is part of the corrupted OT and the claims of the verse are suspect regardless of the child to whom they refer?

1-"his name" shall be called. It doesn't say He will be the.

So you would render this as "and his name shall be (incorrectly) called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace". If so, then Jesus has fulfilled this prophecy by virtue of the fact that the Quran denys the diety of Jesus.

2-Where in the NT Jesus ever been called Mighty God or The everlasting Father.These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus.

So you would render the verse, "and his name shall be (incorrectly) called (in the New Testament) Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace".

In fact, I believe that there are many references to the diety of Christ in the New Testament. I could list a few for you if you like. Yet outside of the NT Jesus is called by these names among Christians world wide on a daily basis. So the prophecy is fulfilled.

3-according the the writers of the New Testament, Jesus said and did many things which had elements which would disqualify him from the title of champion of peace.
For example, read Matthew 10:34 (Luke 12:51), "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

One only has to look at the news to know that this is true. Disagreements over the identity of Christ are even today causing violence, particularly in societies that have Christianity and Islam in close proximity. Have you seen the videos of hostages on Al Jazerra? What happens to Muslims who convert to Christianity in places like Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, etc? Yet Christ's message will ultimately bring eternal peace. It is unfortunate that the flight will encounter momentary turbulence on the way to the eternal destination.

what makes matters worse is this part of the passage(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end),in the light of the fact that Jeus caused (nations) to destroy the house of David by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them

This verse speaks about an eternal kingdom, and eternal peace. I would take justice and righteousness to be eternal also. The fact that Israel was punished for lack of obedience to God shows that divine justice was even then being administered. It is my understanding that the Quran was revealed to correct the earlier scriptures, and includes an indictment of those who failed to follow the earlier revelation. Is this not divine justice?

[dougmusr]

Timely article on Al Jazerra mentions the sword, just what Christ spoke about.

A Christian bookshop and an internet cafe have been damaged in bomb blasts in Gaza City on Sunday, Palestinian police said.

While attacks against Christian sites in the territory are rare, at least 40 internet cafes and video shops have been attacked in the past several months.

There was no claim of responsibility.

Many of these bombings were claimed by a group called "The Righteous Swords of Islam".

[rebelishaulman]

Please read this:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html

"Prince of Peace" was the title given to King Hezekiah (the son and sign given to King Ahaz ) because a war was looming with Assyria and through counsel Hezekiah defeated assyria bringing the much needed and important peace. THe context of Isaiah 7 and 9 is regarding King Hezekiah who had his fathers kingdom upon his shoulders. Which is why often times it's taken out of context and words are changed by missionaries to fit their icon who never brough peace and could not have been a sign for Ahaz who lived 600 yrs prior.

It's probably the most falacious used term on the icon, calling him 'prince of peace' without reality of peace nor clue that they are using a verse about Hezekiah not a messianic prophecy.

Isaiah 9:5-6 is not a messianic prophecy. The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already taken place in Jewish history, namely, events concerning the birth of this child (believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah. Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and he would lead the indestructible faithful "Remnant of Israel". This passage speaks of the wonders performed by G-d for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the Prophet expresses his praise of G-d for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from demise at the hands of Sannheriv, who besieged Jerusalem.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[dougmusr]

So are you saying that the Jews at the time referred to Hezekiah as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"?

[*Hana*]

The writer of the book of Matthew endeavors to make his readers believe that certain Old testament passages were fulfilled by Jesus ,He cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to him...he did it with Isaiah 7:14,Hosea 11:1,Jeremiah (31:15),Micah 5:2,Zech. 9:9, etc ...

the following so called peophecy never mentioned by NT writers as a prophecy of Jesus ,however translators and commentators have, of their own imagination, erected it into prophecy......

as a matter of fact It could be applied to any other religious figure but Jesus,
let us read the text:


"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with justice and righteousness from hence forth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)"

1-"his name" shall be called. It doesn't say He will be the.

2-Where in the NT Jesus ever been called Mighty God or The everlasting Father.These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus.

3-according the the writers of the New Testament, Jesus said and did many things which had elements which would disqualify him from the title of champion of peace.
For example, read Matthew 10:34 (Luke 12:51), "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Surely, this does not portray someone who is called The Prince of Peace.
what makes matters worse is this part of the passage(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end),in the light of the fact that Jeus caused (nations) to destroy the house of David by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them,such phrase can by no mean applied to Jesus, also such phrase describes the reign of a successful king, such as King Solomon whose reign was described in similar terms:

1 Kings 2:12 - And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established.


Apparently, this passage presented an opportunity for Church translators to infuse into the words of the Prophet Isaiah some Christological "spin" that would turn it into a messianic prophecy about Jesus.

Salam Alaikum Brother:

Are you taking this information from Thomas Paine articles/books? If not, will you please let me know your source.

Jazak Allah Khair

Wasalam,
Hana

[rebelishaulman]

So are you saying that the Jews at the time referred to Hezekiah as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"?

(Please read the entire post before posting again)
Translation from Hebrew:

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [he] called his name: Wondrous Adviser, Mighty G-d [or, Mighty Hero], Eternal Patron, Ruler of Peace; for the increase of the authority and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the L-rd of Hosts shall accomplish this.

The last verb in Isaiah 9:5 is followed by a series of names/titles. These names/titles are actually components of an expression which, in its totality, may be viewed as a long name/title that refers to someone. Apparently, this set of names/titles appealed to the KJV translators as an easy target for editing to support the Christological message that was being developed for this passage.

The first name/title is (pele yo'etz), Wondrous Adviser, and it appears in the Hebrew Bible only once, here in Isaiah 9:5, which preempts the ability to do a comparative analysis as was done for the verbs. In the KJV rendition, this name/title is separated into two entities – Wonderful and Counsellor. Although a comparative analysis here is precluded, as explained, the rules of Hebrew grammar still apply. According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, this split may not be done. While the two terms can stand on their own as nouns, they take on different meanings as such. The term (pele) means a wonder or a marvel, as may be seen in its only two occurrences, in singular form, in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 25:1 as (pele), a wonder, and at Isaiah 29:14 as (va'phele), and a wonder. The noun (yo'etz) means an adviser or a counselor, as may be seen from its two occurrences, in singular form, in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 3:3 as (veyo'etz), and an adviser or and a counselor, and at Isaiah 41:28 as (yo'etz), a counselor.

Considering the factual evidence from Hebrew grammar, the rendition by the KJV of (pele yo'etz) as two separate names/titles cannot be correct.

The next name/title is (el gibbor). This expression appears three times in the Hebrew Bible. Two of these cases are in the singular form, and are found in the Book of Isaiah – at Isaiah 9:5, 10:21. The third instance is found at Ezekiel 32:21, where it appears in the plural form, (elei gibborim).

The components of this name/title are (el) and (gibbor). The term (el) is common in the Hebrew Bible, and it has three applications. The most frequent use of this term is in reference to G-d (e.g. Exod 34:6). Another application is in reference to other gods, i.e., idols (e.g., Exod 34:14). The third use of this term is to identify someone strong or mighty (e.g., Ezek 17:13; Ps 29:1), or even something powerful (e.g., Ps 90:11). The term (gibbor) is commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to identify someone who is mighty, brave, a hero (e.g., Gen 10:9; Zech 9:13).

The combined expression, (el gibbor), can have different meanings, depending on the context of the surrounding passage. (el gibbor) can mean mighty hero, when the context speaks of a person, or it can mean Mighty G-d, when the context refers to G-d. The KJV renders (el gibbor) as The mighty God at Isaiah 9:6, and as the mighty God at Isaiah 10:21. Most Jewish translations render these as Mighty G-d and the mighty G-d, respectively.


Example:

The strongest of the mighty men (elgiborim) shall speak of him from the midst of the Grave and with his helpers; the uncircumcised, those slain by the sword, descended and lay down.(Ezekial 32:21)

Instead of "elgibor" which Christians translate as "mighty G-d" the same Christians translate this which is the plural as "strongest of mighty men".

Though the KJV renditions appear to be consistent with the common Jewish translations, they differ in terms of the definite article the, which is capitalized at Isaiah 9:6 and in lower case at Isaiah 10:21. Also, the definite article (ha), the, is not present in the Hebrew name//title (el gibbor) at Isaiah 9:5. The same is true for Isaiah 10:21, except that, in this case, due to the presence of the preposition (el-), to, and the context of the passage, the definite article (ha), the, is implicit; both translations agree on this. The alternate translation has been added to Table IV.A.2-2 because it is both valid within the context of each passage and helpful in identifying of whom Isaiah might be speaking here. This will be further explored later on.

The next name/title is (avi-ad), and it appears in the Hebrew Bible only once, here in Isaiah 9:5. Consequently, no comparisons are possible, though some analysis will shed light on how to correctly understand it. This name/title is a compound term, in the possessive form, which is made up of two components. The first component, (avi), is the possessive form of the noun (av). The Hebrew noun (av) appears in the Hebrew Bible 723 times, and in several different contexts. The predominant application of this term is a father. However, the (singular) noun is also applied as: (a) a grandfather (e.g., Gen 31:42, 32:10); (b) a progenitor of a line of descendants (e.g., Gen 17:4, Is 51:2); (c) one who is the first of a kind or an inventor (e.g., Gen 4:20,21); (d) an advisor, a counselor, a patron (e.g., Gen 45:8, Job 29:16); (e) a founder (e.g., Josh 17:1, 1 Chron 2:50). In addition, the term is used as a form of address to a prophet, a king, etc. (e.g., 1 Sam 24:12, 2 Kgs 5:13), and in the plural it has additional applications in the Hebrew Bible; however, neither of these applications are significant to Isaiah 9:5[6]. Consequently, according to the various applications given above, the first component of this name/title, (avi) can have meanings such as, father of…, or grandfather of…, or progenitor of…, etc.

The second component of this name/title is (ad), and it is used in Hebrew as either a preposition, such as by (a certain time); to, up-to; till, until, and as a noun, eternity, when in combinations with other terms.

What is the correct application in Isaiah 9:5? The Hebrew concordance[3] lists (avi-ad) as one of the 22 cases in which the application of the noun (av) falls under category (d) above, an advisor, a counselor, a patron. Therefore, the literal translation of (avi-ad) would be advisor of eternity, or counselor of eternity, or patron of eternity. In terms of the passage and its context, perhaps the most appropriate translation of this name/title (avi-ad) is Eternal Patron. Most Jewish translations render it Everlasting Father, and the KJV renders it The everlasting Father.

[dougmusr]

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [he] called his name: Wondrous Adviser, Mighty G-d [or, Mighty Hero], Eternal Patron, Ruler of Peace; for the increase of the authority and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the L-rd of Hosts shall accomplish this.

Thanks for the detailed translation. I did indeed read it all. So in the end, the translation is very similar to the NKJ Bible. I would suppose you would take "Mighty G-d [or, Mighty Hero]," to be the latter one, even though you say that "Most Jewish translations render these as Mighty G-d and the mighty G-d, respectively." I don't know enough about the Jewish teachings on King Hezekiah to know if he was considered a Mighty Hero. If you believe it refers to "Mighty God", then and don't believe it refers to the Messiah, then I would be interested to know who the verse refers to.

[back_to_faith]

I assume you are including the prophet Muhammad in the word "any", yet he was involved in wars was he not?


I never claimed that It refers to the prophet Mohamed peace be upon him,and If a muslim uses it I will refute him as well.....


For the sake of discussion, are you saying that you agree that Isaiah 9:6-7 is a valid prophecy, and just disagree with its application to Jesus, or are you saying that the verse is part of the corrupted OT and the claims of the verse are suspect regardless of the child to whom they refer?


To say whether it is a valid prophecy or not ,not our topic...to apply it to Jesus ,here we object....


So you would render the verse, "and his name shall be (incorrectly) called (in the New Testament) Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace".

In fact, I believe that there are many references to the diety of Christ in the New Testament. I could list a few for you if you like. Yet outside of the NT Jesus is called by these names among Christians world wide on a daily basis. So the prophecy is fulfilled.

dougmusr .Don't be absured ,where is Jesus called among christians (The everlasting Father) Jesus said in Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."
what counts is what he has been called during his lif on earth,those who call him some of such titles after his death in order to impose the prophecy on him ,deserve no attention.

so again the questions:
Where is Jesus called (The everlasting Father) ....etc?

One only has to look at the news to know that this is true. Disagreements over the identity of Christ are even today causing violence.
This verse speaks about an eternal kingdom, and eternal peace. I would take justice and righteousness to be eternal also. The fact that Israel was punished for lack of obedience to God shows that divine justice was even then being administered.

That is all irrelivant,my friend ,you tried to reason what caused the message of Jesus to be violent and disastrous on the house of David,and hence violate the title(prince of peace).......as a matter of fact What reasons behind the violence holds no merit....the prophecy talks about someone ( the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. )

why the (new paganism christianity)and its leader (Jesus according to the NT)failed to be peaceful ,why the Jews been punished etc is wholly without merit and irrelevant to the argument.......

the verse promises of someone who will bring never-ending age of peace and justice to the house of David,not on someone caused (nations) to destroy the house of David by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them !!!!

[back_to_faith]

Salam Alaikum Brother:

Are you taking this information from Thomas Paine articles/books? If not, will you please let me know your source.

Jazak Allah Khair

Wasalam,
Hana

Salam Alaikum,Sister:

actually I'm not taking this information from Thomas Paine articles,I only sometimes like to use expressions,literally style by him or others and If I think that one of his articles unique ,I will copy and paste the link in the thread ........I never found the issue of our thread(Isaiah 9:6) in his writings online .

I will give you links for my sources when I quote them ,as I usually do in my posts....Just stay with us and read our posts....and thank you very much .

Jazak Allah Khair

[Jesus123]

The writer of the book of Matthew endeavors to make his readers believe that certain Old testament passages were fulfilled by Jesus ,He cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to him...he did it with Isaiah 7:14,Hosea 11:1,Jeremiah (31:15),Micah 5:2,Zech. 9:9, etc ...

the following so called peophecy never mentioned by NT writers as a prophecy of Jesus ,however translators and commentators have, of their own imagination, erected it into prophecy......

as a matter of fact It could be applied to any other religious figure but Jesus,
let us read the text:


"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with justice and righteousness from hence forth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)"

1-"his name" shall be called. It doesn't say He will be the.

2-Where in the NT Jesus ever been called Mighty God or The everlasting Father.These names/titles actually are inconsistent with common references to Jesus.

3-according the the writers of the New Testament, Jesus said and did many things which had elements which would disqualify him from the title of champion of peace.
For example, read Matthew 10:34 (Luke 12:51), "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Surely, this does not portray someone who is called The Prince of Peace.
what makes matters worse is this part of the passage(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end),in the light of the fact that Jeus caused (nations) to destroy the house of David by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them,such phrase can by no mean applied to Jesus, also such phrase describes the reign of a successful king, such as King Solomon whose reign was described in similar terms:

1 Kings 2:12 - And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established.


Apparently, this passage presented an opportunity for Church translators to infuse into the words of the Prophet Isaiah some Christological "spin" that would turn it into a messianic prophecy about Jesus.

Who else do you think Isaiah 9:6!!!!!


It seems you never read the New Testament


the Wonderful, Counselor , Mighty God,The Prince of Peace who has everlasting spritual kingdom.
Amen

[back_to_faith]

Who else do you think Isaiah 9:6!!!!!


It seems you never read the New Testament


the Wonderful, Counselor , Mighty God,The Prince of Peace who has everlasting spritual kingdom.
Amen

What is going on here?!!!!

Have you ever read all the posts?

It seems that you and dougmusr ,would like to argue off topic argument !!!!
both of you try to shift the argument from
Did Jesus fulfill (For unto us a child is born,Isaiah 9:6-7 )? to
Who fulfilled (For unto us a child is born,Isaiah 9:6-7)?
Both of you can start a thread ,call it Who fulfilled (For unto us a child is born,Isaiah 9:6-7)? and there could be arguments such as:
that Jesus could be the fulfillment,or Ezekial or still to be fulfilled in the future etc......

Just we are here to prove whether Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 in all of its details or not........

you wrote:
(It seems you never read the New Testament)

Having read the New testament in Greek,English,Arabic,It seems that I suffer from a reading comprehension trouble !!
would you please do me a favor and open my eyes to the scripture ,and show me
where was Jesus called:The everlasting Father?
Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven." !!!!


Don't you think that if Isaiah 9:6 to be rewritten as follows, would fit Jesus?:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall never be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The humililated son of God, The everlasting son, The Prince who send sword not peace to the house of David. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no beginning ,not upon the throne of David, but upon his spritual kingdom, till forever. (Isaiah 9:6-7)"

again:


where was Jesus called:The everlasting Father?

Where did Jesus prove himself to be a successful king to a physical kingdom ,as the text affirms that in a clear language:
(Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom)?exactly as , 1 Kings 2:12 - And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established.?

from now and on I want you to support you comments with a proof text,if not don't bother...

[back_to_faith]

In fact, I believe that there are many references to the diety of Christ in the New Testament. I could list a few for you if you like. Yet outside of the NT Jesus is called by these names among Christians world wide on a daily basis. So the prophecy is fulfilled.

(Yet outside of the NT Jesus is called by these names among Christians world wide on a daily basis. So the prophecy is fulfilled.)

your argument is as absured as someone claims that the fact that Jesus is called by christians (the promised Messiah) is a prove and a fulfillment of the Tankah messianic prophecies!!!

the same absurdity could be If someone argues that Mohamed(peace be upon him) is a fulfillment to OT passages only because he is called a prophet by muslims !!!

also you forgot to show us where Jesus is called The everlasting Father among Christians world wide on a daily basis,as you claim?Nobody calls or called Jesus Wonderful, Counsellor, or Everlasting Father..
at best ,He is the Everlasting Son, not Father

anyone serious will focus more not on the titles,but on the actions he must do in order to prove that the passage could be applied to him and only to him..........

this is the crucial part of the passage:

(Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom)

Jesus did not set up a government of peace without end or, indeed, any government.


pity on those that have been victimized by such far-fetched christian interpretation.

[don532]

You continue to be stuck in the interpretation Jesus was here to set up an earthly kingdom or government. I guess we will forever differ on this. I know. Off-topic.

From John chapter 18.

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

[AB517]

HI

My God please help us see you.

We are arguing over the meanings of text. Can the Mind and Heart of God be in any one mans hand?

Did Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) write the Koran in the first person?

The bible was written after the fact. As soon as some one else writes it there is another level of perception. Perception, in the mind, is the equivalent to translation (verbal), in the physical world. Not to mention putting the experience that you felt into words. How can I do justice to “Shoveling Snow” when I write a letter to someone does not know of snow?

The Koran can be used to discount the Bible as easy as the bible discounts the Koran. It is logical then for us to use each of these to find Gods will. Although I would never be so arrogant to assume I or any other man can know the will of God, I would assume a big part of his will is to love all of his creation and treat all his creation with equal respect. I use the Bible to teach me how to treat my brothers on this planet. I know that Moslems do the same with the Koran.

Weather or not this fulfilled that missies the point of these books.

Are we thy brother’s keepers?

Do you beat your wife?

Did you steal from thy neighbor?

Did you bring down the sword in gods name to kill children to carry out The Righteousness of God?

These books speak of such things, Jew, Christian, and Moslem should be sorry for acts of violence. Ideas tend to spread by killing everyone opposed to them. Is this right? I don’t know … I really don’t know.

I do know as a United States Citizen that the United States is not perfect, could you imagine if we assumed we were the only righteous people and were sent by God to carry out his vengeance. People have done this before with mass killing. Christians have done it, Jews have done it, and Muslims have done it. This is just three groups. Ladies and gentlemen someone mite be wrong, we all mite be wrong.

WOW, too much… I stop now.

[don532]

HI

My God please help us see you.

We are arguing over the meanings of text. Can the Mind and Heart of God be in any one mans hand?

Did Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) write the Koran in the first person?

The bible was written after the fact. As soon as some one else writes it there is another level of perception. Perception, in the mind, is the equivalent to translation (verbal), in the physical world. Not to mention putting the experience that you felt into words. How can I do justice to “Shoveling Snow” when I write a letter to someone does not know of snow?

The Koran can be used to discount the Bible as easy as the bible discounts the Koran. It is logical then for us to use each of these to find Gods will. Although I would never be so arrogant to assume I or any other man can know the will of God, I would assume a big part of his will is to love all of his creation and treat all his creation with equal respect. I use the Bible to teach me how to treat my brothers on this planet. I know that Moslems do the same with the Koran.

Weather or not this fulfilled that missies the point of these books.

Are we thy brother’s keepers?

Do you beat your wife?

Did you steal from thy neighbor?

Did you bring down the sword in gods name to kill children to carry out The Righteousness of God?

These books speak of such things, Jew, Christian, and Moslem should be sorry for acts of violence. Ideas tend to spread by killing everyone opposed to them. Is this right? I don’t know … I really don’t know.

I do know as a United States Citizen that the United States is not perfect, could you imagine if we assumed we were the only righteous people and were sent by God to carry out his vengeance. People have done this before with mass killing. Christians have done it, Jews have done it, and Muslims have done it. This is just three groups. Ladies and gentlemen someone mite be wrong, we all mite be wrong.

WOW, too much… I stop now.

AB, I think you're in the wrong room here. Go down the hall to the left where the guys in the white coats are and check yourself in. Have a nice day!

[back_to_faith]

You continue to be stuck in the interpretation Jesus was here to set up an earthly kingdom or government. I guess we will forever differ on this. I know. Off-topic.

From John chapter 18.

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Greetings,
If the kingdom of Jesus is from another place(spritual),then it is necessarily requires that the kingdom of king David was spritual too !!!


" Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isaiah 9:7)"

you see How absured the argument of spritual kingdom?!!!

If Jesus asserted that he had a million of spritual kingdoms,he could never have the required kingdom(the physical Davidic kingdom),which (Isaiah 9:7) affirms.................

What a nonsense If it is said(Jesus set up a spritual government upon the spritual kingdom of King David!!!!)




37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king.

If I were Pilate,I would have sung for Jesus:
Where's your crown, king nothing?

peace

[back_to_faith]

HI

My God please help us see you.



I do know as a United States Citizen that the United States is not perfect, could you imagine if we assumed we were the only righteous people and were sent by God to carry out his vengeance. People have done this before with mass killing. Christians have done it, Jews have done it, and Muslims have done it. This is just three groups. Ladies and gentlemen someone mite be wrong, we all mite be wrong.

WOW, too much… I stop now.

Greetings,
Well,
thank you very much for your post,though irrelevant to the topic.....

here though we argue ,and sometimes i get harsh with some people here.....but I'm sure If once I meet one of those I refute their arguments,I will shake his hand and give him a hug for greeting as we do in Egypt...I think that nowadays Bible is not 100% inspired but still have no hatred to neither Jews nor christians.

God does not forbid that you do good and make justice for those who do not fight you in the religion or drive you out from your homes. Indeed, God loves those who do justice. (Holy Quran Surah al-Mumtahana verses 8-9)

again welcome to the thread ,and wish you and others as well to be stuck to the thread topic ...
peace

[don532]

If the kingdom of Jesus is from another place(spritual),then it is necessarily requires that the kingdom of king David was spritual too !!!

I do not believe that to be the only conclusion possible, and I disagree. Christ on the throne of David is yet to come. The Davidic covenant did not say the rule would be constant, only that the lineage would be unbroken. Nowhere in Acts or, for that matter, in the entire Bible does one find the earthly throne of David and the heavenly throne, where Jesus is now, explicitly identified as ever being the same.

They are always distinct and different in Scripture. In the book of Acts, it is even more evident that Christ is not presently reigning on the throne of David. Luke opens Acts with Christ’s post-resurrection ministry to the disciples for forty days. During that time, Jesus spoke to them “of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Surely, in all that time, if Jesus were to shortly reign on the throne of David in heaven, He would have plainly told them of this important change and transference of David’s throne from earth to heaven when they asked Him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Christ did not reply, “You are mistaken about this Jewish misconception of an earthly throne and Kingdom in Israel. The throne of David has been transferred to the throne of God in heaven where I will ascend and shortly reign from.”

Instead, Jesus told the disciples that God the Father has appointed the time and season in the future when the Davidic Kingdom will be established in Israel (Acts 1:7). In the meantime, they were to go out and preach the Gospel in all the world, starting in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). The Davidic rule and Kingdom did not begin when the Lord ascended to heaven, or He would have obviously told them so when questioned about the time and season for the establishment of the Kingdom in Israel. If Jesus is currently reigning on David’s throne in heaven, then Acts 15:16–18 contradicts this novel idea of Progressive Dispensationalism. The passage in Acts 15 deals with the issue of Gentile salvation and whether or not Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the Mosaic law to become Christians. James answers for the group at the Jerusalem Council by saying the calling out of Gentile believers is in keeping with the future promise of a Davidic Kingdom in Israel. Once the present age ends after the taking out of a Gentile body of believers “for His name” (a distinct characteristic and divine work of the present age), Christ will return to rebuild and restore “the tabernacle of David.” The phrase “Tabernacle of David” is a descriptive synonym of the Davidic throne and earthly Kingdom that has long been in ruins (Acts 15:16). It still remains this way during the present age and awaits the final restoration at the return of Christ to earth. If Christ were reigning on the throne of David in heaven at this time, why then did James say the Davidic monarchy was still in ruins? The only reasonable and clear answer is that Jesus has yet to return to earth to repair and rebuild it when He comes to reign on an earthly throne of David in Jerusalem, not heaven.

Clearly, in the book of Acts, the Jewish disciples, along with the Jewish Church of Jerusalem, were looking forward to a future, earthly, literal Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Israel to be ruled over by the Messiah Jesus. It was not spiritualized and transferred to heaven where Christ presently is.

Now there are progressive dispensationalists that believe Christ is on the throne of David now. I haven't personally seen enough scriptural support for that. But my mind could be changed if I'm shown to be wrong.

Here is a good representation of the Davidic covenant by Maranatha:

DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT
July 10, 1996

1. Preliminary considerations.
1. Scripture: 2Sam.7:12-16; cp. Ps.89:3,4,19-37.
2. Historical background.
1. David had established his authority over his enemies (2Sam.7:1).
2. He lived in a house of cedar and desired to build God a house (2Sam.7:2).
3. David was not permitted to build this house, but was promised a "house" that would endure forever (2Sam.7:11).
4. The prophet Nathan was informed of the details by a vision 2Sam.7:4; Ps.89:19).
3. Key terms defined.
1. "House" refers to the Davidic royal dynasty (2Sam.7:11,16).
2. "Seed", or "descendant", refers to the male heirs, beginning with Solomon and ending with Jesus Christ (2Sam.7:12; Ps.89:4a,29a,36a)."Covenant" refers to the binding contract between God and His servant, David (Ps.89:3a,28b,34a).
3. "Throne" refers to the right to rule over the kingdom defined by the land grant of the Abrahamic Covenant (2Sam.7:13,16; Ps.89:4b,29b,36b).
4. The Abrahamic Covenant is centered in "land" and "seed".
5. What the Covenant requires for fulfillment: it demands that a biological descendant of David occupy his throne forever.
2. Reasons why David was selected.
1. He was a member of the chosen people (Ps.89:19c) and of the tribe destined for royalty in Israel (Ps.78:68; cp. Gen.49:8-10; Pss.60:7; 76:1; 108:8).
2. He was in the line of Christ (Rom.1:3).
3. He was anointed king by the prophet Samuel to replace the renegade Saul (1Sam.16:13; Ps.89:20).
4. He was spiritually qualified to inherit such Ph2 blessing (2Sam.7:8,9; Ps.89:26).
5. And he was physically endowed to be a warrior-king (Pss.89:19b; 18:32-34).
3. Promises associated with the Covenant fulfilled in David's lifetime. David was promised:
1. An heir who would succeed him and who would build the Temple (2Sam.7:12,13).
2. Continued success over his enemies (Ps.89:21-23).
3. A great name among the peoples of the earth (2Sam.7:9).
4. An expanded kingdom according to the Abrahamic mandate (Ps.89:25; Ex.23:31; Deut.1:7,8; 11:24; 1Kgs.4:21,24).
5. Elevation to the highest rank of kings (Ps.89:27; cp. 2Sam.7:14).
4. The eternal provisions of the Covenant are centered in two spheres: "seed/descendants" and "throne" (Ps.89:3,4,28,29,35-37).
1. There is the promise that there will always be a Davidic descendant (Ps.89:4a; 2Sam.7:16).
2. There is the promise that the throne of David would last forever (Ps.89:4b; 2Sam.7:13).
5. The problem associated with the interrupted rule of the house of David.
1. The problem stated.
1. An uninterrupted succession of kings ruled over the house of David between 1010BC and 586BC.
2. But with the fall of the Southern Kingdom, the throne of David has remained unoccupied to this present day.
3. Furthermore, God placed a curse upon the line of descent through Solomon during the reign of Jehoiakin/Jeconiah/Coniah (Jer.22:30).
4. This curse means that no man in the David/Solomon line of descent could ever prosper as ruler over Israel, no matter how great he was spiritually.
5. Yet the promise to David was that the throne of his son Solomon would remain forever (2Sam.7:13,16).
6. Clearly, the promise does not require an uninterrupted succession of rulers, but it does require the throne to be established forever.
2. The solution.
1. The line of unbroken male descendants continued from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ (cp. Mt.1:12ff).
2. Because of the "Jeconiah curse", the individuals of this line could never occupy the throne of David.
3. So God established another unbroken line of descent from David through his son Nathan; this line links Jesus to David biologically; this line is Mary's genealogy (Lk.3:23ff).
4. The virgin birth enabled Jesus to side-step the Coniah curse and still retain the legal right to the throne since Joseph was His legal link to the throne, while Mary was His biological link to David.
5. Jesus Christ is, in every way, the legal heir to the throne of David.
6. He will re-establish David's throne in connection with His Second Coming (Act.15:16).
3. Conclusion: The Covenant did not guarantee uninterrupted rule by David's descendants, but did require that the right to rule would always remain with David's dynasty.
6. In the person of Jesus Christ, God established the Covenant.
1. The virgin birth enabled Jesus to be the physical descendant of David and not come under the "Jeconiah curse".
2. The resurrection of Christ eliminated the need for a continuation of the genealogy (since Jesus died childless), and provided the Covenant with an indestructible heir.
3. The doctrine of the Second Advent establishes the promise of an eternal throne for David occupied by his greater son, Jesus Christ (Lk.1:32,33).
7. The security of the Covenant.
1. It was not affected by the sins of the Davidic kings (2Sam.7:14,15; Ps.89:30-37).
2. It is seen in the repeated use of the term "forever" or its equivalent (Ps.89:4,28,29,36).
3. It was confirmed by a divine oath, thus giving the strongest possible assurance to its fulfillment (Pss.89:3,4,33; 132:11; 2Sam.7:13,16).
8. The Covenant demands literal fulfillment.
1. Portions of the Covenant fulfilled literally.
1. David had a son, who built the Temple, and who was disciplined for his sins (2Sam.7:12-15).
2. There is an unbroken line of descendants from David to Christ, thus fulfilling the "seed" promise (Matthew 1 and Luke 3).
3. Jesus Christ is a descendant of David according to the flesh (Act.2:29,30; Rom.1:3; 2Tim.2:8).
2. The Jews of Jesus' day expected literal fulfillment (cp. Mk.11:10; Jn.7:42).
3. David so understood that the Covenant was being fulfilled literally (2Sam.23:5).
4. Solomon, likewise, held this conviction (2Chr.6:14-17).
5. The unfulfilled portion has to do with the "throne" promise (2Sam.7:16).
1. Amillennialism (denial of the doctrine of the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth) teaches that the throne in heaven is David's throne.
2. It is true that Jesus Christ is seated on His Father's throne in heaven in session (Heb.12:2); however, the throne of God in heaven and the throne of David are not one and the same.
3. God has promised through the prophets that the throne (political rule) of David would be restored after long centuries of non-existence at the Second coming of Christ (Lk.1:31-33; Act.15:14-17; cp. LXX of Amos.9:11,12).
4. The centuries since the fall of the kingdom of Judah and the dispersions of Israel have not rendered the promise void, even though it may appear to be the case (cp. Ps.89:38-49).
5. Whatever the changing form, temporary interruptions, or chastisements, the line of David will always retain the right to rule over Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege.
6. The right to rule will never be transferred to another family, and the Covenant's blessings are designed for eternal perpetuity (cp. Ps.89:34-36 "My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness/integrity; I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me").
7. It is confirmed in such passages as Isa.9:6,7; Jer.23:5,6; 30:8,9; 33:14-17,20,21; Ezek.37:24,25; Dan.7:13,14; Hos.3:4,5; Amos.9:11; Zech.14:4-9.
8. David's throne was temporarily vacated due to the disobedience of his descendants, but the promise to rule forever stands because of the faithfulness of his greater Son, Jesus Christ.
9. Again, the only necessary feature of the Covenant is that the lineage is unbroken, not that the throne be occupiedcontinuously.
10. The kingdom on earth to be established by Christ be an eternal kingdom, since the "throne/house/kingdom" were all promised to David in perpetuity.
11. According to the established rules of interpretation (hermenuetics), the unfulfilled "throne" promise must be fulfilled literally, as were the fulfilled portions (as is the case with the "seed" promise).

[back_to_faith]

I do not believe that to be the only conclusion possible, and I disagree. Christ on the throne of David is yet to come. :

Greetings,

Well, thank you very much for posting the (DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT by Maranatha) which shot your first(spritual kingdom)argument in the foot....
Let's see How he affirms that the "throne" part could only be fulfilled literally. and show you where he failed to find solution to this problem:

He stated that (according to the OT):

1- "Throne" refers to the right to rule over the kingdom defined by the land grant of the Abrahamic Covenant (2Sam.7:13,16; Ps.89:4b,29b,36b).

we agree

2-. What the Covenant requires for fulfillment: it demands that a biological descendant of David occupy his throne forever.

Again we agree

3-But with the fall of the Southern Kingdom, the throne of David has remained unoccupied to this present day.
sure

4- Jesus Christ is a descendant of David according to the flesh (Act.2:29,30; Rom.1:3; 2Tim.2:8).

here we disagree ..............

A) The basic requirement that the Messiah was to be the physical offspring of David is not met because Jesus had no biological father,He claims that the genealogy of Jesus presented the Luke gospel traces Jesus through his mother Mary. However, there is absolutely nothing in the Luke genealogy that mentions even the name MARY.There is not one word about her in any way.Mary's name never appears anywhere in the list. The list begins as follows:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

Jesus was the "supposed" son of Joseph because of the virgin birth. It was generally thought by the public that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and according to Luke, Joseph was the son of Heli.The only way to insert Mary into any of this is to claim that Heli was really the father of Mary and that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. Does the text say that Heli was the father of Mary? No, it does not.
The text clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not his son-in-law.
When the Bible wishes to express an in-law relationship, it is clearly expressed.

For example:

1 Sam 18:18,22 And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?
And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.

B) women cannot pass kingships or bloodlines in the Bible. Genealogies are exclusively male as shown in Num 1:2,18 . Women simply didn't count when it came to establishing a bloodline for a kingship.

There is not one genealogy in the Bible that is about a woman nor any instance where a king inherits rights to a throne via his mother. A woman could not pass on what she could never possess herself.

C) there is not one single verse in the entire Bible which establishes that Mary was even from the House of David. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth who was a Levite(Luke 1:5,36). That is the only scriptural reference to what tribal identity Mary was connected to.


D) There is no evidence that Paul was aware of a virgin birth that the later author of Matthew claimed was the origin of Jesus, Paul thought that Jesus was descended from David that is why he said: Rom 1:3, Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;



5-the writer claimed (The virgin birth enabled Jesus to side-step the Coniah curse and still retain the legal right to the throne since Joseph was His legal link to the throne)

In other words,
He wants adoption to count or be valid if it can serve to connect Jesus to the rights to sit on the throne but he doesn't want adoption to count or be valid when it comes to inheriting the effects of the curse on Jeconiah's offspring which would nullify any claim for Jesus to sit on the throne.
What a desperate ,dishonest attempt to supply Jesus with legitimate credentials to sit on the throne of David!!!!

from http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/genealogy.htm

detailed ,excellent page on the genealogy problem..

http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html

6-.According to the established rules of interpretation (hermenuetics), the unfulfilled "throne" promise must be fulfilled literally, as were the fulfilled portions.

great to know that the "throne" promise is unfulfilled till this moment .....

Let's see How he tried to solve the dilemma:

3. God has promised through the prophets that the throne (political rule) of David would be restored after long centuries of non-existence at the Second coming of Christ (Lk.1:31-33; Act.15:14-17; ).

Ahhhh ,there we go to the old christian straw, that the arrival of Jesus did not usher in that which was predicted and his credentials seem tarnished, but another appearance will rectify the situation. What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around.
they usually quote the NT as (Lk.1:31-33; Act.15:14-17; ). ,while the relevant proof text has to be Old Testament proof text .......The obvious flaw in this transparent subterfuge is that there is absolutely nothing in the OT alluding to an alleged "Second Coming." As far as the OT is concerned, there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it. We would challenge any Christian to provide so much as one scintilla of OT prophetic commentary to the effect that the messiah would come twice. (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

In sum and substance,
Now, it is the case of everybody on earth to consider as to by what trick of interpretation one could apply Isaiah 9:6 prophecy Jesus.

peace to all

[AB517]

AB, I think you're in the wrong room here. Go down the hall to the left where the guys in the white coats are and check yourself in. Have a nice day!

WHoops

sorry,
down to the left you say??

Thanks

AB

[don532]

Well, thank you very much for posting the (DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT by Maranatha) which shot your first(spritual kingdom)argument in the foot....

Jesus is at the right hand of God (spiritual kingdom), but not yet literally on the throne of David. Both are clearly mentioned in the article. Two different kingdoms are mentioned and there is nothing to infer they both must be either literal or spiritual.

I know you disagree about Heli, but here it is for the benefit of other readers.

Jesus Christ is descended from David:
If He is from the line of David, then certainly Joseph could not be of his immediate paternal bloodline since Joseph was not his natural father. The bloodline could only be traced through His mother, Mary. She alone provided 100% of His genetic material, and thus provided the "flesh of the offspring of David", as shown in Rom 1:3,
"...concerning His Son who was born to Him according to the flesh of the offspring of David."

Matt 1:1, "The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham."

John 7:42, "...Does not the Scripture say that it is of the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David lived, that the Christ is to come."

2Tim 2:8, Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was descended from David."

Luke 1:32, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall be king over the house of Jacob forever."

Gal 4:4, "But when the fullness of time came, GOD sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law."

See also all of these verses which refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of David:
Matt 9:27,12:23,15:22,20:30-31,21:9,21:15,22:42,22:45, Mark 10:47-48,12:35,12:37, Luke 18:38-39, Luke 20:44. I have shown so far that Jesus Christ is descended from David, but through the genealogy of Mary it is only implied. However, Jesus had no human father. There was no human exchange for the conception of Jesus and so the human bloodline cannot be traced through Joseph.
Jewish law required that genealogies were to be through the line of the males, and not the females...

Num 1:17-18, "So Moses and Aaron took these men who had been designated, and assembled the whole community on the first day of the second month. Every man of twenty years or more then declared his name and lineage according to clan and ancestral house."

Keeping accurate records of genealogies was very important to the Jews. The Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that Public Records* recorded genealogies from the oldest to the youngest, and Private Records went from the youngest back to the oldest, and these genealogies were passed down through the generations. This was done in part in order to prevent unqualified persons from gaining positions through their ancestry. See Ezra 2:61-63, and Neh 7:63-65 where some priests were rejected because they could not prove their Levitical ancestry.

* Flavius Josephus, against Apion, Book 1:7
Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?
It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."
So now, all we have to show is that:
1. The father of Mary had no sons.
2. Mary married within her own tribe of Judah. Gen 49:8-12
Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.
The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.

Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary if we can show that she is of the same tribe of Judah through David, as is her spouse, Joseph. Now, let us look at the evidence:
First, a review of the bloodline of Joseph with some added observations.
Saint Matthew addressed his Gospel to the Jews, who followed the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law). He wrote the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matt 1:1-17, and he was careful to meet the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law. His was of the Public Record as explained earlier. In it he begins with Abraham and shows the line going through David and then Solomon and all the way down to Jesus Christ. Remember in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ." Matthew depicts Jesus Christ as "The Messiah".
Clearly Matthew said that the blood father (begot) of Joseph was Jacob. Matthew had satisfied the Mosaic Law by showing the male ancestry of Jesus by going through Joseph instead of Mary. Keep in mind that this genealogy shows the legal, or royal, or public record, of descent and not the human descent. More evidence that Matthew shows the legal line of descent is in Matt 1:11-12 where a man named Jechonias is mentioned.
See Jer 22:28-30 regarding Jechonias, as it states, "...for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit on the throne of David...".
Saint Luke has quite a different account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. He wrote his Gospel to address the Gentiles who were not under the Mosaic Law, and for the most part were unfamiliar with it. He was also a physician, (Col 4:14). His interest, no doubt, was not in the legal aspect of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, but of the human or natural bloodline, by depicting Jesus as the "Son of Man". Luke's Genealogy begins with Jesus Christ and goes backward in time, just the opposite of Matthew who started back and came forward. Luke's genealogy follows the custom of Private Records as explained above. Notice in Luke 3:23-38, that Luke's genealogy does go from Jesus Christ, through David, and back to Judah, continuing all the way to Adam, and then to GOD. By doing this he shows a tie between the "New Adam" (1Cor 15:45) and the first Adam. However, Luke shows the descendant of David to be Nathan (31), and not Solomon, as does Matthew. This alludes to the possibility that Luke's genealogy is for a different person other than Joseph. Let us have a closer look at verse 23 with three different Bibles.

"And Jesus Himself, when He began His work, was about thirty years of age, -being as was supposed- the Son of Joseph, the Son of Heli, the Son of Matthat."

"When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..."
New American Bible

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the Son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat..."
King James

This verse at first reading might seem to say that we have something amiss:

1. This verse appears to say that the father of Joseph is Heli, yet in Matthew we just saw that it was Jacob. How can Joseph have two fathers?
In many places in Holy Scripture we must revert to the underlying Greek text in order to fully understand the verse. The Greek word used for "as was supposed, or, as was thought" is "Nomizo", which means:
1. To hold by custom or usage.
2. To follow by custom or usage.
3. It is the custom.
4. It is the received usage.
5. To deem, to think, to suppose.

This matter can be made clearer by interpreting the verse as:
"When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli."

The underlying Greek text supports this interpretation as, "...Joseph son of Heli", in the English translation, simply reads, "...Joseph of Eli". The word 'son' before Heli, is not in the Greek text.

So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied.

Matthew 1:15, shows that Matthan is the father of Jacob, and Luke 3:23-24, show that Matthat was the father of Heli. It is not known if Matthan and Matthat are the same person. If they are the same person, that would indicate that Jacob and Heli could be brothers if they had the same mother, or half brothers if they had different mothers, or one of them could have even been adopted from the tribe of Judah. Julius Africanus (160-240) wrote in his Epistle to Aristides that Jacob and Heli were half brothers. The Bible makes no distinction between genetic birth and adoption. See 2Sam 6:23, where Michol the daughter of Saul and the wife of David (1Sam 18:27) had no children. Yet in 2Sam 21:8, it says Michol had five sons. In reality, they were adopted sons of Merob. Jacob was the genetic father of Joseph. Heli, the father of Mary, was Joseph's father in law, his legal father.

[don532]

WHoops

sorry,
down to the left you say??

Thanks

AB

Just jokin with ya, dude.
Knock yourself out thinkin about what is said here, but we do appreciate staying on topic whenever possible when posting.

For those of you that interpret English(US) completely literally, "knock yourself out" is an English(US) saying encouraging someone to keep trying at something. I am not telling him to hit himself in the head or anything like that.

[AB517]

Just jokin with ya, dude.
Knock yourself out thinkin about what is said here, but we do appreciate staying on topic whenever possible when posting.

For those of you that interpret English(US) completely literally, "knock yourself out" is an English(US) saying encouraging someone to keep trying at something. I am not telling him to hit himself in the head or anything like that.

Thanks Man, thats how I kind of took it. So far I have only met nice people here and you are just one to add to the list.

I was all amped up when I posted it and you right about being on topic.

AB

[back_to_faith]

* Flavius Josephus, against Apion, Book 1:7
Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?
[U]It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."
.

(Jesus is at the right hand of God (spiritual kingdom), but not yet literally on the throne of David. Both are clearly mentioned in the article. Two different kingdoms are mentioned and there is nothing to infer they both must be either literal or spiritual.)

there we go again !!
first :

neither me nor Isaiah 9:6 care for the so called (spritual Kingdom) which he is said to be in now,the text only denotes the the promised king will set up literal physical kingdom of David and hence fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 ,and the (DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT by Maranatha) you quoted affirmed that,and tried to escape the dilemma by claiming that the kingdom of David will be literal,physical in the second return which is based on zero Old testament proof text........
you could do better if you show us a proof text that the messiah will come twice according to the Old testament.......


second:

A) Numbers :27 which talks about the transference of physical property can never get the right to privileges of lineage

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/zelophed...ritance_1.html

B) the (seed of David) problem has nothing to do with Isaiah 9:6 !!
I didn't ask you to prove that Jesus is from the seed of David.....,
How could Jesus fulfill Isaiah 9:6 even if one proved that he is the seed of David?!!!!!!

in order to satisfy you ,let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus who was born from a virgin is really from the seed of David,yet the text requires at least 2 things never fulfilled by Jesus :

1- he will be called everlasting father,Wonderful, Counsellor.
2-the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom.


in other words don't waste space in the thread ,posting off topic stuff such as,(whether Jesus if from the seed of David or not) etc.....which I never asked anyone to prove in my first post................

I need just 2 answers to two questions:
1-where has Jesus been called everlasting father?
2-Where is the textual,historical proof that Jesus had the physical throne of David as the promised messiah? and If you claim of what he failed to do in his first coming will,What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around. support such claim(the promised Messiah will come twice) with a proof Old Testament text .

[AB517]

"neither me nor Isaiah 9:6 care for the so called (spiritual Kingdom) which he is said to be in now,the text only denotes the the promised king will set up literal physical kingdom of David and hence fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 ,and the (DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT by Maranatha) you quoted affirmed that,and tried to escape the dilemma by claiming that the kingdom of David will be literal,physical in the second return which is based on zero Old testament proof text........
you could do better if you show us a proof text that the messiah will come twice according to the Old testament......."

According to my bible it does not show a literal/Physical kingdom at all. I could argue, based on my bible that it is not literal in many aspects. It could be taken literally that Rome (Christ took over Rome) is the shoulders that governments turn to look. I mean that we look to Rome as guidance on how to treat our fellow humans. To make it literal is misses the point anyway.

Also let’s not take it just as one line. My bible states in Isaiah 9:7 “He will reign on David’s thrown …. Establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever … “Jesus’ teachings replaced the Jewish religion (Jesus sits on the throne of David) for us Christians, well not really replaced, but we believe changed it a bit. He sat on the throne and made some changes to his predecessor, which all kings have done before and will do in the future

If we lived by the teaching of Christ we will live with righteousness. It’s been 2000 years and I see no signs yet of it ending soon. Dare I say if we live by the teachings of any great teacher we will live closer to Gods will. Forever, what is forever? Languages have changed over time since the beginning, why would they stop now. God mite have to send another to meet the needs for that population (Ex: if our languages are gone forever for whatever reason).

My questions to you before I go grabbing verses out of this book or that book (which anybody with ½ brain can refute) is …

Why ask this question?
Why ask it here?
Do you have the answer already?

I mean this in fun way; don’t take me too literal here.

You and Isaiah don't care for this (spiritual Kingdom)? Some pretty big shoes you put on there big guy ...:)

Thank you

[don532]

Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief? The Old Testament is not the only source available to understand questions.

I need just 2 answers to two questions:
1-where has Jesus been called everlasting father?
2-Where is the textual,historical proof that Jesus had the physical throne of David as the promised messiah? and If you claim of what he failed to do in his first coming will,What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around. support such claim(the promised Messiah will come twice) with a proof Old Testament text .

When Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus' name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc., it is not saying that Jesus is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of God. In other words, Jesus has all the attributes of God, including eternality.
In the ancient Jewish culture, names had meanings. We can better understand this by noting American Indian names such as "Running wolf" or "Fighting Bear." The same with Jewish names. They had meanings. Isaac, for example, means "laughter." Noah means "rest" or "peace." So, when Isaiah is speaking of the name of the coming Messiah and says his name will be Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc, it is telling us about the characteristics of the Messiah to come in a prophetic manner.
If Jesus' name is "Eternal Father," then why don't we call Jesus "Eternal Father"? For that matter, why don't we call his name "Wonderful counselor," or "Mighty God," or "Prince of Peace"? The text speaks of a name, yet has four things revealed in the name. Again, this shows us that it is the characteristics of the then-coming Messiah. The fact that the Messiah would be divine is verified in Heb. 1:3, when it says, "And He [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power..." This also explains why Jesus said, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father," (John 14:8). It was because Jesus so precisely represented God the Father as His prophesied name reveals.

I have already answered the second question. I won't, as you say, waste anymore space.

[lavikor201]

When Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus' name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc., it is not saying that Jesus is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of God. In other words, Jesus has all the attributes of God, including eternality.

Alight, so you obviously did not read any of rebelishaulman's post which completly shows why your is wrong if you read the Hebrew.

[lavikor201]

* Flavius Josephus, against Apion, Book 1:7
Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?
It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."
So now, all we have to show is that:
1. The father of Mary had no sons.
2. Mary married within her own tribe of Judah. Gen 49:8-12
Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.

Missionaries keep using Numbers 27 and the episode of the Daughters of Zelophehad. What they are ignoring are the salient details, and also the rest of the story as described in Numbers 36. When you read Numbers 36 you will see that this rule pertained only to the inheritance of tangible property, specifically, the parcel of land that was allocated within the territory of a given tribe.

When an Israelite woman married someone from a tribe other than her own, then she became a member of her husband's tribe. Therefore, the rule was that, that the property of a man who only had daughters and no sons, may be inherited by his daughters, but then they had to marry within their own tribe so that their father's property would stay within the tribe's possession.

This has absolutely nothing to do with genealogy and a female determining lineage. In fact, as I mentioned above, when a woman married outside of her own tribe, her tribal affiliation changed to that of her husbands. This could wreak havoc with genealogies if women's lineages were a factor. According to Torah, lineage (and all blood rights that go along with it) is transmitted exclusively from the father to his biological (i.e., natural) son(s). You learn this from the fact that, every time a census was taken among the Israelites, only men were counted, and they were counted "according to the house of their father" (e.g., Numbers 1:18) .

[don532]

Alight, so you obviously did not read any of rebelishaulman's post which completly shows why your is wrong if you read the Hebrew.

I did read his posts completely and the link provided. I understand the Jewish perspective based on the past tense conjugation of verbs involved, they believe this passage only refers to historic events relating to Hezekiah.

The Jewish perspective in the link provided also contains a statement very much like the Islamic perspective on Jesus, if the reader is unconvinced by the information presented:

From the link provided:

Matthew 10:34(KJV) - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Surely, this does not portray someone who is called The Prince of Peace.

Also from the link provided:

However, there is unanimous agreement among the Jewish Sages that, in the original Hebrew text, Isaiah 9:5[6] is saying that some individual, a certain special person, would embody all these attributes, perhaps as a sign or symbolic reminder to Israel of the message the nation embodies

I do not see how all of those titles in the passage could refer to Hezekiah. There's only one person I can think of to embody all the attributes listed, specifically ETERNAL Patron, ...peace without end...., ...from now and to eternity. In no way do I mean to minimize Hezekiah, but he was a man and therefor not eternal in nature.

[lavikor201]

I do not see how all of those titles in the passage could refer to Hezekiah. There's only one person I can think of to embody all the attributes listed, specifically ETERNAL Patron, ...peace without end...., ...from now and to eternity. In no way do I mean to minimize Hezekiah, but he was a man and therefor not eternal in nature.

It is all dealt with here if you read it:

http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isa9.swf

[back_to_faith]

Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief? The Old Testament is not the only source available to understand questions.



When Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus' name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc., it is not saying that Jesus is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of God. In other words, Jesus has all the attributes of God, including eternality.
In the ancient Jewish culture, names had meanings. We can better understand this by noting American Indian names such as "Running wolf" or "Fighting Bear." The same with Jewish names. They had meanings. Isaac, for example, means "laughter." Noah means "rest" or "peace." So, when Isaiah is speaking of the name of the coming Messiah and says his name will be Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc, it is telling us about the characteristics of the Messiah to come in a prophetic manner.
If Jesus' name is "Eternal Father," then why don't we call Jesus "Eternal Father"? For that matter, why don't we call his name "Wonderful counselor," or "Mighty God," or "Prince of Peace"? The text speaks of a name, yet has four things revealed in the name. Again, this shows us that it is the characteristics of the then-coming Messiah. The fact that the Messiah would be divine is verified in Heb. 1:3, when it says, "And He [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power..." This also explains why Jesus said, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father," (John 14:8). It was because Jesus so precisely represented God the Father as His prophesied name reveals.

I have already answered the second question. I won't, as you say, waste anymore space.

Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief?
because Isaiah 9:6 is Old Testament ,not New Testament .............some christians who alledge that Jesus is a fulfillment to Isaiah 9:6,so the burden on their shoulders to prove something that totally opposite to both the OT text and historical record as well ......


(it is not saying that Jesus is the eternal Father, but that he has the characteristics of God)

Dear Don,don't be absured !!


in other words (For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given) ,you would give such child who is born and the son who was given to the eternal father ,the same title his father has(the eternal father ),and fancy yourself with the possibility for the son to be eternal father and eternal son as well.......
but let me ask you ,would you dare to call the first person of the trinity (the eternal Son)? if not why not?

you can preach till day of judgment the concept that Jesus is the same as his father(God) ,they are one nature etc and no one gonna stop you

......but you can never take the title from the father(the eternal father ) and give it to(the begotten,eternal son!!),the same way you can't take the title of the (the begotten,eternal son),and give it to (the eternal father ) and call him (the begotten,eternal father)!!!!

The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father


according to your scenario no one could be blamed if he claims:

the eternal Father,is the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of Jesus christ (the eternal son)!!!

Imagine someone to hear you utter such nonsense while the The Catholic Church formulate The Nicene Creed which you and all christians have swallowed completely...... be sure you would be put to death by the church as a heretic in the notorious Church "Inquisitions" for the giving the title of the eternal father to the eternal son and vice versa !!!

also,under your line of reasoning I could choose any OT name that has a Theophory and claim he is God in nature,for example I could claim that Abiel is God the father as long as Abiel means in Hebrew ( God my Father ) and the name Elad could be the everlasting God asElad means in Hebrew ( God forever) and and the person who named Tamiel could be the perfect God as Tamiel means in Hebrew ( Perfection of God ).............
If the holy spirit had played the game of names right,he would have used better names could support the agenda of the NT writers,
for example :
which name is better and could be applicable to Jesus :

Bardiel which means( Humilliated Son of God ) or avi-ad which means (the eternal father)?
It seems the holy spirit didn't play it right that time.

you wtore (I have already answered the second question).

due to the fact that I have trouble in my sight that made me see nothing to be answerd,I will repeat my second questio to others who care to answer:

2-Where is the textual,historical proof that Jesus had the physical throne of David as the promised messiah? and If you claim of what he failed to do in his first coming will,What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around. support such claim(the promised Messiah will come twice) with a proof Old Testament text .


peace to all

[don532]

Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief?
because Isaiah 9:6 is Old Testament ,not New Testament ............

"Answer my question and I am going to tell you exactly which resource I expect the answer from and nothing else is acceptable."

A reasonable discussion on this basis cannot be had.

[don532]

It is all dealt with here if you read it:

http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isa9.swf

Thank you. I have read it, multiple times...word for word. It gave me much to think about.

[AB517]

"Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief?
because Isaiah 9:6 is Old Testament ,not New Testament .............some christians who alledge that Jesus is a fulfillment to Isaiah 9:6,so the burden on their shoulders to prove something that totally opposite to both the OT text and historical record as well ......"

Don532, I totaly agree with you.

I mean I can reply if I desecsribe the traits of a tree ... maybe I am talking about a tree. And thus the circle of confusion begins again. Just come do to "What do you whant?"

Love this forum, truely making me rethink my position.

AB

[back_to_faith]

"Why do you say only use the Old Testament texts to prove something or express a belief?
because Isaiah 9:6 is Old Testament ,not New Testament .............some christians who alledge that Jesus is a fulfillment to Isaiah 9:6,so the burden on their shoulders to prove something that totally opposite to both the OT text and historical record as well ......"

Don532, I totaly agree with you.

I mean I can reply if I desecsribe the traits of a tree ... maybe I am talking about a tree. And thus the circle of confusion begins again. Just come do to "What do you whant?"

Love this forum, truely making me rethink my position.

AB

Hold on AB.... It seems you got confused ,and didn't get the crux of the matter.....

the argument bagan as:

1-A christian assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 in a spritual way .
2-I proved without any reasonable doubt that the fulfillment has to be literall.
3-then ,he soon changed his argument from a fulfilled spritual fulfillment to future physical fulfillment in a so called second coming.
4-I asked him for a support from the Old Testament to his claim(second coming) not a New Testament.....you ask why?

1-We have Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah, what he will do, and what will be done during his reign,and the Old testament tells us the he will fulfill that all from the first shot,there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it.

2-Jesus could have a religious legitimacy only If he fulfilled the Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah,after he fulfill them ,then we can give him attention and listen,accept any agenda he has in his mind including (second coming )etc.......
If not then he neither he nor his agenda (including second coming)deserve any attention.

the same way If we suppose that the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) has Old testament textual requirements will be done during his reign in order to prove his prophethood ,yet he claimed to be prophet without fulfilling them during his lifetime and claimed that he has other things to do ,he is not supposed to do in the Old Testament,and the Old Testament requirements which give him the only support to be a prophet ,he ignored and claimed that he will fulfill them in a second coming !!!!!
anyone listen to his saying, will accuse him to be a first rated deciever,who has zero textual support that give him and his words legitimacy.

in sum and substance,

Did Jesus fulfill one of the Old testament textual requirements (Isaiah 9:6)which gives legitimacy to anyone cliams to be the Jewish promised messiah?
(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom.)

the answer:No


Save your New Testament for some other topics my friend,It is wholy Irrelevant here.

peace

[AB517]

Hold on AB.... It seems you got confused ,and didn't get the crux of the matter.....

the argument bagan as:

1-A christian assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 in a spritual way .
2-I proved without any reasonable doubt that the fulfillment has to be literall.
3-then ,he soon changed his argument from a fulfilled spritual fulfillment to future physical fulfillment in a so called second coming.
4-I asked him for a support from the Old Testament to his claim(second coming) not a New Testament.....you ask why?

1-We have Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah, what he will do, and what will be done during his reign,and the Old testament tells us the he will fulfill that all from the first shot,there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it.

2-Jesus could have a religious legitimacy only If he fulfilled the Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah,after he fulfill them ,then we can give him attention and listen,accept any agenda he has in his mind including (second coming )etc.......
If not then he neither he nor his agenda (including second coming)deserve any attention.

the same way If we suppose that the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) has Old testament textual requirements will be done during his reign in order to prove his prophethood ,yet he claimed to be prophet without fulfilling them during his lifetime and claimed that he has other things to do ,he is not supposed to do in the Old Testament,and the Old Testament requirements which give him the only support to be a prophet ,he ignored and claimed that he will fulfill them in a second coming !!!!!
anyone listen to his saying, will accuse him to be a first rated deciever,who has zero textual support that give him and his words legitimacy.

in sum and substance,

Did Jesus fulfill one of the Old testament textual requirements (Isaiah 9:6)which gives legitimacy to anyone cliams to be the Jewish promised messiah?
(the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom.)

the answer:No


Save your New Testament for some other topics my friend,It is wholy Irrelevant here.

peace

1st :your right, I get very confused with these discussions because they go round and round.

#2 The top half of my post was quoting someone else .. Look at the qoute ,arks. I dont know how to take part of a quote so I cut and past it
I amm sorry for not knowing how to do that, it is a lil confusing.

My part starts at Don532


#3 you far from proved it must be literal, I mean, for you ... ya did, not for everyone.

#4 I used OLT TEST lines to make my point. I used your verse and the next line to show how one could make, rather easly, the connection to literal.


4# notice how I do not attack when disussing a point. For I know when it comes do to where the rubber meets the rode it becomes Faith, and who am I to say what you believe(or think) is wrong. That would be just plane rude.

The fearful man attacks.

Once the light of truth appears all else goes into shadows and there they whipser umong themselves.

AB517

[AB517]

Am an an idiot, I dont know how to edit.

#4 connection to literal and spiritual.

later

[don532]

3-then ,he soon changed his argument from a fulfilled spritual fulfillment to future physical fulfillment in a so called second coming.

My first response was not 100% complete at giving the whole perspective on my understanding of the Kingdom of Christ. Sorry if I confused you, but I suspect you were not confused. I only gave you a target to throw rocks at. Jesus reigns today at the right hand of God over his spiritual kingdom. He will come again and take the throne of David literally. It's a Christian belief that is not new. Surely you didn't think I was trying to invent something new. Then again, maybe you did.

The Second Coming is when Jesus Christ will return to earth in fulfillment of His promises and to fulfill the prophecies made about Him. Jesus Himself promised, "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" (Matthew 24:30). Revelation 19:11-12 proclaims this about the Second Coming, "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself."

Those who witnessed Christ's ascension into heaven after his death and resurrection heard the angels declare in Acts 1:11, "Men of Galilee…why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." The Second Coming is the literal return of Jesus Christ to earth as King in power and glory to rule for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-6).

The Old Testament prophets did not seem to fully understand this distinction between the two comings of Jesus (His birth and His Second Coming) as seen in Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7; and Zachariah 14:4. Those who argue that Jesus was not the Messiah because He did not fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, fail to take into account, or refuse to take into account, the Second Coming of Christ, in which He will fulfill all the prophecies about the Messiah. Christ's first coming was to stand in our place and receive the penalty exacted for sin. His Second Coming will defeat sin for all eternity.

This is one area in which Christians believe the Old Testament does not necessarily stand by itself. The whole picture is given to us by the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments together. I view the Bible as not one book trying to prove itself. It is a collection of many books, by several different authors, written over many years, with a common message woven through it, that the early church assembled under one covering, from Genesis through and including Revelation and everything in between.

[lavikor201]

Did anyone read this post:

http://www.islamicboard.com/716442-post29.html

[lavikor201]

If you do not like one explanation, I am sure you can understand this one:

Isaiah is known for the method by which he presents many of his messages through the use of prophetic names (Isaiah 7:3, 14; 8:3). In the verse under study, the prophet expounds his message by formulating a prophetic name for Hezekiah. The words of this name form a sentence expressive of G-d's greatness, which will become manifest in the benefits to be bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Thus, the name, though borne by the king, serves, in reality, as a testimonial to G-d.


Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because this name is a sign, which foretells G-d's design for him.

The L-rd of hosts has sworn, saying: "As I have thought, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break Asshur in My land, and upon My mountains trample him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder." This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the L-rd of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:24-27)

Be not afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (Isaiah 37:6-7)

Hezekiah is called "the mighty G-d" because this name is a sign that foretells G-d's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.

Therefore thus says the L-rd concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city, says the L-rd. For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. (Isaiah 37:33-35)

Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that G-d will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the L-rd, the G-d of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5).

Hezekiah is called "the ruler of peace" because this name is a sign, which foretells that G-d would be merciful to him. Punishment for lack of faith in the Almighty will be deferred and peace granted during the last years of his rule. "Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah: 'Good is the word of the L-rd which you have spoken.' He said moreover: 'If but there shall be peace and security in my days'" (Isaiah 39:8).

The fulfillment of the above-stated declarations is foretold in Isaiah 9:6, when, after the Assyrian defeat, Hezekiah's glory increased and peace reigned for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 32:23). Archaeologists have found that there was a sudden expansion of Judean settlements in the years following the fall of the northern kingdom. This indicates that many refugees fled south, thus giving added significance to the statement "that the government may be increased."

Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that G-d would accept over his people "from henceforth and forever." The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel's future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion.

In the long run Hezekiah's achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, G-d, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things G-d will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel.

[back_to_faith]

The Old Testament prophets did not seem to fully understand this distinction between the two comings of Jesus (His birth and His Second Coming) as seen in Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7; and Zachariah 14:4. .

well,finally found something could be relevant to my question and our discussion.......


first:

pity on those inspired idiots ,who though were inspired and were guided by the holy spirit from A to Z when they wrote,but never bothered himself to show them this distinction between the two comings of the messiah !!!
finally we found the church interpreters who fancy themselves to be not only inspired but more intellegent than all The Old Testament prophets !!

Let's see what they have to offer and which OT passage talks about the second coming:

according to Don Zachariah 14:4 is a second comig prophecy of the Messiah,let,s read this part:


Zechariah 14

1-2 Note well: God's Judgment Day is on the way: "Plunder will be piled high and handed out.
I'm bringing all the godless nations
to war against Jerusalem—
Houses plundered,
women raped,
Half the city taken into exile,
the other half left behind."
3-5But then God will march out against the godless nations and fight— a great war! That's the Day he'll take his stand on the Mount of Olives, facing Jerusalem from the east. The Mount of Olives will be split right down the middle, from east to west, leaving a wide valley. Half the mountain will shift north, the other half south. Then you will run for your lives down the valley, your escape route that will take you all the way to Azal. You'll run for your lives, just as you ran on the day of the great earthquake in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah. Then my God will arrive and all the holy angels with him.


Simple Question :

would you cite a chapter or a verse from the Old Testament whether from Zechariah or any other prophets that what we have just read will be fulfilled during a second coming of the promised messiah?
If not,why do you pap ,claiming that It is a second coming prophecy?!!


peace

[don532]

would you cite a chapter or a verse from the Old Testament whether from Zechariah or any other prophets that what we have just read will be fulfilled during a second coming of the promised messiah?
If not,why do you pap ,claiming that It is a second coming prophecy?!!

Maybe someone else can, but I cannot prove messianic prophecy by using Old Testament scriptures. We learned from Jesus of his promise to come again in the New Testament, but you already knew that.

pity on those inspired idiots ,who though were inspired and were guided by the holy spirit from A to Z

I can tell it won't matter what I write at this point because you have resorted to calling the New Testament authors inspired idiots. It's rather interesting that forum rules are set so no posts can criticize Islam, the Prophet, discuss his relatives etc. etc., but you are evidently being allowed to post insults about Christianity. No matter what the subject being discussed, it's a fool's game to enter into a discussion that will be allowed to continue with insults. Good day.

[back_to_faith]

Maybe someone else can, but I cannot prove messianic prophecy by using Old Testament scriptures. We learned from Jesus of his promise to come again in the New Testament, but you already knew that.



I can tell it won't matter what I write at this point because you have resorted to calling the New Testament authors inspired idiots. It's rather interesting that forum rules are set so no posts can criticize Islam, the Prophet, discuss his relatives etc. etc., but you are evidently being allowed to post insults about Christianity. No matter what the subject being discussed, it's a fool's game to enter into a discussion that will be allowed to continue with insults. Good day.

Dear Don,It is obvious that you came a full circle...
first of all who told you that this forum prohibt criticising Islam?!!!
Islam could be criticised as long as no offensive language is used to both Allah and his last messeneger.........

second:

If you accuse the inspired Old Testament prophets of parroting what has been revealed to them without understanding it,who then offended them???

the church interpreters or me?!!

anyway, and due to the fact that a handful of OT prophets gave false,unfulfilled prophecies ,they can by no mean accepted to be prophets at least according to the Quran criteria to accept the claim of prophethood..

[don532]

Oh so I could call Muhammad an idiot and that's okay? Here's part of the forum rules. I added the bold. Perhaps my English is bad.

16. No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. This includes, but is not limited to attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and companions, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present. While some may complain that there is "freedom of speech" please remember this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam. What is allowed in speech is determined by the Admin and not the member.

[MustafaMc]

Oh so I could call Muhammad an idiot and that's okay? Here's part of the forum rules. I added the bold. Perhaps my English is bad.

Have you read a post by a Muslim that was so disrespectful of Jesus (pbuh) or one of his disciples. If so, that person was not acting on Islamic principles.

[don532]

Have you read a post by a Muslim that was so disrespectful of Jesus (pbuh) or one of his disciples. If so, that person was not acting on Islamic principles.

pity on those inspired idiots ,who though were inspired and were guided by the holy spirit from A to Z when they wrote,but never bothered himself to show them this distinction between the two comings of the messiah

I would say so, yes.

[back_to_faith]

I would say so, yes.

Don, your position continues to deteriorate apace.
All what you try to do is Of course, all smoke and mirrors with no substance,, let us not lose sight of the original Issue.....

1-more than once I called Paul (who is more important to christians than OT prophets )as a deciever while debating you in another thread and you never got upset ,nor claimed I violated the rules.....you know why?
because you had something to post that time,now you have nothing to post more ,so you try to obfuscate the topic..
and If you post the same again ,trying to play the game of being a victim,that will never help you refuting my original arguments

you repeat yourself everytime you debate me, at first zealous and try to refute me,you fail then you play the role of a victim.......etc

[back_to_faith]

I would say so, yes.

Don, your position continues to deteriorate apace.
All what you try to do is Of course, all smoke and mirrors with no substance,, let us not lose sight of the original Issue.....

1-more than once I called Paul (who is more important to christians than OT prophets )as a deciever while debating you in another thread and you never got upset ,nor claimed I violated the rules.....you know why?
because you had something to post that time,now you have nothing to post more ,so you try to obfuscate the topic..
and If you post the same again ,trying to play the game of being a victim,that will never help you refuting my original arguments

you repeat yourself everytime you debate me, at first zealous and try to refute me,you fail then you play the role of a victim.......etc

[don532]

Don, your position continues to deteriorate apace.
All what you try to do is Of course, all smoke and mirrors with no substance,, let us not lose sight of the original Issue.....

1-more than once I called Paul (who is more important to christians than OT prophets )as a deciever while debating you in another thread and you never got upset ,nor claimed I violated the rules.....you know why?
because you had something to post that time,now you have nothing to post more ,so you try to obfuscate the topic..
and If you post the same again ,trying to play the game of being a victim,that will never help you refuting my original arguments

you repeat yourself everytime you debate me, at first zealous and try to refute me,you fail then you play the role of a victim.......etc

Deceiver and idiot are two very different things, thus my response. Your conclusion as to the reason for my response is incorrect. You seem to get more and more wound up as a thread progresses. When you started calling Bible authors idiots I had had enough of your nastiness.

In this latest case, what you do is set the stage with the question so the outcome is predetermined. When I choose to answer, and my answer doesn't fit within your framework, you accuse me of trying to confuse the topic. Your original argument was a loaded question. My only mistake was even attempting an answer because you refuse to see anything outside of the framework you created.

[Jesus123]

Hold on AB.... It seems you got confused ,and didn't get the crux of the matter.....

the argument bagan as:

1-A christian assertion that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:6 in a spritual way .
2-I proved without any reasonable doubt that the fulfillment has to be literall.
3-then ,he soon changed his argument from a fulfilled spritual fulfillment to future physical fulfillment in a so called second coming.
4-I asked him for a support from the Old Testament to his claim(second coming) not a New Testament.....you ask why?

1-We have Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah, what he will do, and what will be done during his reign,and the Old testament tells us the he will fulfill that all from the first shot,there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it.

2-Jesus could have a religious legitimacy only If he fulfilled the Old Testament textual requirements concerning the messiah,after he fulfill them ,then we can give him attention and listen,accept any agenda he has in his mind including (second coming )etc.......
If not then he neither he nor his agenda (including second coming)deserve any attention.

Tell me what is your point as a muslim to prove that Jesus is not the messiah?
Don't you think that the Quran talks about him as the messiah?!!!

[back_to_faith]

Tell me what is your point as a muslim to prove that Jesus is not the messiah?
Don't you think that the Quran talks about him as the messiah?!!!

the Quran talks about Jesus as A messiah not The old testament promised Messiah....




well,thank you very much for your post and for helping this thread resume the serious talk after it has been interrupted by useless personal talking.........



first

the Quran clearly rejects both the idea of the King promised messiah and the God incarnated messiah,and affrims that God sends always prophets ,neither to be incarnated nor to send only a physical king....

Question:wasn't David (peace be upon him) a king?
yes and a prophet as well,unlike the OT idea of the messiah to be only a king,not a prophet.

so the Quranic concept is that Jesus was one of the messiahs(prophets)have been sent to the Jews and the last one of them.



second:

my point as a muslim to prove that Jesus is not the OT messiah, is to expose christianity as a false religion, you ask why?
1-the NT writers is said to be inspired.
2-they claim that Jesus is the promised messiah because he fulfilled the OT messianic prophecies.
3-the OT prophecies concerning the messiah have never been fulfilled by anyone including Jesus.
4-hence,the New Testament writer preached false ,uninspired concepts on the readers,in order to impose their own agenda,in their seek for religious legitimacy .
5- That damage the claim of the gospel as being inspired by God,as the writers themselves proved themselves to be uninspired ,hence that proves without doubt that christianity is a false religion
as any religion stands or fall on its scripture...