Did Jesus fulfill (For unto us a child is born,Isaiah 9:6-7 )?
- Thread starter back_to_faith
- Start date
- Replies 51
- Views 9K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
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.
Last edited:
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
Elite Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 32
(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/zelophedadandtheinheritance_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 .
"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
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
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.
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
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 138
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
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 138
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) .
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:
Also from the link provided:
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
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 138
back_to_faith
Elite Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 32
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
Thank you. I have read it, multiple times...word for word. It gave me much to think about.
"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
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
Elite Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 32
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
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.
Last edited:
lavikor201
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 138