Just to clarify - this article is the Jewish perspective of why Jews do not believe in Jesus.
I had to remove the comment of the thread starter at the end as it was worded offensively.
For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.
The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?
The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)
Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)
Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)
Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."
Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these
in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. ________________________
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)
Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"
____________________
3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.
For further reading, go to: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html
______________________
4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION
Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy. What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
For further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"
WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH
The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. And to the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.
Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.
The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."
For further study visit: Jews for Judaism
See also:
"You Are My Witness: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" A booklet in pdf format by Yisroel C. Blumenthal
"The Real Messiah," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
"The Path of the Righteous Gentile," by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
FOOTNOTES
1.Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
2. In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.
b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
---------------
Last edited by Muhammad; 11-15-2008 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Comment at end removed
Just to clarify - this article is the Jewish perspective of why Jews do not believe in Jesus.
I had to remove the comment of the thread starter at the end as it was worded offensively.
Hmm...I wonder then what they'd call this in Revelation 19: 11-16.format_quote Originally Posted by Dr.Trax
For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.
The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?
The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)
Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)
Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)
Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
[LEFT]D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."
Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these
in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. ________________________
'And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.'
You also have to have some understanding of this verse:
'When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.' John 6: 15.
This is because all of these prophecies will be fulfilled during the second coming, a world that knows war no more, a redeemed Israel, and a ruling Christ. The first time Christ came, he had to die, to save man from his sins, the second time he comes, it will be to establish the Kingdom of God.
[/QUOTE]B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)
Well, what about this here in Genesis 3: 15
'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.'
That seems to indicate that the Messiah would be reckoned after the seed of a woman, which would have been necessary considering that Jesus was virgin born.
Jesus here was pointing out the Pharisees hypocrisy, he did this many times, such as the fact that they too worked on the sabbath, and they were ashamed afterwards. Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man.Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
Well, this is what I found at this link: http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah
I will also add that an angel had to come and let Mary know that she was chosen by God and that he had blessed her womb. That doesn't back up the claim that God had sex with Mary like it is portrayed in so many ancient mythologies in the slightest.Quote:
Joel 1:8 presents another example of the word betulah in a context which does not convey the usual meaning of virginity: "Mourn like a virgin (betulah) in sackcloth, grieving for the husband of her youth."
Some commentators say this refers to a betrothed virgin, thus making the lamentation all the more poignant because the marriage had never been consummated. The use of ba'al (husband) in this verse, however, seems to imply the opposite. The word ba'al is never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.
Therefore, even if the prophet Isaiah had used the word betulah, it could have been argued that he did not intend to say that this woman had never had sexual relations with a man.
A look at the Septuagint translation of almah by Semitics scholar Dr. Cyrus Gordon, provides additional insight on the matter:
The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.6
And in the New Testament we are taught that God has placed a veil over the eyes of most Jews, until the fullness of the Gentiles, or times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Though there are still a remnant of which who have come to the knowledge of who Jesus really is, ie Messianic Torah Judaism. The Bible, even in the Old Testament, speaks of a time when the Jewish people will be converted to Christ en masse. Here's a good scripture:
'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zechariah 12: 10
Last edited by mkh4JC; 11-15-2008 at 05:13 PM.
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Not only there is not the slightest hint in the old testament that the promised messiah will come twice but also , even if this true ,then How Jesus(peace be upon him) will ever fulfil such basic messianic prophecy in his supposed second coming?:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David and Solomon (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
The term (seed of a woman) never indicate the idea of virgin born.
"seed" can be used allegorically for both the descendants of men and women, depending on the context.
Genesis 16: [8] And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. [9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. [10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
the descendants of Hagar, Ishmael's mother, were called "seed," as well.
As a muslim we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus ,I'm not denying that virgin birth of Jesus ,and any virgin birth prophecy regarding Jesus in the Old testament is welcomed for muslims..... but the fact is there is none and that shows how untrustworthy the work of the writer Matthew ,as he intentionaly misused the Old Testament and invented a prophecy......format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
actually ,After my thorough study of the messianic prophecies ,which took from my time what is beyond anyone’s’ imagination, I advice those who interested in finding out why the passage of Isaiah 7:14 can’t be a messianic prophecy ,to approach the matter not with the (Alma,bethula meanings) …… but examining the context…..
I repent the time that I wasted looking for the linguistic factor in the passage, which I thought in the beginning ,that it is the key for understanding the passage…… but the fact it has nothing to do with problem …. Actually I will show that the meanings of (alma-bethula) is off topic
Before showing my thorough study results in the such passage, I would like to ask you a question which is crucial and necessary in order to continue the discussion…
Isaiah 71 During the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was attacked by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, the son of Remaliah. The city withstood the attack, however, and was not taken.
2 The news had come to the royal court: "Aram is allied with Israel* against us!" So the hearts of the king and his people trembled with fear, just as trees shake in a storm.13 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet King Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub.* You will find the king at the end of the aqueduct that feeds water into the upper pool, near the road leading to the field where cloth is bleached.24 Tell him to stop worrying. Tell him he doesn't need to fear the fierce anger of those two burned-out embers, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah.5 "Yes, the kings of Aram and Israel are coming against you. They are saying,6 `We will invade Judah and throw its people into panic. Then we will fight our way into Jerusalem and install the son of Tabeel as Judah's king.'7 "But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: This invasion will never happen,8 because Aram is no stronger than its capital, Damascus. And Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria. And Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remaliah. You do not believe me? If you want me to protect you, learn to believe what I say."10 Not long after this, the LORD sent this message to King Ahaz:11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz, to prove that I will crush your enemies as I have promised. Ask for anything you like, and make it as difficult as you want."12 But the king refused. "No," he said, "I wouldn't test the LORD like that."13 Then Isaiah said, "Listen well, you royal family of David! You aren't satisfied to exhaust my patience. You exhaust the patience of God as well!
14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'3
15 By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.
from the context of the passage , what is that underlined word (this child) refers to?
( Emmaneul-Isaiah-Ahaz)
Which one? only one word answer ,plz
peace
Jesus is descended from the line of David, but through his mother. As I have already shown, the Bible in the Old Testament said that the the seed of the woman (not the seed of the man) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan).format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
The passage I quoted was an indication of God's salvation plan. He said the seed of the woman (which turned out to be Mary) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan), while the serpent (Satan) would bruise his (Christ's) heel. All this happened at the cross, Christ won at the cross, and for those who accept him, he grants you victory over sin. The virgin birth isn't mentioned until Isaiah I believe.format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Well, from my understanding, it refers to Jesus. I'm still a baby in Christ, so I don't know everything, but just because Christ wasn't born during their lifetime that doesn't mean that it didn't refer to him. What I'm about to put forth to you I knew about in some degree, but I've heard it explained to me this way recently. When Christ died, he went into the heart of the Earth, or the center of the Earth, where hell is at this point and time (and where paradise used to be).format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
And for three days he preached about himself, explained the scriptures that pointed to him, to all of the Old Testament saints, bringing with him the thief on the cross (because with two or three witnesses every word has to be established), and letting them know that he was the Christ, the Messiah that should come into the world. So he told them that he was born from a virgin (because sin nature is passed through the male) and lived a sinless life, that he was the Son of God (and there are scriptures in the Old Testament that point to him being so), and that he took upon the world's sins, past, present, and future, that he himself is the cure for sin nature.
So it is my belief that that prophecy still relates to Christ.
But now I want to ask you a question. What do you think of Isaiah 53?
'Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender planet, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:
He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering to sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.' Isaiah 53: 1-12.
Last edited by mkh4JC; 11-18-2008 at 05:12 PM.
The problem is there are no jews in this topic
mash'Allah akhi may Allah swt yizeddak 3ilm and enable you to teach & give da3wa with what you've learned insh'Allah--format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
very informative
i had read the descendent of jesus, Zakaria...yahya...even zechariah teach the jews to worship one true God, the people kill the follower of prophet Zechariah,cause Zechariah teach evil lesson...what's this ...more over people that time of Jesus century more over trying to distorted Jesus book "Bible" verse by verse...until now many version of bible real ashamed...of jews and christian.to believe in God, there one waY is to follow the the way of REal prophets to preach God's deen...is Tauheed, one true God...and people take the theology of Torah,psalm and etc.. they follow and they change it bit by bit...in Quran no one can change one word...that's why i hope non-believer to enter islam.you've been bless by Allah..jazakallah kyairan!
Jalla Allahu Fi 'oulah, Ma lana rabbun siwah.
Maybe I've been misinformed, but I thought that Muslims believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he will return to earth in the last days. Am I wrong?format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
You left out none of the above, which is another legitimate possibility in this particular passage.format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
But worse, in seeking only a single answer, you miss the reality that sometimes verses of scripture actually speak at multiple levels. Your search for seeing the meaning of this passage is like a horse going down the road with blinders on; you can see fine just in front of you, but you don't have the full picture.
Again with the problem of Isaiah 7
Note: again and again we muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus , but we don't have any Quranic clue that such virgin birth is prophecied , Now we have a writer is thought by christians to be (inspired ) claims that there is such prophecy,
Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, G-d with us. (KJV)
so we have to analyze his claims, if there is not such prophecy the consequences would be damaging to the claims that the New Testament as being inspired and the true word of God......as we have a writer said to be inspired is caught intentionaly cheating his readers ....
in other words is there is no virgin birth prophecy , there is no inspired Matthew,there is no inspired New Testament ,hence there is no valid Christianity......
Does the (alma-bethula meanings) deserve all such big controversy one can read online?
Lots of Jewish online articles argue that The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel's mother as a virgin. Betulah is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew).
On the other hand The Christian bible commentaries ,articles argue that almah is never used in the Scriptures to describe a "young, presently married woman." Also in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be virgin. Etc……
Both arguments are inappropriate to approach the problem in the passage…
A question for both the two arguments, what if the word used in the passage (alma) means exclusively in any context, any time, any place (a virgin )? Would that fits the passage into a prophecy of a virgin birth?
Absolutely ,not
The following imaginary dialogue(which based on the chapter) between Isaiah and a member of the house of David in the horrible crisis, will highlight the core of the problem:
Isaiah: Oh ,house of David don’t worry ,don’t be scared God is with your side in such crisis, and will show you a sign to ease your minds ,the virgin will be pregnant..
A listener to Isaiah from the house of David : and?
Isaiah: I repeat again, The virgin will be pregnant.
Listener : and afterwards?
Isaiah: Isn’t that enough to show how God is with your side?
Listener : Is that what you call a miracle!!!!!!? Virgin will be pregnant !!!
Isaiah: yes why not…
Listener : lol How many men performed such miracle all over history, what is the big deal about a virgin will be pregnant !!!! aren’t most virgins sometime in the future get pregnant??
Hey house of David (the listener shouted) how many men of you can perform such miracle, and impregnate a virgin?
One of them said ,just let me with the virgin in private for a week to perform such miracle, another said just a day and another funny one affirmed, he just needs 5 minutes to impregnate her with twins !…….
Isaiah: I forgot to say that She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel
Listener : nice name , my nephew has the same name ,would you please ease our minds and tell us about the sign ?….
Isaiah: in a word, before this boy knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.
Listener : Thanx now your words make sense…..
In other words, if the word used in the passage (alma) means exclusively in any context, any time, any place (a virgin ) ,that Would never fit the passage into a prophecy of a virgin birth…..
If the text tells (the Virgin will be pregnant without a man) and we have another context ,then there we can argue the possibility of a virgin birth prophecy, but that is not the case ………….
That is why I said the linguistic factor is of no value when approaching the problem…. Translate the word as you wish (virgin, young woman ….) and the problem still remains…..
Have I finished with Isaiah 7? not yet but depends on those who would like to discuss and argue with me.....
Andformat_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
format_quote Originally Posted by fedos
Ok let’s see how your possibility could be legitimate in this particular passage.
Let’s put directly the name you think to be legitimate to such passage:
14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The young woman (or the virgin, if you wish it to be translated) will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Jesus15 By the time Jesus is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong.16 But before Jesus knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much--the kings of Israel and Aram--will both be dead.
Now the matter in your hand,… you can give the legitimacy to Jesus in such passage by explaining verse 16 and how it was fulfilled during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him)
When ever the kings of Israel and Aram been killed during the time of Jesus?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The horse should go on his straight path , staying away from THE ZIGZAG WAY ,in order not to get lost .....
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The Jewish conception of the messiah is not in accordance with what the Quran teaches ,the same can be said about the Christian concept….
Jesus is according to the Quran is the messiah ( term is used in to describe ANY Israelite priests, prophets, and kings who were anointed with oil in consecration to their respective offices) son of mary who came to remind the Jews of the necessity of monotheism and to make lawful to them part of what was (Before) forbidden to them
…
Holy Quran 3:50 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
there is nothing in the Quran about a person (from the seed of David and Solomon, whom is his arrival There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease, rebuild the Jewish temple ......
There is nothing in the quran about a king who came or will come to fulfil such old testament messianic prophecies…….
much more to mention in the right time..............................
the passage in Isaiah 53 has another approach to be understood ....If no one will comment on my input in isaiah 7 ,I will discuss 53 inshaAllah..format_quote Originally Posted by fedos.7
جزاكى الله كل خير على مجهودك ووقتك ،وبارك الله فيكى وفى والدك الكريمformat_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Last edited by Imam; 11-20-2008 at 12:33 PM.
Well, this is what I found:format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
This passage foretells that the *'almah* will be with child, a condition that seems to deny the possibility of virginity. However, this passage is a prophecy that classifies the pregnant condition of the *'almah* as an *'oth* (sign or miracle). According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon the word *'oth* can have one of several meanings:
(1) a sign, pledge, or token
(2) a sign or omen
(3) a sign or symbol
(4) a sign or miracle given as a pledge or attestation of divine presence and interposition
(5) a sign or memorial
(6) a sign or pledge of a covenant
(7) an ensign [flag] or standard
(8) a sign of changing weather
In this passage the 4th meaning fits the context; the sign was a miracle given as God's pledge of future deliverance of Israel. That the sign truly was to be a miracle is evident from verse 11--''Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above." Clearly Isaiah offered King Ahaz a miraculous sign of the magnitude of the miraculous sign actually given to King Hezekiah at a later time (38:8). That Ahaz understood the offered sign to be a miracle is evident from his response in verse 12--"But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!'" The request of a purely natural event would not have been regarded as a test of God.
Now if the *'almah* conceived by natural means, then no miracle occurred. Young women conceive regularly by natural means. There is nothing miraculous about that. The only way the conception could be a miraculous sign would be for it to be supernatural. Thus, it is appropriate to conclude that the word *'almah* means "virgin" here also. I know that Dr. Bob denies that the sign is the *'almah*s conception; I respond to this later.
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Well again, this is what I found:
The sign was not given to Ahaz. The Lord instructed Ahaz to ask for any kind of sign (7:11). In unbelief, Ahaz refused to specify a sign for the Lord to give, so the Lord turned from Ahaz to the "house of David" (the elders of Israel) and said: "Hear ye (plural) now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you (plural) to weary men, but will ye (plural) weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (plural) a sign" (7:13-14). Clearly the prophecy was not given to Ahaz (a single person), but to Israel (a group of people). As Dr. Bob said in another place: "A group of people can be viewed as a single entity but a single entity cannot be viewed as a group." Therefore, by Dr. Bob's own reasoning the prophecy cannot have been given to Ahaz. Likewise, since the prophecy was not given to Ahaz but to Israel, it can now be understood to have shifted from short range to long range; it ceased to be assurance of short term deliverance, and shifted to long range assurance of Messianic hope. When a prophetic sign is given to a nation, its fulfillment is not bound to the life span of any individual of the nation. In fact, the sign often is long range. Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction which was the cause of their fear and dread, but with a promise of survival and hope for the distant future.
Also the purpose of the sign had shifted. The original sign was offered to Ahaz to provide assurance of God's deliverance from the impending threat from Syria and the northern tribes of Israel (7:4-9a). Of the impending threat from Syria and Northern Israel the promised assurance was: "It shall not stand, nor shall it come to pass" (vs. 7). However, this sign was offered on the condition of faith and obedience: "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established" (7:9). Ahaz refused to believe and to specify a sign (7:12). Consequently, the available deliverance was not given. Instead, the Lord permitted Syria and Northern Israel to attack them, kill 120,000 troops, and take captive 200,000 civilians (2 Chron 28:5-21). The appeal of Ahaz for help from Assyria brought some temporary relief, but the Lord used that "hired razor" to bring further judgment at a later time (Isa 7:17-25; 2 Chron 28:16-21).
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Alright, until your next post then.
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
So, would it be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 11-21-2008 at 05:17 AM.
Harun Yayah wrote:
Abu Hanifah, Imam of our mazhab, stated that subjects such as the coming of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) and the Mahdi are matters that should not be denied:"The emergence of the Dajjal (the Anti-christ) and Yajuj (Gog), the Sun rising in the West, the descent from the sky of the Prophet ‘Isa (as) and the other portents of the Last Hour related in sahih (trustworthy) reports are all true and will definitely take place. There are other great portents of the Hour, such as the coming of the Mahdi. As trustworthy accounts say, all these phenomena are true and will take place.” (Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah, p. 99)hello
I have to apologise to you for the last message I sent to you which was due to me misunderstanding him and getting confused for I thought that he was saying that Jesus of Christian old testament was not the same as the Messiah of the Jewish Bible.
I went back to read more of his posts and discovered that I have had a run in with him previously regarding "The Messiah".now, I understand you and him. and I have come to the same conclusion as your original one i.e his version of Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah.format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
on the other hand my version of Islam has a different concept in which, there will be al masih al dajjal aka anti-Christ, who will be defeated by The Messiah, who will then go on to unite Jews, Christians and Muslims, then form a righteous khilafat/kingdom of The God [Allah] on earth for a period of 7 years, some of which is described in >> The Second Coming of Jesus (Hazrat Isa Alahisalam)
We Muslims believe in the second coming of Prophet Isa (Jesus). When he descends to earth, the world will change drastically. Muslims and Christians will unite as one ummat (nation) and wealth will be in abundance.So Please when you say "So, would be more correct to say that Islam sees Jesus as A messiah, but not as THE Messiah?" You should take note that what any member here says is not representative of all Muslim opinion. I believe that I am a Muslim and in my version of Islam there is a concept of The Messiah.Abu Hurayrah narrated: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary [Jesus] descends among you as a just ruler. He will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the jizyah tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656).
Breaking the cross refers to refuting the invented story of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Killing the pig means prohibiting its meat again, as in Islam and in the original Law of Moses. Jizyah is a tax paid by non-Muslims instead of the zakah (obligatory charity) paid by Muslims, in return for the equal rights, protection, and services they enjoy in a Muslim state. This ruling will be abolished, as all Christians will follow Jesus in his second coming and become Muslims.
However, his coming will be preceded by the appearance of the Antichrist (the Dajjal, the Imposter), who will come to intrigue people away from the truth of Islam, by showing what appears to be miraculous actions—by the will of Allah— that deceive only the naïve and unbelievers.
`Abdullah ibn `Amr reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The Dajjal would appear in my ummah and he would stay [in the world] for 40—I cannot say whether he meant 40 days, 40 months, or 40 years. And Allah would then send Jesus son of Mary, who would resemble `Urwa ibn Mas`ud. He (Jesus Christ) would chase him and kill him. Then people would live for seven years that there would be no rancor between two persons” (Muslim.)
It is narrated on the authority of `Abdullah ibn `Umar that one day the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal (the Dajjal) in the presence of people. He said, “Verily, Allah (hallowed be He and High) is not blind of one eye. Behold, but Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal is blind of the right eye as if his eye is like a swollen grape.” Also the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “I was shown in a dream in the night that near the Ka`bah there was a man fair-complexioned, fine among the white-complexioned men that you ever saw, his locks of hair were falling on his shoulders. He was a man whose hair were neither too curly nor too straight, and water trickled down from his head. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of two persons and amidst them was making a circuit around the Ka`bah. I said, ‘Who is he?’ They replied, ‘Al-Masih son of Mary’” (Muslim).
Apart from that, no other details are given as to how Jesus would look like, what language he would speak, nor any other marking features. His face will not be as that portrayed and consecrated by the Christians and their churches. This has been visualized, from imagination, several centuries after his departure.
However, true believers will first know the Antichrist by his deeds as narrated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Similarly, Jesus will not be mistaken for anybody else, as he will declare himself as a prophet of Islam, coming to correct his message and to unite all the believers under the banner of Islam.
In Islam, the second coming of Christ is not only one of the peculiar signs of the Hereafter, but is a glorious conclusion of the history-long confrontation between tawheed (monotheism) of all genuine prophets on the one hand, and the multitude of polytheist deviations that infiltrated the teachings of Jesus after his departure, until it gradually engulfed almost all Christian creeds. These led to deifying Jesus, making him the son of God, and one part of a triune god, the same as in many other deviated or invented religions.
That this confrontation will be a major aspect of human history is stressed and amazingly expressed in the Qur’an. The Qur’an repeatedly exposes Christian distortions and warns those who advocate these invented deviations. Such a major history-long set of deviations that spread among considerable and influential segments of the world population, will naturally end toward the end of time with a decisive proclamation of truth. This proclamation will justly come through the same prophet who was misunderstood most, whose message was most sinfully tampered with, and whose personality was disfigured in such a way as to deceive generations of people and to corrupt the pure monotheistic belief he carried.
The second coming of Christ does not contradict with the fact that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets, by whom the messages and guidance of Allah to humanity have been completed. The return of Jesus is not a new phase of divine messages of Allah, but a final reaffirmation and revival of the message of Islam, the eternal call of all prophets and messengers.
Hope this answer is satisfactory. Thank you and please keep in touch.
Salam.
Useful Links: The Story of Jesus
Is Jesus Dead or Alive?
Armageddon and the End Times
wa salam (Peace)
THE DESCENT OF PROPHET ‘ISA (As) AND THE COMING OF THE MAHDI ARE SUBJECTS “THAT CANNOT BE DENIED” IN THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH
Last edited by doorster; 11-29-2008 at 04:59 PM.
SOME TRUSTWORTHY HADITH REGARDING THE COMING OF THE PROPHET ‘ISA (AS) AND THE BLESSED MAHDI compiled by Harun Yayah
- ... I swear by Allah that the son of Maryam will certainly descend as a just judge… (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0289)
- The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656)
- I swear by Him in Whose hand is my soul: the son of Mary shall descend among you as a just ruler. ... (Narrated by Abu Huraira, Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)
- There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (pbuh). He will descend (to the earth). (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 37, Number 4310; Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Tirmidhi)
- ... Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims') commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0293)
- How can a community be eliminated, when there is first me [the Prophet Muhammad (saas)], Isa’ (as) son of Maryam at the end, and the Mahdi, one of my line, between us? (Jalaladdin as-Suyuti, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, p. 78)
- The Mahdi is one of this community and will serve as imam to the Prophet ‘Isa (as). (Jalaladdin as-Suyuti, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, p. 79)
- Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (saas) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. … (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Number 4271)
- Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:The Prophet (saas) said: If only one day of this time (world) remained, Allah would raise up a man from my family who would fill this earth with justice as it has been filled with oppression. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 36, Number 4270)
- Hear the glad tidings of the Mahdi. He will be one of the Quraish and one of my line. (Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, p. 13)
- The peoples of the Earth and sky, and even the birds in the air, will be delighted at his (the Mahdi’s) caliphate. (Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi Alamat al-Mahdi al- Muntadhar, p. 29)
- ... The Mahdi will appear with the flag of the Messenger of Allah (saas), when people have lost hope that they will be freed from the woes afflicting them.... (Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman, p. 55)
Last edited by doorster; 11-21-2008 at 10:47 AM.
Point well taken.format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
Before continueing with Isaiah 7....
Note for the Muslims who visit the thread and might misunderstand me:
Dear doorster
I'm afraid that you misunderstood me and still misunderstanding me,now my duty to eliminate such misunderstanding between us
yes I said so ,don't you think so?format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
all That i said that the concept of the Messiah in the old testament is not in accordance with what the Quran teaches..........
Do you think otherwise( the concept of the Messiah in the old testament and the Quran are the same ) ? and why?
Do you think our versions(me and yours) disagree? if so,what material I ever wrote makes you think so?!!
you shifted the issue to the signs of the hours in islam,jesus second coming according to islam,al mahdi etc......
all such issues are offtopic .... as I never mentioned a word about them.......
I didn't give opinions which disagree with yours regarding the signs of the hours in islam, jesus second coming according to islam,al mahdi anti-Christ
etc....
my opinion in such issue are kept for other threads dealing specifically with such issues.....
I wish now the misunderstanding between us to be over.....
I hope now it is time to continue our specific topic , examining the validity of the basic source of christianity (the New Testament) through what its writers claim to be messianic prophecies....
Now again to our topic,
The writer whom quoted Fedos,used two arguments ( to prove the sign to be miracelous & the sign have shifted from short range to long range)
both of his arguments are flawed
He argues :
Now if the *'almah* conceived by natural means, then no miracle occurred..
Exactly ! and that is what I did in the imaginary dialogue put on the mouth of isaiah in my last post.....I put in his mouth the christian argument (the sign is miracelous)
Now let's read the context to see whether the sign truly was to be a miracle or not:
Well,What does the text tell us about the purpose of Isaiah's visit?
The purpose of the visit will give us the first hint of the nature of the sign
7:1 Rezin, the king of Aram, and Pekah, the king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to make war against it,so Ahaz's heart, and the hearts of his people, were moved, like the trees of the wood shaking in the wind.
The previous introduction to the chapter shows us the hard situation for both Ahaz and the house of David , they were terrified,which requires not, a miracle show to be performed such as turning the sticks into serpents or to make a donkey talk or to make a virgin pregnant without a man ......,
such group of people ,been scared of the impending war,logically would be expecting anything but such useless miracles show in such situation......
let's continue with the text
Isa 7:4 And say to him, Take care and be quiet; have no fear, and do not let your heart be feeble
remember, not only Ahaz has fear but all the house of david as well and that neccesarily reqiures something to be said or to be done to ease their minds (Ahaz and his people)
11 "Ask me for a sign, Ahaz,
the writer of the second quotation by fedos affirmedThe Lord instructed Ahaz to ask for any kind of sign (7:11). ..
He could ask for any kind of sign that would bolster his faith in God's protection, for both himself and his people.
Have we any clue what kind of sign it will be ?
the choices are open and no clue yet.....
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt God
The writer argue:
What seems unbelief for you, is for other commentators:In unbelief, Ahaz refused to specify a sign for the Lord to give, so the Lord turned from Ahaz to the "house of David" ..
-Ahaz sounds almost spiritual in his response. He quotes from Deuteronomy 6:16, which says, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”
-sounds very spiritual from Ahaz. He almost seems to say what Jesus said in Matthew 4:7: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”
-a pious reason,
-I will not - By asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word,
-his refusal sounds wise
-he did not want to bother God and take God's time.
-too proud
Hard to know what the people have in mind while uttering sometghing ...... he may be been a hypocrite the moment he uttered so,and may not.....who knows
Now How one could Test God?
If one Not to believe in God without a sign,one usually seek a miracle show..
If one believes in God , and have hardships (illness,crisis,war etc....) one usually seek relief by a sign that not neccessary a miracle show ,it could be a purely natural event
what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz and his people , who were surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later?
It is not the birth of the child which is emphasized by the prophet, but the happy issue for which the king is waiting, and of which he may now, relying upon the comparison given him, confidently-estimate the approaching date. Jesus” CH. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 123
Well, have we any clue from the context what will be the kind of sign?
yes we had a hint but not yet to be sure and anyone think otherwise then he is playing the guessing game....
It is not possible to know the reality of something before getting it......
the best way to find out what kind of sign it is ,when we let the sign talks about itself...
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign
Has Isaiah's mission of relief finished by the pious(or whatever you like to call it) refusal by Ahaz? not yet
God offers one anyway.
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
Before a child who will be delieverd by a woman who is (or wil be) pregnant,reaching his maturity, the kings terrorizing the people of Ahaz would get ruined.
Is that a miracelous sign ? absolutely not ..
but let's go further ,giving a hand to christian argument and rewriting the text in order to make it seems miracelous:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?
so you see, Even if the miracelous element is available in the passage ,the context will damage the argument.....
the writer argues:
clearly it was for both Ahaz and the House of David ,when Isaiah offered him to choose a sign ,it doesn't mean such sign is to support Ahaz alone but the house of David as well........the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David
..
the same can be said about the the sign which Isaiah reported the house of David ,it was not for the house of David with the exception of Ahaz.......
the sign for all those under attack,all those been terrified (Ahaz and his people)
7:2 his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
the given sign aimed to calm the king Ahaz and his people by their fearing of their enemies
the writer continues:
since the prophecy was not given to Ahaz but to Israel, it can now be understood to have shifted from short range to long range..
That is a wishful thinking......
well, for the sake of the argument ,let's put Ahaz now on the shelf and deal with his house (those whom he claim that the sign was offered to without Ahaz)
Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
Isaiah has put a time limit to his prediction about the end of the war ...as After God said to Ahaz to ask for a sign showing that He was with him and his people and after the king’s refusing to provoke God, then God Himself took the initiative and promised to Ahaz the birth of Emmanuel. Before this child’s reaching his maturity, the kings terrorizing the people of Ahaz would get ruined. And the kings fearing Ahaz were routed many centuries before the birth of Jesus. The information that this child would be fed with cream and honey until learning to reject the evil and prefer the good, is another element identifying this child with the situation that Judah was actually undergoing; cream and honey instead of the common food of an agricultural population formed the subsistence of the people whose land was waste. Such human forms put the child in the period when this prophecy was fulfilled. “Applied to the Messiah, it is superfluous and unsuitable.”
Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. III, 1863, p. 78
he wrote:
Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction ..
There we go again,
Haven't we just read how God offered the sign of help to the house of David anyway,even after Ahaz's refusal?!!!
Even though the king refused to ask for a sign, the Sovereign Lord
would give Ahaz and the house of David a sign that He was with His people
Ahaz refused to specify a sign (7:12). Consequently, the Lord permitted Syria and Northern Israel to attack them, kill 120,000 troops, and take captive 200,000 civilians (2 Chron 28:5-21). ..
in other words the according to (2 Chron 28:5-21). the prophecy failed,for me no wonder to see unfulfilled old testament prophecy... but anyway what was unfulfilled for the writer was fulfilled for other commentators:
New American Standard Bible
"before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin," who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Ki. 15:30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2 Ki. 16:9.
Another commentary:
We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated.
Another commentary:
God shatters his expectations. Indeed, Isaiah tells him, by the time the young woman who is
already pregnant gives birth to a child named Immanuel and the child can tell good from evil, the two
kings whom Ahaz fears will have been defeated and have lost their land. They will have been defeated
by Assyria.....
Why the commentaries disagree regarding the fulfilment?
Compare
2 Kings 16
1In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
2Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father.
3But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
4And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.
6At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.
7So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.
8And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.
9And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.
11And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
12And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.
13And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar.
14And he brought also the brasen altar, which was before the LORD, from the forefront of the house, from between the altar and the house of the LORD, and put it on the north side of the altar.
Versus
2 Chronicles 28
1Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:
2For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.
3Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.
4He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.
6For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.
7And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king.
8And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.
Last edited by Imam; 11-22-2008 at 07:40 PM.
Well, after researching it a bit more, the use of the terms almah and betulah are perhaps muddled, and this gentlemen on Christian Think Tank discusses the issue both for and against, if you are so inclined. It is a long read, but you seem to be the critical type, so you might be interested:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
I just want to quote from there regarding the issue of timelines and whether or not the prophecy related to Christ or not:
As I've already outlined, the Jewish people as a whole haven't accepted Jesus as their Messiah because God has largely placed a veil over their eyes, that we all might start out in unbelief. But he has not cast aside his people, as there is still a remnant who have come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, ie Messianic Torah Judaism, and they are the only ones who really understand the Torah. Read Romans chapter 11 for the details.This is where the discussion gets good...the two points above are easily 'disposed of', but the REAL CHALLENGE (as Jim indicates) is in the relationship between the historical context and the possible prophetic content--an issue that has to be worked through in EVEN the most straightforward of messianic announcements (e.g. Deut 18.15 -- questions about fulfillment in THEIR lifetime, "among your brothers", '"like unto me"--surround even such a 'vanilla' prophecy), and even fulfillment details of strictly "local" prophecies (e.g. I Kings 20:13-21 -- there is no mention of "Ahab" going first; does that mean the prophecy was NOT fulfilled 'in full'?...not at all...we have the same issue of summarization and selection of 'which details are important' we have in ALL the text.) So let's dive into this fascinating text...
But the most serious problem with this alleged messianic prophecy is that it has been taken out of context. Looking at the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was some seven centuries late to be such a sign.
Jim is quite right to point out that passages MUST be taken in context. What is NOT clear is that Jim's understanding of the context is entirely accurate (or at least, complete).
[2002 Note: I should point out that there are MANY ways to construct these events and relationships--the one below is dependent on Motyer, as explained in EBCOT, more or less.]
His understanding of the HISTORICAL situation IS accurate. Rezin and Pekah, in alliance, ARE threatening Judah, and it is clear that Jim's statement is correct when applied to 7.1-9. The section of 7.1-9 is God's reassurance to him that IF (and ONLY IF!) HE STANDS FIRM IN FAITH, his kingdom will endure (otherwise, "NOT"). Ahaz was not known for his faithfulness to YHWH(see the DRAMATIC context below!), so this is a gracious offer on God's part, in honor of Ahaz' membership in "the house of David" (7.2). It is NOT an unconditional promise, but one DEPENDENT upon Ahaz' faithfulness.
[NOTE: Therefore the similar statement in "Jury" is "off" by this 'dependency' issue:
"The promised child, Immanuel, was meant as a sign to King Ahaz that his kingdom would not be destroyed by Israel and Syria."
The reason I bring this up, is that later in the "Jury" passage we find this:
"II Chronicles 28:1-6 clearly states that Ahaz was defeated by Syria and Israel, thus rendering the prophecy false. This makes Isaiah a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18:22. It is doubtful that we will be receiving prophecies from Yahweh through a false prophet. "
This statement fails in the face of the CONDITIONAL nature of God's assurances to Ahaz. Even the passage in 2 Chron REPEATEDLY points out (e.g. 1, 5, 6, 19, 22) that his defeat was due to his lack of faithfulness to YHWH--present in OUR Isaiah text.--ENDnote]
This is the HISTORICAL context.
The DRAMATIC context puts a bit of a 'spin' on this. What happens now, in 7.10-25, follows up on that gracious offer in v.9. Ahaz is addressed "again" (7.10), but by this time he has NOT followed instructions! Instead, he has tested the 'patience' of God with his faithlessness--v.13. God still gives him 'another chance' commanding him to ask for a 'you name it/you got it' kind of sign--to encourage his weak faith (v. 11). Ahaz disobeys (while mouthing a bible quote!), and Isaiah proceeds to deliver an altogether 'un-asked for' sign--a sign of judgment on the House of David! So the DRAMATIC context is one of AHAZ's failure as Davidic king, and of YHWH's displeasure with (and coming judgment on) him.
The LITERARY context breaks down like this.
· The Prophetic Word to Judah (7.1-9.7) forms a unit, organized around the use of kid's names as prophetic devices (7.3; 8.1-5, 18; 9.6,7)
· The Prophetic Word to Ephraim (9.8-11.16) shows close parallels to the above (further arguing for the unity of 7.1-9.7):
· to both there come the moment of decision as the Lord's word threatens wrath (7.1-17; 9:8-10.14)
· the time of judgment mediated by the Assyrian invasion (7.18-8.8; 10.5-15)
· the destruction of God's foes, but the salvation of a remnant (8.9-22; 10.16-34)
· the promise of a glorious hope as the Davidic monarch reigns and brings prosperity to his people (9.1-7; 11.1-16)
(See J.A. Motyer, "Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," Tyndale Bulletin 21:118-25)
· The 'Immanuel' child, promised in 7:14, has some 'odd' characteristics, throughout this literary unit:
1. He will possess the land (Isa. 8:8 "and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel !" )
2. thwart all opponents (Isa. 8:10 "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us". )
3. Possess the throne of David and represent "The Mighty God" among us (Isa. 9:6-7: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom)
4. He is the only child promised AT ALL in this unit, and so the natural reference of 7.14 is this 'larger than life' figure of chapter 9.
So the literary context suggests (even without 7.14!) a child-figure that has characteristics MUCH LARGER than any 'normal' kid!
With these various contexts in mind, let's look at a few of the details of the passage:
· In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q:
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."
The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were...
· The prophecy is given to not just Ahaz, but to 'the house of David'--the 'you' in v.14 is plural, and Ahaz is addressed as a representative of the line (whereas in 7.1-9, the phase 'house of David' is described as 'Ahaz and his people'--v.2). The point here is that the message is addressed to a historically-larger group (i.e. the dynasty and lineage of David) than a simple 'local' fulfillment would suggest.
· The sign was NOT an encouraging sign at all, but rather a sign of judgment. Verses 17-25 picture a devastated future--not deliverance from enemies!:
1. v17: the king of Assyria will bring a time unlike any other!
2. v18: the 'stinging bees' from Assyria will take over all the places of the land
3. v20: Assyria would shame the nation by shaving all their body hair (c.f. II Sam 10)
4. v21-22: the developed agricultural society would be reduced to a more pastoral economy
5. v23-25: the land will become wild again--briers and wild animals will necessitate bow and arrow again.
· The sign itself was NOT a 'historical present' kind of sign, but a 'future confirmation' sign, like that of Exodus 3:12--"And God said, 'I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.'". That it was to occur 'beyond' the present was obvious from the indications that the child would come AFTER the destruction of 17-25. The child would experience the destruction of the Davidic monarchy before coming of age. (Indeed, even the message in 6.9-13 seems to imply that the judgments fall on Judah as well.)
· Jensen in "The Age of Immanuel" (Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 41: 220-39) makes a compelling case that vs 15 should be taken in a final sense--that Immanuel will eat the bread of affliction/judgment in order to grow in obedience (unlike Ahaz)--without any reference to an 'age of discretion'. This would mean that the prophecy of 16-25 is NOT linked time-wise with the sign-child (in spite of the English translations in 16).
· [It might be worth pointing out that even historical, non-messianic prophecies (esp. of national or international scope) OFTEN reached BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee'. Even in this section of Isaiah, Ahaz is promised that "Within 65 years, Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people" (7.8)! Ahaz would never live long enough to see the fulfillment of that prophecy (he would see the beginning of it, but not the end). Prophecy is OFTEN a process--not simply an event.]
The upshot of all this is this: In response to Ahaz' failure to exercise his royalty in line with Davidic mandates of loyalty and trust, God will step in to provide a TRUE Davidic king, Immanuel. This king will appear AFTER the consequences of the failure of Ahaz and family have manifested themselves in history, with the invasion of Assyria extending even to Judah (but stopping short of Jerusalem--cf. 8.8c). This Immanuel-child will appear with a 'larger than life' birth (to an unknown virgin) and manifest a 'larger than life' set of abilities/responsibilities, and function as a sign to the entire House of David, that God is active in delivering his people (in spite of Ahaz' unbelief).
This understanding of the text seems to do the best justice to the various historical contexts and literary details in the passage [notice, WITHOUT invoking notions of 'double fulfillment' , 'multiple senses', etc.--I may need those later, but not in this passage...;>) ]
In Isaiah 8:3-4, a prophetess gives birth to a son--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--who is clearly described as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.[3]
Actually, not only is it NOT 'clearly described', there are in fact, NO TEXTUAL REASONS to equate Immanuel and the child of 8.3! They differ in virtually EVERY detail:
They have different names! And the passage in 8 is NOT cited as a 'fulfillment', as would have been typically done HAD it been a fulfillment (e.g. 1Kgs. 12:15; 1Kgs. 2:27; 2Kgs. 15:12; 1Kgs. 14:18; 2Kgs 7.17; 2 kgs 23.16). [the 'dual-names are okay' reply only works when the passages are far apart, btw]
Immanuel's name is positive and encouraging; Maher-shalal-hash-baz (i.e. "quick to the plunder, quick to the spoil") is ominous, alluding to the Assyria swift-power, which was soon to overtake Ephraim and Judah (v. 6-8).
The mother of Immanuel is an unknown virgin; Maher's mom is Isaiah's wife.
Immanuel is keyed to a moral or dietary spec; Maher is keyed to linguistic ability ("mama")
Immanuel is related to the larger destruction of the land; Maher is related to Damascus and Samaria (v.4)
Immanuel is from the house of David (9.7); Maher, as a descendent from Isaiah, probably was not. (although Jewish tradition says Isaiah was of royal stock)
Maher shows up as a 'bit' player (like his brother in 7.3); Immanuel is in the middle of passages that sweep wide spans of history (8.8,10).
J. Edward Barrett (1988, p. 14) points out evidence that early Christians rejected the virgin birth.
I am not familiar with Barrett's work, so I will have to wait until I can get a copy of his article, BUT I AM familiar with the historical data and find it very ODD for someone to make this claim.
The main writings of the early post-NT church--100 ad to 140 ad--[e.g. Ignatius (Smyr 1:1); the Apology of Aristides; Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, e.g. 43f, 68, 84); Irenaeus (Haer., 3, 21, 4f. and 9; 3, 22, 1-4); The Old Roman Creed] very vigorously defend the teaching of the virgin birth against two heretical movements: early gnosticism and Ebionism. This 'defense' shows that it was an accepted part of the mainstream church. If Barrett is calling the Ebionites and gnostics 'early Christians' and building an argument that they represented some 'mainstream faction', he is seriously mistaken!
One piece of Barrett's evidence is that in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, the writer (who may or may not be the apostle Paul) advises that his audience "instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."
I have seen many strange examples of exegesis in my day, but this one ranks way up there in terms of implausibility!
A couple of quick points here:
The word translated 'genealogies' here is used only twice, here and in Titus 3.9;
This is most likely to have referred to Jews propagating pre-Christian gnosticism (with its endless genealogies of aeons between God and man--cf. Irenaeus on the mythical Ophite genealogies, in Haer.1, 30, 9);
Early church witnesses (Irenaeus and Tertullian) supposed this to be a reference to the cosmological genealogies of Valentinianism.
The phrase "myths and genealogies" had been used pejoratively from Plato on (see. The IVP Bible Background Commentary--New Testament).
The apocalyptic literature of first-century Judaism had developed quite elaborate mythological treatments of OT genealogies (along the allegorical methods of some Alexandrian Jews).
In short, there are plenty of plausible historical referents for this phrase--no need to invent one!
The earliest gospel, Mark, lacks an account of Jesus' birth, as does John, the latest gospel.
This is, of course, an argument from silence, with the assumption that if ALL FOUR of the writers didn't mention something (for whatever reason), THEN the early church must not have believed it!
For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to a event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!!
(I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it are difficult to resist: "Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!").
But more seriously, there is no reason at all why ANY event has to be in EVERY gospel...even if it WAS important to the church. These authors knew about the others' works; the "synoptic problem" is ample witness to this!
And, for what its worth, there is some grammatical evidence indicating that Paul knew of, and alluded to, the special circumstances around Jesus' birth. Scholars recently have noticed that Paul used a special vocab to talk about Christ's birth:
"Whenever Paul speaks of the birth of Jesus Christ, he uses the verb ginomai , which has the broad meaning of "come to be." This is particularly significant in Gal 4:4, 23f. Jesus Christ "comes to be" by a woman, whereas Isaac and Ishmael, born of two women, are begotten and born, since the vb. gennao, used here, carries overtones of the father's act. Paul uses the same general word in Rom 1:3 ("came of the seed of David according to the flesh") and Phil 2:7 ("coming to be in the likeness of men"). On each occasion, Paul avoids the normal word for born, which is understandable if, as the traveling companion of Luke, he knew that Jesus was born miraculously."
(J. Stafford Wright, "Son", in Dictionary of New Test. Theology, p.661)
Virgin birth is obviously quite relevant to genealogy, and both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' genealogy in close proximity to the story.
It is NOT AT ALL "obvious" to me--esp. in the context of Jewish legal practice (but more on the genealogy issues later). The virgin birth passage in Is 7.14 is used STRICTLY as a messianic prophecy fulfillment, not as an argument over lineage or sinlessness or human nature (or any of the other things the church has tried to make it into!). The link with the genealogy is strictly 'locational'--in other words, one normally groups material about a common theme (e.g. background and birth) together in the same general literary 'location'. There are no explicit links, no alluded links, no theological links present in the text...to assert otherwise requires a least a little evidence.
Conclusion: When the linguistic, historical, literary, and cultural factors are considered in total...it looks messianic to me! ("If it LOOKS like a duck, and SOUNDS like a duck,...")
And, even in the Old Testament, there are passages which point to Christ, such as Psalms 110: 1, which when Jesus referenced to the Pharisees they were silenced, and ceased asking him questions. And of course Isaiah 53. But again, the Jews largely won't come to an understanding of who Jesus is until after the rapture of the church, when God's focus will shift from the church and back towards the Jewish people. A good passage indicating that is:
'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zechariah 12: 10
Last edited by mkh4JC; 11-23-2008 at 03:45 AM.
peace
Well, here we have a writer who believes that the sign was for Ahazthe sign was for Ahaz , in honor of his membership in "the house of David"
though the other commentator argued that the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David!!!
the sign was not given to Ahaz but to the House of David
well .just let's never mind.....
The writer argues:
IF (and ONLY IF!) HE STANDS FIRM IN FAITH, his kingdom will endure (otherwise, "NOT"). It is NOT an unconditional promise, but one DEPENDENT upon Ahaz' faithfulness.
You know what will be the consequences to accept the writer idea that such sign was conditional?
It leads to the conclusion ,that no sign had ever been offered ,in other words, there had never been a woman got pregnant,never delivered a boy,never reached his maturity,the 2 kings had never been killed !!!
....
As Ahaz hadn't respected the condition of the offer, then God cancelled the promise and never been materialized......
in other words the passage was not a prophecy ,it was a proposal of help aimed at a specific group of people, in a specific time. that has been refused and never been materialized ...
If so,I wonder why the writer of Matthew and those alike,keep repeating that it is a prophecy that Got fulfilled 700 years later?"!
But let's go further giving a hand to the argument ,the ( not local fulfilment ,BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee')prophecy ......
let's rewrite the text again:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
Now ,for those who wish the text to be like that, it is their duty to explain :
who are those two kings that such future Davidic monarch ,during Jesus' lifetime, was under their attack ?
Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?
False analogy !!The sign itself was NOT a 'historical present' kind of sign, but a 'future confirmation' sign, like that of Exodus 3:12--"And God said, 'I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.'". That it was to occur 'beyond' the present was obvious
Though it was a future confirmation but Isaiah has put a time limit to his prediction
(For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.)
"II Chronicles 28:1-6 clearly states that Ahaz was defeated by Syria and Israel, thus rendering the prophecy false. This makes Isaiah a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18:22. It is doubtful that we will be receiving prophecies from Yahweh through a false prophet. "
first :
Haven't you argued before that the proposal was conditional?! if so, then we have no false promise here, under your line of reasoning . Ahaz hadn't respected the condition of the offer, then God cancelled the promise and never been materialized.....
If the offer had never been materialized ,then who will ever bother himself for a fulfilment !!!
second: Here again, (as i showed in the last post),what was unfulfilled for the writer was fulfilled for other commentators:
5Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.
From Wikipedia
The Southern Kingdom of Israel, known as Judah, was loyal to Assyria and refused to join the coalition. Judah was ruled by King Ahaz. In 735 B.C. Syria, under Rezin, and Israel, under Pekah, attempted to depose Ahaz through an invasion. Judah was being defeated and, according to the exuberant imagination of 2 Chronicles, lost 120,000 troops in just one day. Many significant officials were killed, including the king's son. Many others were taken away as slaves. (Telling of the same battle, 2 Kings 16:5 mentions no casualties and states that Rezin and Pekah failed to defeat Ahaz.)
however, it should be noted that Assyria's role in the conflict was reported with different results in 2 Kings 16, where Ahaz also fared a little better than reported in 2 Chronicles 28. Nevertheless, these discrepancies in the two accounts are more of an embarrassment to bibliolaters than a benefit, because such variations in the Bible record place on inerrancy believers the added burden of trying to explain why "inspired writers" would give contradictory reports of the same events. (from the excellent booklet, PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by the Ex-christian missionary Farrell Till)
third: It is a sign of deception and dishonesty when someone ever find a failed prophecy ,and tries to fix the problem by mis-using it ,applying it to the wrong time and place...
It might be worth pointing out that even historical, non-messianic prophecies OFTEN reached BEYOND the lifetime of the specific historical 'addressee'. Even in this section of Isaiah, Ahaz is promised that "Within 65 years, Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people" (7.8)! Ahaz would never live long enough to see the fulfillment of that prophecy
But Ahaz would live long enough to see the land that he dreaded will be forsaken by both her kings.”
2Ki 16:9 And the king of Assyria, in answer to his request, went up against Damascus and took it, and took its people away as prisoners to Kir, and put Rezin to death.
2Ki 15:30 And Hoshea, the son of Elah, made a secret design against Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and, attacking him, put him to death and became king in his place
The sign was NOT an encouraging sign at all, but rather a sign of judgment.
the sign indeed was indeed, encouraging (if you have faith i will help you with anything you wish)
I dunno what kind of language could be more encouraging !!!
Verses 17-25 picture a devastated future--not deliverance from enemies!:
that is the best the writer can do,is to let the context and jump to Verses 17-25
anyway that is one of the funny parts in Isaiah:
There is yet a final absurdity to notice in this wonderful Messianic prophecy. With the Syrian-Israelite alliance posing a threat to Judah, Isaiah was sent to Ahaz to prophesy that the alliance would fail. After doing so, he said in his very next breath that Yahweh would bring the king of Assyria against Judah and that he would desolate the land (7:17-25). Imagine, if you can, the absolute absurdity of this. The prophet came, in effect, to say, "Don't worry; Syria and Samaria will not defeat you. Assyria will." What kind of consolation was that supposed to be? It was as if in our day the people of our country, fearing an attack from Russia, should be told by a prophet, "Fear not; Russia will not defeat you. China will." Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this "prophecy" a remarkable example of divine foresight. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.( PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till)[/B]
Now for God's sake why after rewriting the text adding all the names and the time range ,christians wish it to be,still the prophecy can't be fulfilled by Jesus ?!!!!
Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
dear fedos, If you find better expalnation , to such point ,bring it if not let's shift to another prophecy.....
let me know which prophecy you would like to discuss ...
peace
Last edited by Imam; 11-24-2008 at 12:37 PM.
Imam, Fedos,
I've become lost as to what the two of you are even debating. Neither proving or disproving Isaiah 7 as referring to a young woman or a virgin proves anything either way.
As I said long ago, it is possible for Isaiah to have meant one thing by it when he originally wrote it, and yet for others at a later time to interpret it and see it applied in a different way. Thus the "prophecy" might actually have more than one fulfillment, and it wouldn't violate either the Jewish or Christian understanding of the nature of prophecy in doing so. It seems to me that you are both barking up the wrong tree in trying to make this say exactly one thing. It need not at all. In this case, one interpretation does not preclude all others, which may or may not also be valid, but must be examined in their own right, independent of other interpretations.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks