Posted on 09/12/2010 6:54:56 PM PDT by Islander7
As long as you don’t deny that it’s an unexplained internal contradiction.
So because you THINK it’s a contradiction, and I don’t know the answer off the top of my head, that means it MUST be a contradiction? Nonsense. Of course I deny it. But, then, I don’t need to have everything proved to me, either.
Isiah 7:14 is clear. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Fact is, instead, a married woman had a baby and called him Jesus. Years later, people decided that she "must have been" a virgin (though there's no reason to think so, as she was married and traveling with her husband) and that Immanuel "must have meant" a nickname of some sort.
This is called "denial."
So now you're not only saying that there's a contradiction in Isaiah, but that the opening portions of the Gospels are made up. Wow.
The interesting thing about the Bible is that it's either all true, or it's all lies. You seem to believe the latter.
But it's been 2000 years and I assure you, they've all tasted death. The fact is, Jesus was just a charismatic man who had a following, and after he died ... they just couldn't let it go.
Your reply is 100% wrong. Wrong on all points.
As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Do you even know the language the Jewish scriptures were written in? Here’s a clue: It wasn’t English.
Just one simple example of how wrong you are: If you can provide evidence that she ever, even one time, called him Jesus, then you might have some credibility for the content of your reply. Start there if you want to prove your case.
There are many names given to Jesus using the phrase “He shall be called,” both in the Old and New Testaments. This was a common way of saying that people would refer to Him in these various ways. Isaiah prophesied of the Messiah, “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). None of these titles was Jesus’ actual name, but these were descriptions people would use to refer to Him forever. Luke tells us Jesus “shall be called the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32) and “son of God” (1:35) and “the prophet of the Highest” (1:76), but none of these was His name.
In two different places, the prophet Jeremiah says in referring to the coming Messiah, “And this is His name by which He shall be called, JEHOVAH, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:15-16). Now we know that God, the Father, is named Jehovah. Jesus was never actually called Jehovah as though it was His name, but His role was that of bringing the righteousness of Jehovah to those who would believe in Him, exchanging that righteousness for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Therefore, this is one of the many titles or “names” which belong to Him.
In the same way, to say that Jesus would be called "Immanuel" means Jesus is God and that He dwelt among us in His incarnation and that He is always with us. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus was God making His dwelling among us (John 1:1,14). No, Jesus' name was not Immanuel, but Jesus was the meaning of Immanuel, "God with us." Immanuel is one of the many titles for Jesus, a description of who He is.
From here: Click here.
It is a good answer. Hope that helps.
If you really believe that, then I feel bad for you, and I hope that you can see beyond what you see now.
Isiah said a virgin would have a son, Immanuel. Instead, a married woman had a son, Jesus. He grew up to have a cult following. Then he was killed, but later some of his disciples reported Elvis-like sightings of him, and claimed to have been told that he would come again in their lifetime. But of course, he didn't.
You know, instead of looking for answers to life in a book from the Middle East (the craziest section of the planet) try looking around you at the actual world.
So you decided to NOT back up your opinions with any evidence whatsoever.
That’s your choice, but it doesn’t convince anyone.
You can link some scholarly argument wherein "this doesn't really mean named, it means called, and in that language this means that or it can mean that so REALLY blah blah blah," but it's no different than scholars jockeying around to prove global warming or nullify the 2nd amendment.
With people like you, the Old Testament could say BLUE and the new say RED but because you need to believe, you'll say "Well, blue and red are very near each other on the color wheel and in some parts of the country at that time, R and B were interchangable and the D was silent until a couple years later so REALLY.... blah blah blah.
He was a nut like David Koresh, his followers were the type David Koresh's usually pick up, and they were all from the same part of the world that gave us the Quran. Wise up. I'm going out.
Your continued use of inflammatory language convinces me that you have no interest in having a debate. Also, your lack of knowledge in this area appears to be extremely wide and deep.
You apparently think Yeshua’s mother spoke English or Spanish, calling him Jesus, rather than his Hebrew name.
You don’t seem to be aware that the book of Isaiah is a prophetic book. Instead, you seem to think it’s a history book or something. Good grief.
You seem to have no knowledge or understanding of Hebrew idioms, or Hebrew teaching of prophecy.
I therefore conclude it would be a waste of time to continue discussing this with you. You know very little, and from what you’ve posted, I suspect you read a book or maybe an online opinion piece, and are merely parroting what some other atheist claims about the Bible, rather than doing your own research.
So, what I take away from this long read is:
Mohammad (may he burn in Hell forever) nailed a 9 year old when he was 53. And this don’t make him a total pervert?
Secondly-Obama was born to a Muzzie father. Obama was born and at least early on, raised as a good little raghead. Now he claims to be a Christian? That makes him an Apostate in their eyes.Which carries a severe penalty. Or he is practicing Taqiyya and lying to everyone?
Time to play “Crusades” again...
Most Muslims asked believe it is the latter.
Also, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”.
You look for answers to life in an old book, tinkered with by who knows how many authors. What more is there to say? But hey, if you want to believe, go right ahead. Christians are far less objectionable than Muslims. It's about as useful as astrology but at least you guys don't blow things up. Have at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.