by AlanF 63 Replies latest watchtower bible
For me the word "Christ" points to something far beyond all the stories, concepts, beliefs and ideas about itPerhaps then, with your focus and attention taken off of phenomenal stories, you would find within yourselves the "Kingdom",
Hi James,
Would you care to explain your feelings on this?
Gumby
Gumby wrote:
"Hi James, Would you care to explain your feelings on this?"
No problem Gumby, here are my feelings and observations.
Years ago, through much reading and study, it was noticed that throughout the ages there have been those who no matter what religious background or lack of one, or no matter what time period or geographical area, they all awoke to the same intrinsic unitive truth. They intimately and unequivocally realized the nature of the one Source and substratum of all existence. And they discovered it as the center and truth of their own being. We look around us and we see ourselves separate and apart from all else. Here is this tiny vulnerable little "me", and there is this great big frightening universe of not-"me". When there is awakening, enlightenment, realization or whatever word you want to use, the "me" identity drops away; with all it's story and fears, future, past and suffering. In the place of the tiny, frightened and confused belief of who-we-thought-ourselves-to-be, there is nothing, yet everything. No more separations. Infinite Oneness. The experience of this can not be explained as it is beyond the meaning for which words were created. This is what words like "God" and "Christ" point to. They are not fragments, persons, or players in a bigger universe -- as the carnal mind believes and imagines them to be. As long as we focus all attention outward into time and space, movement of phenomena, and our "life story", we miss the discovery of our True-being. Available now within if we have but eyes to see. No one is excluded. You can not be cut-off from Infinity. It can't be taught. There is nothing we need do to earn it. It's just about seeing, living and consciously being That, which we truly already are. JamesT
Newlight2 said:
: AlanF - you have made another posting mistake - your second in this thread (the first was pointed out to you by Farkel). I did not make the above statement which continues at great length. That was posted by "UnDisfellowshipped" and it is he/she that has consulted with a Christian friend. We are NOT the same poster.
: Please edit your post to reflect this mistake.
Sorry for the mixup. I have edited my post to correct my mistake. My excuse is that I produced my response over the course of a business day, with many natural interruptions, and seem to have mixed up the responses or you and UnDisfellowshipped.
Alanf
Gumby said:
May I interject something?
1.Undisfellowshipped..............cut your comments by two thirds if you can. When you get into a debate you say to much and present too much to read and you run people like myself away.
Isn't that an interesting statement to make! Please look over my posts and tell me if they contain any more text than AlanF's posts. (I know that the Albert Barnes comments I posted were really long, but I was simply copying what he wrote, in order to get some different viewpoints, and as I stated on that post, I do not necessarily agree with what he stated)
Which posts exactly are you talking about? It would be helpful to know which ones to "cut down on".
It's interesting that people now have to start criticizing how much text my comments contain, instead of the information in the posts.
You could have stated the same thing to AlanF (some of his posts contain just as much text and comments as mine), but instead you chose to make that comment to the person who doesn't agree with your beliefs.
No hard feelings though. I don't mind receiving criticism.
Gumby said:
BTW......Hows the re-search going boys on the documentation you are working so hard at looking up?
I'm not sure who you're talking to, or which "documentation" you're talking about. Please clarify.
Gumby said:
I did see a little progress was made concerning Horus and the Parallel. Good! Keep at it....there a whole lot more.
Did you read any of those Web Pages I posted which refute those claimed "connections" between Jesus and Horus?
Can you name any Encyclopedia that contains information on Horus which shows that Horus ever did any of those things which are supposed to be similar to Jesus?
So far, I have checked about 20 Encyclopedias and Egyptian Mythology Encyclopedias, and I have yet to find any of those links between Horus and Jesus.
Earlier in this Thread, AlanF stated: "it is not our problem to disprove them -- it is up to you believers to prove them."
I believe AlanF was basically saying that it is up to the person who claims that something is true to prove that it is true. And I agree wholeheartedly with that.
So, according to AlanF's reasoning, it is up to the person who claims there is evidence of a huge list of "links" between Jesus and Horus, to prove it, it is not up to Christians to disprove it (how can someone disprove evidence which they have not seen?), although those Web Pages I posted before certainly have done pretty good at refuting those "connections".
What if I were to tell you that there was definite evidence that Jesus was resurrected, but then, when you asked me show you where the definite evidence could be found, I refused to tell you? Would you believe that the evidence actually existed?
I most definitely will continue to research this subject.
Here are more Web Pages about Horus:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html
http://osiris.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/horus.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h/horus.asp
http://www.gods-heros-myth.com/egypt/horus.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mythology/horus_sun.html&edu=high
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/horus.htm
http://members.aol.com/egyptart/hormyth.html
http://www.britannica.com/seo/h/horus/
http://touregypt.net/b&fhorus.htm
http://www.osirisweb.com/egypt/horus.html
http://members.aol.com/egyptart/battle.html
http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/egyptian_god_horus.html
James
The experience of this can not be explained as it is beyond the meaning for which words were created.
I would have to agree with you on this James.....it can't be explained because so far......I can't follow you.I don't mean to criticize your comment.....I just don't understand it.
Undisfellowshipped,
I have seen your posts on the trinity debates and they were long with much copy and pasted info. My point was simply........you usually supply too much to read. I should not tell you how to speak....it's just discouraging to see a very long post unless EVERYTHING in the post is relevent to the discussion.
I am planning on working on a piece that supplies documentation on the things discussed. This info. is in books under the appendix with refrences on the many matters discussed but most people will not go to the trouble and a thread on the subject would be more benificial.
I am surprised you have not found more than what you have on proofs of these ancient religious beliefs.
I enjoy your intrest on the matter UD as well as being intrested on your reactions to these claims.......once you are convinced they are for real.
Talk at ya later....I'm off to work.
Gumby
UnDisfellowshipped said:
::: The Old Testament is one document. The New Testament is one document. They are two separate documents, however, combined they make up the one modern day book, the Bible.
:: So say the Christians.
: So, AlanF, are you trying to imply that the Old Testament was written by the same people who wrote the New Testament? Or that the Old Testament was written at the same time period as the New Testament?
This is a ridiculous comment. I'm perfectly aware of the supposed time of writing of all the various Bible books and the time when they were melded by the Catholic Church into a form that we today call "The Bible". Of course, this melding was and is challenged by the Protestant community. But this has nothing to do with my point.
: Just what are you trying to imply by saying "So say the Christians"?
It's rather obvious: that the statement, "combined they make up the one modern day book, the Bible", is open to challenge.
: AlanF said:
: In a following post Newlight2 said:
: Actually, you are now commenting on my post, not NewLight2's.
Quite right. I have corrected my mistaken reference to Newlight2 according to his instructions.
: AlanF said: [Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: . . .
: Let's see, where should I start:
The beginning is always a good choice.
: AlanF said: "Context doesn't allow it"
: You correctly stated that the LORD was comforting them with a message, however, the LORD had already given a comforting immediate promise BEFORE Isaiah 7:14, notice:
: Isaiah 7:5-8: Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
: Since the LORD had already given a comforting immediate prophecy ("It will not take place, it will not happen" and "Within sixty-five years..."), then why do you claim that Isaiah 7:14 must have been a prophecy with an immediate fulfillment?
Once again, because the CONTEXT requires it. Immediately after the verses you quoted, we find this (NWT) passage:
10 And Jehovah went on speaking some more to Ahaz, saying: 11 "Ask for yourself a sign from Jehovah your God, making it as deep as Sheol or making it high as the upper regions." 12 But Ahaz said: "I shall not ask, neither shall I put Jehovah to the test."
It is obvious to the point of imbecility to claim the contrary, namely, that Ahaz was not worried about events right then, in his immediate (like, within a few days) future, and that the reply to him was not in line with his request about the immediate future.
What did Isaiah then tell Ahaz to ask? "Ask for yourself a sign from Jehovah your God." Once again, it is OBVIOUS that the context is about the immediate future, not about some prophetic thing that might occur unknown hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
: Wouldn't a prophecy (given to the entire House of David, not only Ahaz) about the Messiah coming into the world, who was going to take away all of the faithful people's sins, have been comforting to the listeners of Isaiah?
Not particularly. Suppose you personally fall into a crime situation. A group of criminals captures your entire family and holds them hostage. They threaten to kill all of them unless your associates give them a lot of money. You are the only one in contact with the criminals, and so the burden of hostage negotiations falls on you. You negotiate, and the criminal refuses to budge. Then you inform the rest of your family that it's pretty likely that your captured family members will be killed. Of how much value would it be to your family members if you also announced that, 600 years hence, a great prophet would begin to release the world from its burden? And that in three or four thousand years, due to the efforts of this prophet, the world world be in perfect shape? It would be of no value at all! Your listeners are not concerned about theoretical happenings thousands of years in the future, but in events that affect them very soon, in their very own lifetimes.
: And wouldn't it have been comforting to hear the prophecy that within 65 years, those two kings would be no more, and that when the Messiah arrives, the land of those two kings would be forsaken?
65 years is a hell of a lot better than 4000!
: AlanF said: "They were not concerned about events hundreds of years in the future."
: All throughout the Bible, the Jews expected the Messiah SOON - they did not know that the Messiah wouldn't come to Earth for hundreds of years --
Nonsense. A number of sources (for example, the Watchtower) claim that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to appear 'any day now' for quite some time around the turn of the millennium.
: so Isaiah 7:14 would be a comforting reminder that the Messiah is coming to take away the sins of all faithful believers.
Which would be of zero comfort to the immediate needs of the Jews who were under attack.
: What is the main purpose of prophecy? It is to prove that only Yahweh (Jehovah) can foretell the future with accuracy -- hundreds of years in advance.
Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the fact that the passage in Isaiah 7 has an undeniable immediacy, and that contemporary readers would have seen this immediacy and hung their hopes on it for a delivery from their enemies in their own immediate future.
: Also, in Isaiah 8:3-4, it says: ...
: Isaiah 8:3-4 is definitely unquestionably an immediate prophecy because the prophecy states that it is.
Again irrelevant. The prophecy in Isaiah 7 stands on its own.
: I find it very interesting that Isaiah 7:14-16 does not mention when the child "Immanuel" was born, or who his parents were, however in Isaiah 8:3-4, which is a definite immediate prophecy, it does mention when the child was born, and who the child's parents were.
Well, there are plenty of prophecies like that, not only in the Bible, but in the writings of people like Nostradamus.
: If Isaiah 7:14-16 had an immediate fulfillment, how would the readers of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah's time know which child it was or when the child was born, because the Scriptures do not state this information? (There could have been more than one child called "Immanuel")
Exactly the same thing applies to the claimed circumstances of Jesus' birth, so your argument has no weight.
: And, if Isaiah 7:14-16 was already given as an immediate prophecy, why was it necessary to have a 2nd immediate prophecy, which is nearly identical, in Isaiah 8:3-4?
I didn't write that stuff, so I have no idea.
: Also, Isaiah 9:6-7 proves that Isaiah did indeed insert prophecies about hundreds of years in the future, in the middle of context in which he was speaking about current and immediate events -- in other words, "the context does allow it" because this is the writing style of Isaiah:
The fact that rather clear Messianic prophecies may exist in parts of Isaiah has nothing to do with Isaiah 7. By your logic, all prophecies that are fuzzy would be Messianic.
: Isaiah did the exact same thing in Isaiah 7:14-16 -- he gave a prophecy with a fulfillment hundreds of years in the future -- right in the middle of context which is describing current and immediate events -- the exact same as he did in Isaiah 9:6-7.
Pure speculating and special pleading. Any contemporary reader of Isaiah 7 would get no sense at all that it had anything beyond a fulfillment within a few years at most.
I appreciate your posting here, but do keep in mind that you're proving very nicely that special pleading is necessary to reconcile Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1.
AlanF
I wanted to apologize to UD for comment about his long posts.........I spoke before I read enough.
Gumby
The earlier comment by onacruse (below) set me to wondering how the LXX translators rendered almah and bethulah elsewhere in the OT.
I'm personally inclined to believe that the answer probably lies in the very nature of Hebrew thought and language. The apparent ambiguity of almah and bethulah is not at all unusual; it is rather the norm, especially in poetic, prophetic and proverbial writings. Perhaps Isaiah intentionally used almah, fully aware of its dual meaning, but thinking only of a "normal" birth in his day. Matthew, realizing the true import (after the fact), therefore has no problem accepting the LXX parthenos (which answers more correctly to bethulah than almah). However, this doesn't explain why the LXX uses parthenos, when other words like gune or paidiske were available to the translators.
The word almah means a young woman of marriageable age and is used seven times in the OT, namely at Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3 & 6:8 and Isaiah 7:14. In the LXX almah is translated with parthenos twice (Genesis 24:43; Isaiah 7:14), with a form of neotes, meaning a youthful female, once (Proverbs 30:19) and with various forms of neanis, meaning "young woman", four times (Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:25; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8). I find it interesting that the only place other than Isaiah 7:14 that parthenos is used to translate almah is where the reference (to Rebekah) is quite clearly to a virgin.
When parthenos is used in the LXX it is almost always translating the Hebrew word bethulah, usually meaning a virgin. There are three exceptions which are Isaiah 7:14, references to Rebekah in Genesis where it translates na'arah (Genesis 24:14, 55) and almah (Genesis 24:43), and reference to Dinah in Genesis 34:3 where it translates na'arah, meaning a young woman, twice. This passage is of particular interest because it refers to Dinah after Shechem had violated her and so while she was young and marriageable she was certainly no longer a virgin. Yet the translator used parthenos to describe her. So, in the space of ten chapters of Genesis parthenos is used four times to describe a virgin (Rebekah) and twice to describe a girl who had just been raped.
This suggests to me that at the time Genesis was translated parthenos had a very similar meaning to almah. I'm rather persuaded by the thought that "Isaiah intentionally used almah, fully aware of its dual meaning", and the Greek translators followed suit. By the time of Matthew it seems there was no longer any ambiguity attached to the word.
Earnest
Gumby said:
I wanted to apologize to UD for comment about his long posts.........I spoke before I read enough.
Gumby, I am the one who needs to apologize. I am very sorry about the way I overreacted to your comments. I hope you can forgive me for the way I reacted. When I posted my reply to you, I thought you were saying my posts in this Thread were too big.
Gumby said:
I have seen your posts on the trinity debates and they were long with much copy and pasted info. My point was simply........you usually supply too much to read. I should not tell you how to speak....it's just discouraging to see a very long post unless EVERYTHING in the post is relevent to the discussion.
I agree absolutely. On that Trinity Thread I posted way too big of posts, and I also included info that was not related to the Topic, and I can understand completely that it is hard to read so much text. I have tried to cut down the size of my posts since that Trinity Thread.
Gumby said:
I am planning on working on a piece that supplies documentation on the things discussed. This info. is in books under the appendix with refrences on the many matters discussed but most people will not go to the trouble and a thread on the subject would be more benificial.
Thank You! I look forward to reading that Thread.
Gumby said:
I am surprised you have not found more than what you have on proofs of these ancient religious beliefs.
So far, on the Websites I checked, they were always referring back to some Book which was where they got their info from, but the info I'm wanting is for example, documents or writings on walls that prove that the stories about Horus actually contain these "links" to the story of Jesus Christ.
Gumby said:
I enjoy your intrest on the matter UD as well as being intrested on your reactions to these claims.......once you are convinced they are for real.
Thank You for your comments Gumby, and I truly do apologize for the way I reacted, and I have absolutely no hard feelings toward you.
Also, I want to apologize to JamesThomas -- I did not realize that you had stated that you did not know whether or not those "links" were true. I thought you were presenting them as being true.
AlanF, I understand completely about posting a reply to the wrong person, I have done things like that quite often.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: So, AlanF, are you trying to imply that the Old Testament was written by the same people who wrote the New Testament? Or that the Old Testament was written at the same time period as the New Testament? [End of Quote]
This is a ridiculous comment. I'm perfectly aware of the supposed time of writing of all the various Bible books and the time when they were melded by the Catholic Church into a form that we today call "The Bible". Of course, this melding was and is challenged by the Protestant community. But this has nothing to do with my point.
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: Just what are you trying to imply by saying "So say the Christians"? [End of Quote]
It's rather obvious: that the statement, "combined they make up the one modern day book, the Bible", is open to challenge.
I apologize for that AlanF. I made a mistake. When you said "So say the Christians", I thought you were saying that in reference to the Old Testament and New Testament being separate documents. I can understand why you said that now.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: AlanF said: "Context doesn't allow it"
: You correctly stated that the LORD was comforting them with a message, however, the LORD had already given a comforting immediate promise BEFORE Isaiah 7:14, notice:
: Isaiah 7:5-8: Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
: Since the LORD had already given a comforting immediate prophecy ("It will not take place, it will not happen" and "Within sixty-five years..."), then why do you claim that Isaiah 7:14 must have been a prophecy with an immediate fulfillment? [End of Quote]
Once again, because the CONTEXT requires it. Immediately after the verses you quoted, we find this (NWT) passage:
10 And Jehovah went on speaking some more to Ahaz, saying: 11 "Ask for yourself a sign from Jehovah your God, making it as deep as Sheol or making it high as the upper regions." 12 But Ahaz said: "I shall not ask, neither shall I put Jehovah to the test."
It is obvious to the point of imbecility to claim the contrary, namely, that Ahaz was not worried about events right then, in his immediate (like, within a few days) future, and that the reply to him was not in line with his request about the immediate future.
What did Isaiah then tell Ahaz to ask? "Ask for yourself a sign from Jehovah your God." Once again, it is OBVIOUS that the context is about the immediate future, not about some prophetic thing that might occur unknown hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Well, as I showed before, Isaiah did things like this all the way through the Book of Isaiah.
The following Verses prove that Isaiah included prophecies about the Messiah coming hundreds of years in the future right in the middle of talking about current and immediate events:
Isaiah 9:6-7: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of Yahweh of Hosts will perform this.
Now, read the surrounding context, and it is talking about things that were current and immediate back then.
AlanF said:
...the passage in Isaiah 7 has an undeniable immediacy, and that contemporary readers would have seen this immediacy and hung their hopes on it for a delivery from their enemies in their own immediate future.
Let me ask you, wouldn't the contemporary readers of Isaiah 9:6-7 have thought that this was an immediate promise, especially since Isaiah said a "child is born to us"?
However, we know that Isaiah 9:6-7 were referring to the Messiah, because only the Messiah would be the Mighty God and Eternal Father.
So then, why would Isaiah have needed to prophesy about the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6-7, because it wouldn't be for hundreds of years until the Messiah shows up? There are two reasons:
1: To prove that God can foretell the future.
2: To comfort the faithful Jews.
So, then Isaiah 9:6-7 proves that (1) Isaiah, at various times in his Book, inserted prophecies about the Messiah right in the middle of talking about current and immediate events, and (2) even though Isaiah's contemporary readers would have thought that Isaiah 9:6-7 had an immediate fulfillment because of the wording, it was actually not fulfilled for hundreds of years in the future, and (3) the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7 was given for two reasons (a) to prove that God can foretell the future and (b) to comfort the faithful Jews.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: Wouldn't a prophecy (given to the entire House of David, not only Ahaz) about the Messiah coming into the world, who was going to take away all of the faithful people's sins, have been comforting to the listeners of Isaiah? [End of Quote]
Not particularly. Suppose you personally fall into a crime situation. A group of criminals captures your entire family and holds them hostage. They threaten to kill all of them unless your associates give them a lot of money. You are the only one in contact with the criminals, and so the burden of hostage negotiations falls on you. You negotiate, and the criminal refuses to budge. Then you inform the rest of your family that it's pretty likely that your captured family members will be killed. Of how much value would it be to your family members if you also announced that, 600 years hence, a great prophet would begin to release the world from its burden? And that in three or four thousand years, due to the efforts of this prophet, the world world be in perfect shape? It would be of no value at all! Your listeners are not concerned about theoretical happenings thousands of years in the future, but in events that affect them very soon, in their very own lifetimes.
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: so Isaiah 7:14 would be a comforting reminder that the Messiah is coming to take away the sins of all faithful believers. [End of Quote]
Which would be of zero comfort to the immediate needs of the Jews who were under attack.
I can see your point, however that example you gave is not entirely accurate.
First of all, God already told Ahaz that those two kings would definitely fail. That was an immediate promise.
And I personally believe that God's message in Isaiah 7:16 was basically saying:
"I am God Almighty, and I told you that those two kings would fail, and that within 65 years they will be no more, and I am going to come to Earth as Immanuel (God with us) and die for you, so do you think that I cannot protect you from these two kings? -- In fact before I come to Earth the land of those two kings shall have been forsaken!"
I could be wrong on that, but that's what I believe.
Whether or not someone believed in the Messiah, who was God not simply a Prophet, had immediate results -- it was the deciding factor on whether you went to Hell or Heaven for eternity. So, you are correct, the Jews were concerned about what would happen to them immediately, like when they die, and this was determined by whether or not they believed that the Messiah, Immanuel (God with us), was coming.
I'm going to post a different example:
Suppose you personally are condemned by God to spend eternity in Hell because of your sin. Suppose that there is absolutely no way that you can prevent this from happening by your own good works. Suppose that God the Son decides to provide a way for you to escape going to Hell, and He decides that He is going to come to Earth as the Messiah and die for your sins -- to pay the penalty for your sins. The only way to be saved from going to Hell was to believe that God the Messiah was coming to take away your sins. So, when God's people were afraid that they might be killed, God gave His people prophecies about the Messiah coming in order to comfort them with the fact that if they believe in Immanuel (God with us), they would not to go to Hell, and instead of going to Hell, they would go to Paradise when they die. What would be more comforting to you -- a prophecy that you will temporarily survive an immediate attack, or a prophecy assuring you that you will escape eternity in Hell and go to Paradise if you believe in the Messiah? Which one of those prophecies would have been more important? Isaiah's prophecy about Immanuel being born, would have reminded and comforted the faithful Jews with the fact that they would not go to Hell when they died, if they put their faith in Immanuel, who was going to come to Earth to take away their sins.
I know that I personally would have been much more comforted by the fact that I was going to go to Paradise and be with God forever and not go to Hell, than by the fact that I would temporarily survive an immediate attack.
You see, the Messiah's Sacrifice covered the sins of all people who believed in the Messiah -- past, present, and future -- so as long as the contemporaries of Isaiah believed that Immanuel was going to come to Earth and die for their sins, they would have been conforted by the fact that they were saved from going to Hell.
Also, why were the Prophets willing to risk their lives to prophesy for God? It was because they were not worried about their current temporary lives, instead they were concerned with their eternal lives. In the same way, when God gave prophecies in the Bible, He was primarily concerned with the people's eternal salvation, not their immediate temporary salvation.
Aside from Isaiah 9:6-7, below are other prophecies about the Messiah which were obviously given to comfort the faithful Jews, even though they would not live to see the actual fulfillment:
Isaiah 11:1-2: There shall come forth a Shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a Branch out of his roots shall bear fruit. The Spirit of Yahweh shall rest on Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh.
Isaiah 40:1-5: Comfort you, comfort you My people, says your God. Speak comfortably to Jerusalem; and cry to her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received of Yahweh's hand double for all her sins. The voice of one who cries, Prepare you in the wilderness the way of Yahweh; make level in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain: and the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken it.
Isaiah 40:9-10: You who tell Good News to Zion, go up on a high mountain; you who tell Good News to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with strength; lift it up, don't be afraid; say to the cities of Judah, Behold, your God! Behold, the Lord Yahweh will come as a Mighty One, and His arm will rule for Him: Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.
Isaiah 42:1-4: Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My Chosen, in whom My soul delights: I have put My Spirit on Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry, nor lift up His voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street. A bruised reed will He not break, and a dimly burning wick will He not quench: He will bring forth justice in truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged, until He has set justice in the Earth; and the isles shall wait for His Law.
The entire Chapter of Isaiah 53.
Isaiah 61:1-2: The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is on Me; because Yahweh has anointed Me to preach Good News to the humble; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of Yahweh's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;
AlanF said:[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: All throughout the Bible, the Jews expected the Messiah SOON - they did not know that the Messiah wouldn't come to Earth for hundreds of years -- [End of Quote]
Nonsense. A number of sources (for example, the Watchtower) claim that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to appear 'any day now' for quite some time around the turn of the millennium.
I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say -- it sounds like you and I were both saying the same thing, but I could be wrong.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: If Isaiah 7:14-16 had an immediate fulfillment, how would the readers of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah's time know which child it was or when the child was born, because the Scriptures do not state this information? (There could have been more than one child called "Immanuel") [End of Quote]
Exactly the same thing applies to the claimed circumstances of Jesus' birth, so your argument has no weight.
I agree with you on that. That argument of mine had no weight.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: Isaiah did the exact same thing in Isaiah 7:14-16 -- he gave a prophecy with a fulfillment hundreds of years in the future -- right in the middle of context which is describing current and immediate events -- the exact same as he did in Isaiah 9:6-7.
Pure speculating and special pleading. Any contemporary reader of Isaiah 7 would get no sense at all that it had anything beyond a fulfillment within a few years at most.
Well, AlanF, I could say the same thing about Isaiah 9:6:
Contemporary readers of Isaiah 9:6-7 would get no sense at all that it had anything beyond a fulfillment within a few decades at most, because Isaiah stated that "a child is born to us" (or "has been born" according to some Translations), so the contemporary readers would have thought that the Messiah had already been born, and that when He grew up in a few decades, He would take over God's Kingdom and rule forever. However, as it turned out, this prophecy was fulfilled hundreds of years later when the Messiah was born.
Also, here is another example:
Zechariah 9:9-10: Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King comes to you! He is Righteous, and having salvation; Lowly, and riding on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem; And the battle bow will be cut off; And He will speak peace to the nations: And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the Earth.
The contemporary readers of Zechariah 9:9-10 may very well have thought that the King Messiah had already appeared because of the wording, however, we know that this was fulfilled hundreds of years later. This prophecy was obviously given to comfort the faithful Jews.
AlanF said:
I appreciate your posting here, but do keep in mind that you're proving very nicely that special pleading is necessary to reconcile Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1.Thank You, I appreciate you posting here also, and I commend you for asking tough questions about the Bible. I agree that some of my reasoning was weak, but I am satisfied with my final arguments in this post.
