|
Author
|
Topic: Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Ahaz son was called by a different name, but agree that this is about the binding of this prophecy, so it would become a stumbling to the nation of Israel. the prophesy is refering to isaiah's son, not ahaz's.
Jesus Christ is being called Emmanuel by Christians every time they say they are one one in Christ. no.... ? it mean's "god is with us" as in "god is on our side, we're gonna win" not "we'll be with god in heaven one day because his son used to live here."
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 122 of 206 (175172)
01-09-2005 7:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Brian
01-09-2005 7:08 AM
|
|
Re: Believe on His Name
yeah, that's right. i wasn't sure on the third, but i knew there were at least two.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Brian, posted 01-09-2005 7:08 AM | | Brian has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: A Bible of His Own
Unfortunately, Tom has not progressed at all in this discussion. He seems to prefer his own version of the OT, as opposed to, that which God inspired the OT authors to write. the irony kills me!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2005 2:54 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Arachnophilia, It appears were in agreement kjv Deu 4:2 with that were not to add or take away from Gods Word. Jesus sent his angel to John his servant the Words of the Book of Revelation, and this too was not to be added or taken away from kjv Revelation 22:18-19. no, we are not in agreement at all. deuteronomy was written several hundred years, maybe even more than a thousand, before revelation. revelation would be an addition. to even have revelation in the bible breaks this commandment in deuteronomy. get it yet?
This all does support that God is Preserving his Word to all generations. i've seen enough editting, contradictions, translations errors and hell even typos in the bible for me to know, point of fact, that god's word is not being preserved accurately. and please, PLEASE stop preaching. i'm familiar with you bible-quoting types, as i have been a christian myself for a long time. 99% of the time they are distortions and out of context, as this thread has demonstrated. and in case you haven't noticed, i can out-quote a good percentage of this board. for example:
kjv Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. quote:
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
do you think god was speaking in a technicality, and he'll destroy the earth by other means, or do you think god is promising not to kill us all ever again?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
The prophecy was referring to the House of David, not Isaiahs son, or ahaz son but indirectly Jesus through Joesph was ahaz son. "house of david" is a title meaning king, since kings were all sons of david. when isaiah says "house of david" and directs the prophesy to this person, in a conversation with ahaz, who is a son of david, in david's house, it's not a huge jump to think that "house of david" refers to the person in the room is of the house of david. it is however a jump to think it refers to jesus, especially if you think the prophesy delivered is about the coming of jesus. not only are both WRONG, but they are contradictory.
Nathan the prophet. as absalom pointed out, wrong nathan.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2005 11:59 AM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Read John chapter 17 about the Son and the Father and the Christian believer being one, and to be with the Son to behold his glory and to be where he is. kjv john 17:24 read carefully the commandment about having no other gods, and the other mentions of "sons of god." i think you'll find that worship of a son of god is idolatry. and, uh, don't tell me what christians believe. i'm a christian, and i don't believe that. in fact, i don't believe ANY of the book of john, because i find it to be blasphemous in ways similar to those above.
kjv 2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: quote:
Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God
is god absent? doesn't "immanuel" means that god is with us?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Its Gods Words not mans words, Jesus said my Words will never pass away kjv matthew 24:35. Jesus is God the Word come in the flesh John chapter 1. yes, but revelation was still written, BY A MAN named john, several hundred years, maybe a thousand, after deuteronomy. whether or not john is word for word exactly dictated by god to john, it was still added to the text.
Its saying he will not again destroy the earth by a flood i see, so god's tricky, is he? speaking in technicality?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2005 9:22 AM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Arachnophilia, Immanuel means God is with us. Emmanuel too means God with us. they'd better mean the same thing, considering one is a misspelling of the other.
I agree you should never worship a man. Jesus however is God with us. if jesus wasn't a man, how did he die? part of the requirements of christian dogma is that jesus christ is god in the form of man -- which blatantly defies the first commandment. and no, christ was not immanuel. as stated so many times in this thread alone, that prophesy was given to ahaz, and was fulfilled the very next chapter of isaiah. it has nothing to do with jesus, and the name DOES NOT mean that bearer IS god.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Believe on His Name
Arachnophilia, As a christian were to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ. THE christ or A christ? david, and every other king of judah (and israel), was annointed: a christ.
Given Jesus is Christ (Emmanuel) the two are not synonymous, and it's not a given. immanuel was the name of a HUMAN child, signifying that god was on the side of judah. he was not annointed, was not a messiah, and was not king. not a christ by any defition.
his testimony he gave to his servant John is the Words of the Lord. why does john fail to line up with the other gospels then? why by the mosaic standards is christ blasphemous in john?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 2:06 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 171 of 206 (331238)
07-12-2006 5:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by ramoss
07-12-2006 2:27 PM
|
|
Re: Cursed Lineage
The oldest text is NOT the septiguant. sorry ramoss, but it is. the septuagint is the oldest text we actually have, dating to about 200 bc. the masoretic dates to about 200 ad, and the dead sea scrolls are somewhere in between.
The septigaunt is a greek translation yes, and it's an odd quirk of history that the oldest version we have of the bible is a translation. strictly speaking, of course, the masoretic (biblical hebrew) is also a translation from the (absent) anciest hebrew and aramaic sources.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 2:27 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
wrong line of kings
One lineage stands for humanity from Adam and Eve and fulfills one prophecy while the other one stands for the Royal descent from King David and fulfills yet another prophecy. aside from the fact that this rather illogical (you can't be king unless you're actually in the royal family through the patriarchal line), there's an even bigger problem. matthew's genealogy correct leaves out the cursed king, but curiously includes his de-throned son. the line of kings, right before exile, actually backtacks -- so from josiah down, matthew has the wrong lineage. the line goes through josiah's THIRD son, zedekiah, not his second, jehoiakim and his son, jeconiah. no son of jeconiah can be king of judah. for a more extensive argument, see this post, which includes a lot of scriptural backup. Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Virgin Birth ( Messias means the Christ)
these have been done in this thread before. i suggest you look back a few pages.
Jesus said he was the "son of man" because his biological father was not God "son of man" means "lowly mortal" and is used in contrast to "god." see just about any verse in ezekiel, where god is speaking to the prophet.
John's Gospel says the Father sent his *only* begotten Son yet clearly there are examples of other sons of god in the text.
thus Emmanuel (The Word) immanuel means "god is with us." it was the name of a child to be delivered as a sign to king ahaz that he would fend off the assyrians. the pregnant girl ( not "virgin" in hebrew) was evidently in the room at the time isaiah made such a prophecy. the child's age was to be a marker for the time it would take to fulfill the prophecy -- but the child was not the prophecy itself. beating the assyrians was. see isaiah 7 -- and actually read all of it. "the word" probably comes from an aramaic name for god.
The Word says the Word was with God and was God. ....
The Question! Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? "christ" means king. the gospel of matthew denies that jesus was king in two ways: first, it places him under a cursed line of kings (no kings shall come from jeconiah), and second, it never has him sit on the throne of judah. perhaps he will someday, but you cannot someone who is not king "king."
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Virgin Birth ( Messias means the Christ)
Joesph was not the biological father of Jesus yet by Jewish Laws was the legal father of Jesus because of his marriage to Mary. royal lines don't work that way. you have to actually be related, not just adopted.
Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David through Joesph. see above. according to matthew, joseph is a son of jeconiah, and therefore not in the royal line anyways. that's what this cursed line thread is about it.
He is also of the bloodline of David through Mary. irrelevant to royalty.
John A Davidson mentioned in a different thread that the female frog egg can become a male without sperm. jesus was french?
supporting verses: 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? Isaiah chapter 7 Therefore the Lord himself shall give ***you**** a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah chapter 7 please, go back and actually read isaiah 7 again. isaiah gives king ahaz a prophecy, that he will defeat the assyrians, and tells ahaz to ask god for a sign. ahaz says "no, i know better than to test god." and so isaiah gives ahaz a specific sign. the girl will concieve, and bear a son, and his name will be immanuel. when immanuel is about 13, the prophecy will come true: ahaz will defeat the assyrians. pay attention to the wording and grammar:
quote:
—, — ‘ ha-almah harah v'yoledit ben THE-girl concieves/concieved/will-concieve, and-bears son the girl is pregnant, and will bear a son
you do not say "ha-" anything in hebrew unless you're referring to something specific. in this case, it strongly indicates that the woman was in the room, or was someone that both ahaz and isaiah knew. isaiah's wife is a good candidate. also, in verse 13, ‘ (bayit david) is an idiom for "king" and refers to ahaz, and is in direct reply to what ahaz said the verse before.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2006 7:57 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2