Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

the old virgin-mother immanuel bit? it's been popular on this baord recently. but it doesn't change the fact that the prophesy doesn't say virgin, is given to ahaz regarding assyria, is fulfilled a few chapters later, and for christsakes IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILD. the child is an indicator of time, a sign given, but not the prophesied event in itself. except for, you know, that whole exile thing. take this to the cursed lineage thread. that is exactly what it's about. however, i suspect that it's just a case of contradiction. no big deal. also:

quote:

---

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

---

i do like paul SOME of the time. except that solomon was king, not nathan. nathan is not in line for kingship, and would not have been unless solomon died before having an heir. and even then, by tradition, he'd be required to impregnate solomon's wife, and the child would be solomon's, not his. and he would be king, not nathan. so no, nathan is not a valid member in the line of kings.the line of kings also cannot pass through the mother, which is what this suggests. which isn't really a problems, since the luke indicates that heli was joseph's (or maybe even jesus's) father, but NOT mary's. STILL not a source to be trusted.

i'm fine with that. matthew makes mistakes all the time. i mean, he has jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals, just to fulfill misread prophesy. is that even possible? strangely, i have no problem with this. but i am not your typical christian. i wouldn't call them invented. no, he quotes actual texts, many of which we have. it's quite clear matthew was reading isaiah, and zechariah, and psalms. rather, it's just plain old fashioned error. he applies prophesy to improper context, or reads it wrong, or sometimes even reads non-prophetic stuff as being prophesy (psalms ≠ prophesy!)

Hi Mike, Their answer is as flawed as AiG’s.This thread is about the corruption of the OT, the other one is about Jesus cursed lineage, which is pointless as he doesn’t have David’s blood. Of course it satisfies you, it keeps your faith intact. I understand, good luck to you. You are free to be satisfied with this answer if you are truly satisfied, it’s cool with me. The curse thing is easily solved by reading the Bible and other Jewish literature.The simple answer is that the curse was lifted.In Haggai 2:21-23 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.This promise to make Zerubbabel ‘as a signet’ is obviously a reversal of the Jehoiakim situation where he was no longer to be a signet on God’s right hand.Jeremiah 22:24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence People who argue that God’s curse was to last forever have obviously forgotten about God’s power to forgive people who repent.God has obviously lifted the curse because in Haggai 2:21 we find that Zerubabbel was governor of Judah and in Jeremiah 22:30 God declares that Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Clearly, Zerubabbel has prospered, and he is ruling in Judah as governor.Jeremiah 22:20 also says that Jehoiakim was a man that ‘shall not prosper in his days’, yet we find this contradicted in 2 Kings 25:27-28: And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;
And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon .Jehoiakim obviously prospered in Babylon, thus indicating that God’s declaration that Jehoiakim would not prosper would be false, unless the curse had been lifted. Well, it is crystal clear that the bloodline goes through Solomon and you blindly deny this.But, as we will see, the suffering servant of Isaiah cannot be Jesus. But, is this what God actually said, or does it mean that Jehoiakim’s seed should not prosper and sit on the throne during Jehoiakim’s days? This is not what has caused the problem, the problem was caused by the author of Matthew’s misunderstanding Isaiah 7:14. Which is nonsense, the curse obviously had to have been lifted or Zerubabbel would not have propsepred and God would not have *CHOSEN* him. No matter how many times an apologist blindly accepts this trash it simply is not true. Read 1 Chronicles 22:9-10: Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.

​

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. How explicit a text do you need before you realise that these people are corrupting the Bible?Where in the Bible does it say that Nathan’s line is eligible? But, adoption DOES NOT legally entitle you to inherit the throne. Adopting does not make you of your father’s blood and Numbers 1:18 tells us that bloodlines only pass through the father. And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls If a Levite adopts a Benjamite, this doesn’t make the adopted child a Levite, the child does not have Levite blood, which is required. Again, contrary to scripture. Avoid Its Garbage.Burying you head in the sand and pretending that these problems do not exist is fine Mike, but forgive us lesser beings for being a little more inquisitive.Take care.Brian

Brian, did Jesus sit on a throne? Did he come with pomp? Did he force out the sinful?I hear what you say Brian, but do you hear me?I can't pay much attention to this philosophy of yours, as being that important. For me, the person who suffered for our sin, born of a virgin - called Emmanuelle, a light to the Gentiles - and to speak n riddles, outweighs what you're saying.Maybe you didn't read the thread in which I succesfully shown that Isaiah indeed spoke of Christ.And so to listen to you would be to deny the rest of the scripture - but since Isaiah deals with blindness, and God cannot be located - then to my theology it just isn't that important. Maybe I should have explained more but you wanted to deal with one scripture. Yet Christ didn't sit on a throne - come with pomp. What did the NT establish? Was it not concerned with adoption? That those children of faith in Christ - are children of Abraham.Now Brian, don't get frustrated, and realize my major premise;Mike believes Christ is the Messiah, the son of God.you cannot convince me otherwise with a few verses. Even if it did mean Solomon, that just means it didn't speak of the Messiah (which is just as much as a logical conclusion if not more so). I've shown that those other MAIN Messianic prophecies we talk of so much - wouldn't pertain to Solomon.And you say the Messiah can be anyone in the bloodline. Well now that's a strange theology to me. Are you saying there are many Messiahs?We say there is one - and I and others have shown that only Christ is the candidate - as there has been no one else. These are just facts.The refusal to observe the obviousness of the Isaiah quote alone, I quoted in this thread - is a denial and a blindness Isaiah spoke of.Crashfrog; PS. It may look like I'm not listening Brian. Sorry if it appears that way - there's more to it than that. You just can't see.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 12:18 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 12:20 AM

If you will not even consider proposals contrary to your beliefs, then why are we having this debate? I outlined how you could support your position, mike. At the moment, you are just shouting about how nothing can change your belief in Christ as the Messiah, and not even making the attempt. In short, you're doing a very poor job of convincing people, myself included - and I have no prior knowledge of any of this stuff, and no emotional bias one way or another.Why should this be difficult? The prophesy seems to state that the Messiah will be "of the body" of David. Therefore, these are your options:1) The prophesy does not refer to Jesus.
2) The phrase "of the body" is metaphorical.
3) Mary is of Davidic descent, and hence Jesus is too.Seeing as option (4) - Jesus is not the son of God, but of Joseph - is out of the question, we will leave it aside.C'mon, mike, I know nothing about the bible. These are only my conclusions from reading yours and Brian's posts in this thread. Are you so close-minded that you will not even consider any of the options above?Waiting on your reply...The Rockhound

I suspect the AIG quote shows how God could keep his promise, yet he could still keep it symbolically if not literally. I've shown many instances of this. For example - Abraham's children, his seed, could also be looked at literally. Yet the NT says we are children to Abraham, if we have faith in Christ.If it's 1, then it's still possible it doesn't refer to the Messiah, because of all those other scriptures that pertain to Jesus, If it's 2, then I also have no problem. If it's 3, then again - quite possible, and hard to disprove.Since the conclusion is that I have no problem, whether it is 1, 2 or 3 - why take any position? Is it not more logical/objective to say that they are all possibilities - and therefore end the debate. I said I'd bow out Irish - but you guys still seek me to take a position or three. Didn't I take up those three positions in this thread anyway? I think I took all three if you read through Irish.But strictly logically, if it doesn't refer to Jesus - that doesn't mean Jesus isn't the Messiah. It could also mean that it was a person. Does it say anywhere that Samuel MUST be referring to the Messiah? Please quote where it says this. But again - the only other logical option, is that Solomon was to whom it referred, and we can rule him out as Messiah - because he wasn't a light to the Gentiles, nor suffered for our sins, nor born of a virgin, nor speaking in riddles, nor....nor....nor.....nor... Eventually - it just seems more logical to say that either God fulfilled this symbolically - or literally, in a a way we cannot know - through Christ, OR - it was Solomon, and didn't refer to the Messiah.Have you considered these logical pathways?You see Rockertankski - why have you a problem with mike? When he considers all these things?Don't you know that Brian only allows one logical conclusion - that Jesus isn't the Messiah. I fail to see how I have been unfair here.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-10-2005 13:29 AM

The Suffering Servant mentioned in Isaiah has wrongfully been identified by certain Christians (not all) with an individual person, namely Jesus.But, on closer inspection, we can see that Isaiah’s Suffering Servant is not an individual at all, but the personification of a remnant of Israel.**In Judaism, Isaiah 53 is NOT viewed as a messianic prophecy.**To understand the context of Isaiah 53 it should be noted that this is only a small part of one of four servant songs that can be found in Isaiah.The four songs can be found in Isaiah 42:1-4, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, and Isaiah 52:13-53:12.We can see that the song in which Mike’s quote can be found actually begins at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at 53:12. So, it would be a good idea to read the entire song to understand the context of the partial quote.Servant Song 52:13-53:12 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

​

As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

​

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

​

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 plant, 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 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 for 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.If we go back to the beginning of Isaiah 521:12, we can understand the context of the Servant songs. Isaiah 52
Awake, awake, O Zion, clothe yourself with strength. Put on your garments of splendour, O Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again. Shake off your dust; rise up, sit enthroned, O Jerusalem. Free yourself from the chains on your neck, O captive Daughter of Zion.

​

For this is what the LORD says: "You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed." For this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

​

"At first my people went down to Egypt to live; lately, Assyria has oppressed them.

​

"And now what do I have here?" declares the LORD .

​

"For my people have been taken away for nothing, and those who rule them mock," declares the LORD . "And all day long my name is constantly blasphemed. Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I."

​

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion,

​

"Your God reigns!"

​

Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices; together they shout for joy. When the LORD returns to Zion, they will see it with their own eyes. Burst into songs of joy together, you ruins of Jerusalem, for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God.

​

Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing! Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the vessels of the LORD . But you will not leave in haste or go in flight; for the LORD will go before you, the God of Israel will be your rear guard. This reference speaks about Israel and not an individual. Israel has been oppressed by Assyria, and sold for nothing and their rulers mock them. But God has declared that things are going to improve for the Israelites, in fact, the LORD will deliver Israel into a better future as He shows his salvation to the ends of the earth.Keep in mind that the next line is 52:13, the beginning of the servant song referred to by Mike. But, of course, the Hebrew texts do not have the chapter and verse divisions and this Song is still speaking of the persecution that Israel has been under, and the promise of deliverance. It does not just suddenly jump forward to speak of some future messiah, neither does it just start referring to another event, it is referring to the oppression of Israel, who is God’s servant:Isaiah 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.The ‘he’ of Isaiah 53 is a personification of Israel, it does not speak of an individual.Look at 53:3: He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: What nation has been more despised and rejected throughout history than Israel? Although Jesus was said to be despised and rejected, he still was loved by many others at the same time. He was followed by huge crowds of people, people even grieved at his execution, he was NOT despised and rejected of men, there was never a time when he was rejected by all.In 53:7: He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter This, again is obviously talking of the nation of Israel. Isaiah 52:4 Assyria has oppressed them.‘Yet he did not open his mouth’ when being oppressed and afflicted! Jesus hardly shut up for a minute during his alleged oppression and affliction.In John 18:22-23 for example And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Jesus also chattered away on the cross, so he can hardly be compared to the suffering servant.‘Like a lamb to the slaughter’ has been likened to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross but Israel has been described as such in Psalm 44:22 Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. .Isaiah 53:9 because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.How can anyone convince themselves that Jesus had done no violence?Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves Jesus’ tantrum at the Temple is well-known; he certainly was violent on this occasion, so how can this be the servant of Isaiah 53?There are other facts from Isaiah that negate the possibility that the servant is Jesus, but two facts stand out above all others. First, the servant ‘shall see his seed, and ‘he shall prolong his days’ (53:10).The Hebrew word for ‘seed’ is ‘zera’ and always refers to children who are direct offspring, and, as we know, Jesus never had any children.Finally, ‘he shall prolong his days’ cannot apply to Jesus as he died relatively young, in his early 30’s. Christians usually counter this by saying that Jesus is eternal, but this has problems. Firstly, how can an eternal being prolong his days to beyond eternity? Secondly, To begin with, the Hebrew words ya’arich yamim (long life) in this verse do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in Tanach to anyone who is to live forever. In fact, the words ya’arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one. When the Jewish scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words used are l’chayai olam. Therefore, read in context, it is obvious that the Suffering Servant refers to the remnants of Israel, and in no way can it be referring to Jesus or any individual at all.Mike says that But I have read Isaiah, and am convinced it prophecizes Christ. Only blinding my eyes could change that. We don’t have to blind your eyes Mike, but you certainly need to open them.Jesus’ batting average in the messianic championship is not very good.Brian.

Behold, MY SERVANT shall deal prudently, HE shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.As many were astonied at thee; His visage was so marred more than any man, and HIS form more than the sons of men:For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant-- Brian, it takes a HUGE double standard - for you to take literally, the verses in Samuel about the body - as literal, and now tell us; I urge anyone to read THE WHOLE CHAPTER, and think if the individual being described - sounds like someone they've heard of before. As can be seen - in those few versus alone, it is extremely obvious that the servant is a person, referred to as "he". Someone who will grow etc...and I could go on throughout pointing to more such instances.So indeed - read the whole book, like I did in my previous battle with Shraff.Brian, Very knowledgeable post, and I say well done for that - that fact is not in question. But the sheer obviousness of who these passages refer to, simply cannot be removed by any sayings or even a good knowledge. I suppose politics might convince the few, but really - the obviousness of these words pertaining to Christ, just cannot be removed. You really would need Crash's hot poker.It's just far too much of a stretch of the imagination, to take all of this as meaning Israel, but insist on the verses of Samuel as literal.-It just seems your position can adapt and change to meet the conclusion that it can't be Christ, because it is your atheist position, and mindset - that it CANNOT and MUST NOT refer to him.It's far more logical to simply agree that the OT and NT correlate - but that the NT was written by a man looking at the OT. I would atleast understand that position a lot more Brian. Because I think even many unbelievers can notice how the suffering servant is describing Christ.I urge unbelievers to not ignore the voice in the back of their head that really is saying, "wow - that does sound like Christ"..It may seem the wrong and un-atheistic conclusion to make, but if you're objective, you should listen to it.(Brian - gotta go, really - don't bother with me anymore, I took part in this Isaiah debate in a very long topic I made called "dear fellow christian - judge not lest you be judged"). And that was a while back - and you won't believe hos stubborn I am about this one.

Hi Mike, No probs mate.See you some other time Brian.

Brian, you really should not irritate Mike so much! You are a teacher, after all! And who is the opposing team to our good friend, Jesus? True that there is a remnant who loves Him. He is rejected certainly by many humanist scholars who see an average historical figure and not God incarnate. There appear to be two types of people described. Those who love Him and those who despise Him. Oh really? I suppose that you have somewhat of a clever theory. Yet Israel has not been despised and rejected by ALL! Some people stand in support of Israel, and it infuriates many. Yet I don't see where Israel shuts up. So we see that those against Israel won't shut up. What about Israel? hmmmmm Sure sounds like Israel is doing everything BUT shutting up!Thus, a case can be made that the scripture could be referring to a leader of Israel just as surely as Israel, itself. Now....this LORD must surely be a person. It seems that way. We are talking religion, are we not? If you have a temple and you are worshipping, you don't want panhandlers in the forum! None of them were personally hurt. They were just put in check. Sounds like Jesus took their lack of respect rather personal, does it not? And why does this refer to Israel, again?

The laddie doesn’t know the game yet. The true Messiah of course, the one that will be a descendant of David, deliver Israel from her oppressors, who will have a long life and see his children. People have always loved Jesus, there never was a time when he was totally rejected.I don’t think anyone nowadays despises Jesus, certainly no humanist scholar that I know despises him, they just don’t see him as being a god. He had some good attributes, but he was known for plagiarising other people’s material. There have also been many more people who have suffered a lot more than Jesus did. So his contributions to humanity have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, it is called reading the text in context and not selecting little bits and pieces that you think supports your case. It is not difficult, just think for yourself and stay away from AiG. Israel has been rejected by all on several occasions throughout her history, who came to Israel’s assistance during the Judges period? The text is talking about a time when Israel was rejected (or felt they had been) and would be liberated by God in the future. I don’t see where Israel speaks? The blasphemy is not said to be spoken by Israel.Isa 52:5-"For my people have been taken away for nothing, and those who rule them mock," declares the LORD.
"And all day long my name is constantly blasphemed.Where does it say that Israel responds?Isa 52:7-8= How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!"
Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices;
together they shout for joy. This is after they have been saved by God, it is not during the time of affliction and oppression. They proclaim that they have been saved and sing for joy. In the Old Testament, every time that you see ‘LORD’ in capitals it refers to YAWHEH. How do you know none of them were hurt, and how does someone have to be hurt to qualify an incident as violent, or that someone’s behaviour is violent? Yes he took it personal and had a violent tantrum. Remind me again what personification is.Remind me again how old Jesus was when he died, and how many children he had.It takes some real mental contortions to see Jesus in Isaiah 53 Phat, but that’s the beauty of self fulfilling prophecy, you will see just exactly what you think you will see.Brian.

If you take each and every 'prophecy' that alledgely fortells Jesus, and look at it in CONTEXT, you will find that IN CONTEXT it does not fortell Jesus.You just can't discuss them all at the same time.Right now, the so called 'virgin birth' is the subject. Isaiah 7:14 is not a messanic prophecy.. since it was a sign to King Ahaz.. and in fact, Almah (the reference to teh woman in Isaiah 7:14) does not mean virgin.

Well, you seem to be just dismissing any arguement that trys to run counter to your belief.That doesn't sound rational to me.After we beat this passage to death, how about pointing us to what you consider a real hard piece of prophecy that definately shows Jesus.. and we can anaylyse that to death too.

Well, it doesn't describe Christ. And, from the point of Isaiah, it doesn't matter what Peter says either.That particular passage was an allegory talking about the nation of Israel.Indeed, if you look the passages before that, Isaiah specfically says that Israel is the servant. In Isaiah's eyes, the sins of the people of Israel were causing the Nation of Israel to suffer.Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10)

Although Chrisitans have compared Isaiah 53 to be Christ.. however, the passage also says 'Years will be added to his life', and therefore even IF Isaiah 53 was talking about a messiah, the fact that Jesus did not have years added to his life excludes him from being the suffering servent in Isaiah 53.