Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 202 (293796)
03-09-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rawel Singh
03-09-2006 9:36 PM


Hint
To respond to a particular message, use the LGB (Little Green Button) labeled reply at the bottom right of each message. That will thread the messages so readers can follow a converstaion. It also will notify the other person that you have replied if they have notification turned on.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 135 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 9:36 PM Rawel Singh has not replied

      
    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 137 of 202 (293801)
    03-09-2006 10:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 135 by Rawel Singh
    03-09-2006 9:36 PM


    Re: wrong jesus as well as No Way at 132
    Hi again, Rawel. (I welcome you also to EvC, btw.) You need to respond to my points as to why Muhammed does not fit the Deuteronomy prophecy. Can you refute my points as to why he doesn't fit that text?
    Abe: Don't forget, as AdminJar says, to hit the reply button below this message to reapond.
    This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-09-2006 10:16 PM

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 135 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 9:36 PM Rawel Singh has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 138 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-10-2006 9:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    Rawel Singh
    Inactive Member


    Message 138 of 202 (293910)
    03-10-2006 9:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
    03-09-2006 10:11 PM


    Re: wrong jesus as well as No Way at 132
    Thanks. To know if and why Mohammad fits the prophecy one must read the Quran. I have. Throughout that scripture there is not a word except what God is telling Mohammad. This is a one way communication from God to Mohammed, sometimes addressed to the Prophet and sometimes to the people, believers and non-believers. There is not a word about praise of any one else. This is a step ahead of the parts of the Old Testament where there is two way dialogue between God and Moses and earlier Abraham or others.The contents of the Quran are such as if God is Talking using the Prophet's voice. So Prophet Mohammad fits in fully with the Deuteronomy 18:18. For the sake of interest you may compare this with the Gospels in the Bible wherein the only direct word of God seems to be when God says about Jesus, e.g. "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17), that means only to certify Jesus as the anointed one. I will endeavor to carry this dialogue forward if there is tangible response. God Bless!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2006 10:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    Rawel Singh
    Inactive Member


    Message 139 of 202 (293920)
    03-10-2006 10:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 132 by Buzsaw
    03-09-2006 8:52 PM


    Re: Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
    Sorry i did not answer your question about Mohammed not fitting into the prophecy. Could you pl say what scriptural references you base your observation on? We must authenticate every statement by giving the relevent references. Incidentally the Deuteronomy prophecy says raising the Prophet not from the descendents of Jacob but their brothers. These brothers are those believing in the Old Testament. Pl do not talk of different gods. God is one; only some interpretations of the scriptures have enclosed gods in boxes for selfish reasons. God and Allah are the names of the same Supreme Autority who has not changed from the time He created Himself.
    Rawel Singh

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2006 8:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 140 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2006 10:56 AM Rawel Singh has replied

      
    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 140 of 202 (293938)
    03-10-2006 10:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 139 by Rawel Singh
    03-10-2006 10:04 AM


    Re: Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
    One problem I see with yoru statement about Deut. 18:18 is that it doesn't specifically say that it woudl be a specific prophet. It was definately not about the messiah, but rather prophets in general.
    In additon, the word's 'The lord will raise up' indicates that any prophet will be from the Jews own people, not from an outside source.
    So, Deut 18:18 was talking to the Jews about the prophets for the Jews. It was not talking about Mohammed. He was not from the Jews. He was not for the Jews. While Mohammed was a prophet for the Islamic faith, he did not fit into the parameters set forth in Deut. for being a prophet for the Jews. And Deut. was specificaly talking about prophets for the Jews.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 139 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-10-2006 10:04 AM Rawel Singh has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 141 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-10-2006 11:22 AM ramoss has not replied
     Message 142 by jar, posted 03-10-2006 11:23 AM ramoss has not replied

      
    Rawel Singh
    Inactive Member


    Message 141 of 202 (293949)
    03-10-2006 11:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by ramoss
    03-10-2006 10:56 AM


    Re: Deuteronomy 18:18
    Could you kindly say how you infer that it is meant for the Jews? Pl appreciate that this word 'brothers has not been used anywhere else in this cotext. If itt was for Jews, God would have said 'from among them' and not "from among their brethren". You are aware that Judaism, Chritianity and Islam are called Abrahamic religions and accept Abraham as their patriarch. Hence Jews and Muslims are brothers and mohammad fits in the prophecy well.
    Incidently you have not replied how this prophecy fits Jesus; pl give scriptural references.
    Let us get out of our cells and widen the spiritual perspective. Islam is a reality, it owes full allegiance to the Old Testament and recognizes the New Testament as a scripture. It even recognizes Virgin Mary and Christ's miracles, but does not agree with the status given to him equal to God. It says there is only one God, He alone is to be worshipped. For the same reason it does not accept the Christian Trinity. These latter are only dogmas and probably may be relooked. Keeping in mind the unity of God and brotherhood of mankind.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2006 10:56 AM ramoss has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 142 of 202 (293950)
    03-10-2006 11:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by ramoss
    03-10-2006 10:56 AM


    Starting to wander OT but...
    In additon, the word's 'The lord will raise up' indicates that any prophet will be from the Jews own people, not from an outside source.
    Why does it mean that? What about Ruth? Why would God be restricted to any specific pool of talent?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2006 10:56 AM ramoss has not replied

      
    AdminBuzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 143 of 202 (294172)
    03-10-2006 9:51 PM


    Straying Off Topic
    This thread is suppose to be about the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy relative to Jesus. We're straying off into another topic here as to whether Muhammed matches a Deuteronomy text. I suggest that if Rawel cares to discuss Muhammed relative to prophetic fulfillment that he propose a new topic on that since this appears to be headed off in that direction where it's not suppose to go. This thread pertains to Jesus relative to Isaiah 7:14. Thanks.

      
    DeclinetoState
    Member (Idle past 6438 days)
    Posts: 158
    Joined: 01-16-2006


    Message 144 of 202 (294303)
    03-11-2006 2:55 PM


    Maybe this will get the thread back on topic
    The following is a post I proposed to start a discussion of Isaiah 7:14:
    The rendering of Isaiah 7:14 seems to come up in discussions of a number of topics, but I don't see any threads that focus on the verse itself. If there are any, perhaps this post should be included with them.
    Some Bibles use the word virgin in this passage, while others use young woman.
    Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Christians say this verse predicts the virgin birth of Jesus, who they maintain is the deity come down to earth to be with us. However, this citation has been poorly translated, taken out of context, and is not messianic in any event. (Note, by the way, how the book of Matthew in the Christian Bible misquotes this verse).
    Poor Translation: The Hebrew word for virgin is "betula". The root of the word is so specific that the Hebrew scriptures mention it with reference to stained bedsheets. However, the word used in Is 7:14 is "alma" which most dictionaries translate as "young woman." The word "alma" is found only seven times in scripture. In some places, it could mean either "virgin" or "young woman" but two verses suggest that an "alma" need not be virginal (Proverbs 30:19 -- "the way of a man with an alma", which is usually sexual -- and Song of Songs 6:8 -- "queens, concubines, and almas", the first two clearly not virginal, which suggests the third also is not.) To think the prophet would have used "alma" rather than the unequivocal "betula" strains credulity.
    http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah7.html
    I am a bit leery of the unequivocal statement that queens are "clearly not virginal," though perhaps one could only become a queen by being the wife of a king in Bible times. Also, just because two (or one) of those in a list has a certain characteristic, doesn't necessarily make it all that farfetched to think the others have to have it.
    Nonetheless, despite those reservations, I tend to think that the rendering young woman fits the context better than virgin, for reasons that are better articulated by the author of the page than anything I could say. The passage in Isaiah 7 is simply not intended as a Messianic prophecy.
    One problem that seems to occur with attempts to discuss this issue (besides the inevitable thread drift that happens on many bulletin boards) is that many people have a way of assuming a priori that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, then expect it to be rendered in such a way that Jesus fulfills the prophecy.
    I suppose we can argue for "dual fulfillment," with one fulfillment being literal, and the other, "greater" fulfillment being "spritual." But it seems that we still want Jesus to be a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7 and other Old Testament prophecies, even if that means accepting awkward or difficult translations of these passages.
    I don't know where, if anywhere, we can go from here.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 145 by ramoss, posted 03-11-2006 4:57 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
     Message 146 by jar, posted 03-11-2006 5:19 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

      
    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 145 of 202 (294327)
    03-11-2006 4:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 144 by DeclinetoState
    03-11-2006 2:55 PM


    Re: Maybe this will get the thread back on topic
    One problem that seems to occur with attempts to discuss this issue (besides the inevitable thread drift that happens on many bulletin boards) is that many people have a way of assuming a priori that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, then expect it to be rendered in such a way that Jesus fulfills the prophecy.
    I suppose we can argue for "dual fulfillment," with one fulfillment being literal, and the other, "greater" fulfillment being "spritual." But it seems that we still want Jesus to be a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7 and other Old Testament prophecies, even if that means accepting awkward or difficult translations of these passages.
    I don't know where, if anywhere, we can go from here.
    One problem with the 'dual' prophecy concept is that there is not reason from the context to think it would be a dual propehcy. Why should one line , isolated from all other, and mistranslated be considered a "prophecy" for something that is alledged to have happened 600 years later. Not only that, it only had to be reinterpreted AFTER the alleged event.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-11-2006 2:55 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 146 of 202 (294331)
    03-11-2006 5:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 144 by DeclinetoState
    03-11-2006 2:55 PM


    Wilfull Ignorance
    The biggest issue related to trying to make Isaiah 7 fit Jesus is that it can only be done through an act of Wilfull Ignorance. To make it fit you have to pick just one single verse while you wilfully ignore all of the rest of Isaiah 7 & 8.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by DeclinetoState, posted 03-11-2006 2:55 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2006 5:34 PM jar has replied
     Message 149 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-11-2006 6:53 PM jar has not replied
     Message 154 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 03-11-2006 8:56 PM jar has replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 147 of 202 (294336)
    03-11-2006 5:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 146 by jar
    03-11-2006 5:19 PM


    Re: Wilfull Ignorance // ATTENTION ADMINS
    I'm not involved in this thread and haven't read much of it but I would like to bring to the attention of the admins that this accusation of wilful ignorance that jar regularly uses against fundamentalists and YE creationists ought to be treated as a species of character assassination and therefore a violation of forum rules against personal attack.
    This message has been edited by Faith, 03-11-2006 05:35 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by jar, posted 03-11-2006 5:19 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 148 by jar, posted 03-11-2006 6:02 PM Faith has not replied
     Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-11-2006 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 148 of 202 (294342)
    03-11-2006 6:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
    03-11-2006 5:34 PM


    Re: Wilfull Ignorance // ATTENTION ADMINS
    I'm not involved in this thread and haven't read much of it but I would like to bring to the attention of the admins that this accusation of wilful ignorance that jar regularly uses against fundamentalists and YE creationists ought to be treated as a species of character assassination and therefore a violation of forum rules against personal attack.
    Long long ago, during a great storm on the seas, a cruise boat broke up. One man who had been thrown overboard drifted for days on the open seas. Finally when he was near death he washed up on the shores of a tropical island.
    As he regained conciousness and staggered to his feet a group of natives rushed streaming from the treeline, spears glistening in the sun. They surrounded him and at spearpoint prodded and pushed him back towards the treeline where a large boiling pot could be seen.
    Just as that moment the sky darkened as a great bird flew over, and shit. The bird poop fell, striking the man and covering him with wet, smelly goo. Instantly all the natives fell to the ground, heads bowed in reverance and all chanting, "Foo, Foo, Foo".
    They jumped up and now cheerfully led the man inland, all hostility gone, and seated him at the head of a great feast. They fed him the finest foods, he was surrounded by the most beautiful women while the natives serenaded him with songs and chants.
    Later, when he found the bird poop hardening, and could stand the smell no longer, he wandered back down to the shore where he washed the bird poop off.
    And dropped down dead.
    The moral of the story, is "If the Foo Shits, wear it!."
    I make a general statement and you claim the garment fits you perfectly.
    Let the audience decide.
    fixed some spelling errors and probably added a fwe.
    This message has been edited by jar, 03-20-2006 11:59 AM

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2006 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 149 of 202 (294352)
    03-11-2006 6:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 146 by jar
    03-11-2006 5:19 PM


    Re: Wilfull Ignorance
    The biggest issue related to trying to make Isaiah 7 fit Jesus is that it can only be done through an act of Wilfull Ignorance. To make it fit you have to pick just one single verse while you wilfully ignore all of the rest of Isaiah 7 & 8.
    Let me help Jar - he is being misunderstood.
    These words and Jar's avatar need the following reminder: Jar claims to be a Christian. Otherwise the words and avatar might confuse someone into thinking he was an atheist or Darwinist.
    Ray

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by jar, posted 03-11-2006 5:19 PM jar has not replied

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 150 of 202 (294354)
    03-11-2006 7:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
    03-11-2006 5:34 PM


    Re: Wilfull Ignorance // ATTENTION ADMINS
    I'm not involved in this thread and haven't read much of it but I would like to bring to the attention of the admins that this accusation of wilful ignorance that jar regularly uses against fundamentalists and YE creationists ought to be treated as a species of character assassination and therefore a violation of forum rules against personal attack.
    Why ?
    Jar and Phatboy are Christians - did you forget ?
    Do you think EvC would front them as Admins if they were not ?
    Are you naieve ?
    Percy promoting true Christians as Admins ?
    Percy, like all Darwinists NEED pseudo-Christians like Jar and Phatboy, otherwise their theory is atheist ideology masquerading as science.
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
    "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
    --Adolf Hitler (1922)
    As we see - anyone can claim to be a Christian.
    Ray

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2006 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 151 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2006 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024