Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

Ah, but it is wilfull ignorance buz.Are you willing to step through Isaiah 7, line by line and verse by verse? Isaiah 7 does not and can not apply to Jesus. It matters not when "in that day" applies to. the content of Isaiah 7 cannot be applied to Jesus. But it's pretty damn clear about what will happen "In that Day" and none of the things mentioned happened during Jesus lifetime. You are ignoring what is actually written in Isaiah, buz. Not really. What God says is he's pissed at the House of David not specifically Ahaz. What Ahaz does is exactly what everyone is told to do, what you and others constantly preach against, and that is testing or tempting GOD. and in GOD's response He does not say, Ahaz, you pissed me off!", but instead says that the House of David is pissing him off... How can you ignore what is written? Come on buz. GOD says he will give a child and the name of the child will be "God is with us" is a generic. Again, you are ignoring what IS written and adding in what you want it to mean. Let's look at the rest and see if that child can be Jesus. However he clearly and repeatedly says what will happen in that day, the day being the life of the child. So let's look at what is written. Before the child will know to refuse evil.Are you saying that Jesus did not know good from evil and was capable of sin? If Isaiah 7 is speaking of Jesus then Jesus is not divine and learned right from wrong just like everyone else. Again, this is far from the enemies being defeated, it clearly says that the King of Assyria (note, no Romans) will will be punishing the House of David. The time is pretty clear. We are not talking about Jesus but rather a punishment of the House of David itself and the punishment is by Assyria. I will be glad to walk through 8 & 9 with you and show that again, only through wilfull ignorance can they be taken to point to Jesus.Start a thread on them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, I take this as a personal insult that I am willfully attempting deceipt and willfully ignoring what your argument is. Either you edit it out of this post or talk to someone else who will tolerate your bullerigerant Forum Guidelines violations.If it weren't that it is me you're insulting and it would be considered a personal vendetta, I'd suspend your hide for for a full day for repeatedly acting as though you were immune from what others get suspended for in blatant violation of forum guideline #10!!Furthermore you are blatantly and bulligerantly defying admin admonition asking you to cease and descist inflamitory personal insult.I'll leave off with you to let this matter be determined by someone else on the admin team.

No edit buz. It's fact. Sorry if your sensitivities get ruffled. Reality has a way of doing that. But please note, that I actually backed up my assertions with concrete examples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's not what I said nor what I implied. Reread my message thoughtfully and carefully before responding. I said to include the end time, the church age being a mystery, meaning it was not seen by the prophets.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Take it up with with admins, Jar. I'm done with you until we get this resolved.

No problem buz. The record is there for all to read. You started the thread about Isaiah 7. I have be dealing with Isaiah 7. It is impossible to consider that Isaiah 7 refers to Jesus unless you ignore all of the other verses. In support I included some examples of verses that must be ignored.The record is there. Read Isaiah 7 and this thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If parthenos does not necessarily mean "virgin," then the whole bit about a prophecy of a virgin birth is at best suspect, and at worst a load of rubbish, isn't it?Did the meaning of parthenos change from "young woman" to "virgin" over time? Is it possible that when the LXX was written, it meant "young woman," but by the time of the birth of Jesus (or at least when the Gospels were written), it meant "virgin"? (This would not necessarily have any effect, one way or the other, on the historicity of the virgin birth, but now we're getting close to a topic for another thread.)This message has been edited by DeclinetoState, 03-12-2006 01:18 PM

I am closing this thread until matters can be resolved. Since this involves mainly admin types, the resolution process will take place in the private admin forum.Any issues with this decision can be taken to the appropriate thread in my signature.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Since the term and intent is being used by multiple others, including other participants in this thread, I guess it is ok to open the thread again.Carry on.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Fact: WHEREVER the O.T. specifically says "Israel" or "House of Israel" = these descendants are the peoples of the Church age, as opposed to "Judah" who became the dispersed Jewish race. God is going to speak via Hosea and what He makes him do: Hosea = type of God. Wife of whoredoms he marries = type of Israel worshipping foreign idols.God is attempting to show the pain He feels = what we feel when a spouse is sexually unfaithful = Israel worshipping idols. Now the literal human allegory commences: God pronounces judgement on the house of Israel/Northern 10 tribe kingdom. The child is named Jezreel to show what God's reason for the judgement: the murder that went on there - sins that God said animal sacrifices could not atone for.Penalty: Kingdom of house of Israel to cease. We know this happened in 721 BC when Assyria carried them off into bondage never to return to Palestine again. The point is God divorces Israel - He is no longer their God. The next child's name = prophecy of how God is going treat divorced Israel: "Loruhamah" means "not having mercy." Unlike Israel, God will have mercy on the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The kings of Judah were basically good unlike the kings of Israel who were shockingly wicked. The point is Judah is NOT divorced. The next child produced by Hosea's wife of whoredom is named "Loami" meaning "Israel is not God's people" any longer. Israel is now identified as divorced, not having mercy, and not God's people = punishment for idol worship. This is why the so called lost tribes are hard to find - historians are looking for God-oriented peoples but God says they will not look as such, but just the opposite. This prophecy says the forsaken people of Israel, will multiply to a vast number comparable to the sand of the sea, and where they are in this state of forsakeness they will suddenly be re-adopted by God and known as "the sons of the living God."The Church is known as the sons of the living God. These scattered divorced peoples of the House of Israel escaped from Assyrian captivity and spread out across Asia minor = geographic places where the gospel went FIRST. Jesus tells the disciples to take the gospel first to these forsaken scattered Israelites who will not look like God's people, but will look merciless and forsaken.In this state they will then become known as "the sons of the living God" = the first Churches of the First Century.Jesus was the Law Incarnate whom God killed. Mosaic law said a woman (divorced Israel) could not re-marry until her old husband died = type of Mosaic law typified in Christ who fulfilled the law. The Law is dead and crucified, now God can re-marry divorced Israel who became "sons of the living God" fulfilling Hosea's prophecy. Now all sins can be forgiven because the Temple veil was torn (by God) the moment Christ died.Ray This message has been edited by Herepton, 03-17-2006 11:39 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-17-2006 08:07 PM

And what is your supporting evidence of this? And htis has to do with Isaish 7 in what manner?

The remainder of the post. The post I responded to was from Buzsaw who initiated the first blue quote in the previous reply.The relevancy to Isaiah 7 is:The prophecy of young woman/virgin is a no brainer = fulfilled in Christ. Both renderings are true and describe Mary: young woman who was a virgin.The N.T. records the fulfillment. Case closed.IOW if the no-brainer is contested so will the Church in the O.T. prophecies. I only made a brief sketch. My point: Darwinists and atheists have no problem deducing obscure fossil scraps to be as their worldview needs them to be....they have the ability to understand complicated scientific arguments in technical journals, but Isaiah 7 fulfilled in Christ reported by the Gospel writers escapes their faculties = delberate nonsense of anti-Biblical worldviews.Jar has no argument about context. He makes an assertion/straw man....and he is a Christian. How can Jar be a Christian when he opposes everything in the Bible ? Christians support Virgin Birth, Resurrection, miracles, etc. etc.Why doesn't someone show the debate how the context of Isaiah 7 negates the crystal clear prophecy ? THEN I will refute.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 03-17-2006 03:29 PM

NO that is the whole point.Isaiah 7 was fullfilled in Isaiah 8:3. The proof of this is Isaiah 8:18.Isaiah 8:3 This shows that Isaiah was specifically referring to his wife.As a reinforcement of this, look at Isaiah 8:18 And hosea had nothing to do with Isaiah at all.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-17-2006 07:13 PM

Not so. I've explained this in message 160. I've brought it forward with some enhancements for emphasis and clarification. Note especially the emboldened items.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Regardless of whether the child in Isaiah 7 is the same as the child in Isaiah 8 it is absolutely clear that the child of Isaiah 7 must be born before the events of the prophecy occur.Those events include the defeat of the kingdoms of Aram (Syria) and Israel. Both were long gone by the time Jesus was born.This refutes any idea that the child of Isaiah 7 could be Jesus.