Search results

Stop avoiding the scripture, was Jesus a “boy” during the reign of King Ahaz in the 8th century BC as specified by Isaiah 7:16? If so I was a baby during the reign on Nebuchadnezzar myself.

Ah, more ignorant blibber blabber that ignores the scripture. Is it my way that it says "before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." I'm sorry I didn't realize that Jesus was born in the 8th century BC (insert...

The point is the a gospel author is claiming a messianic prophecy when Isaiah 7 makes no such claim in full context, you ignore this in favor of church driven dogma, which is highly typically. You do not and will not accept evidence even from the scripture that contradicts what you have been...

When you have no capacity to reason resort to petty insults, classic.

So what does Isaiah 7 refer to? Does it not talk about King Ahaz being promised someone to save his kingdom rather than a far away future messiah?

The Masoretic matches more closely the Dead Seas Scrolls than the corrupted Septuagint, hard proof that is it's the original. Isaiah 7 is not a messianic prophecy at all, that is the main point you are all missing. The implication is the author went out of their way to forge a prophecy that...

Sure it does, it addresses the word in question. I already showed you where the the word Parthenon is derived from a word meaning maiden in Genesis. "And Hosea 11:1 is about Israel. This has already been addressed." That doesn't address anything, you have a claimed messianic prophecy that...

The author of Matthew never claims to do any of that, there is no evidence that is he is an apostle or ever met Jesus. The apostles were suppose to be illiterate not well versed in Alexandrian Koine Greek. Also however this anonymous person doesn't dictate the Hebrew language. The original words...

So the Hebrew word Almah isn't young woman, Jewish scholars wouldn't agree with you on that, nor would any publicly available Hebrew dictionary. Also if you bother to read Isaiah 7 it is about someone who will save King Ahaz's kingdom, and would have to be born many centuries before Christ.

Sorry but this apologetic does not work, for the author of Matthew clearly claims it as a fulfillment of prophecy : "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet". Also the correct word isn't even "virgin", but "young woman".

The LXX that we have today is not an original, nor did the original contain the books of the prophets. The original LXX was only the Torah, and the Masoretic matches the Dead Sea Scrolls much better than it does the LXX. The LXX also translates the Hebrew "narah" as Parthenos in Genesis 34:2‑3...

Which is what the Gospel of Matthew did.

And no where else besides Matthew's claimed prophecy. Nowhere in in his birth narratives is named or called Immanuel as the "prophecy" describes. Isaiah 7:14 refers to someone who will be born to save King Ahaz's kingdom, that rules out Jesus entirely.

"I have been told by a rabbi that the word can mean young woman but also it can mean a virgin" That is false, the word for virgin is "betulah". More importantly, Isaiah 7:14 contains no messianic prophecy at all. "We certainly are not God's dictators of what He knows His words mean!" These...

"Sounds like you have been reading articles from atheists of non Messianic Jews." Unless the bible is such that is a mindless assumption. You didn't even read what I wrote. "So the fact that the Prophet Isaiah says, "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son" That's not a fact, every Jewish...

So you don't care that there is a false prophecy in the gospels?

We all know this one : Matthew 1 : 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). However, it is fraught with problems : 1) This prophecy from Isaiah 7:14, is giving assurance to King Ahaz that his enemies will be defeated...

What's idiotic is ignoring what Joshua 21 says. It clearly says that God gave Israel all the land he had sworn, and that all of the Lord's promises were fulfilled. Ezekiel's verses do not pertain to a promise / fulfillment. 43 So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their...

43 So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their...

Joshua 21 says it was already fulfilled.