- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,582
- 6,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
What verses show that Jesus is the Messiah?
- Thread starter CrystalDragon
- Start date
Crystal, Crystal, Crystal.......goodness gracious, Sis! Be honest, do you read a lot of skeptical literature? And do you do this without also reading some really good Apologetics literature? I'm just wondering.
It may be time for you to start studying hermeneutics, exegesis, and apologetics, as well as some Christian Philosophy, to help yourself buttress your faith against unnecessary doubts.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
While I have read some skeptical literature (not really books, more like a few internet pages and videos), reading parts of the Bible only seems to cement the "skeptical" feeling.
For instance, of of the key prophecies that people say that Jesus fulfilled as the Messiah is the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which is commonly translated along the lines of "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel". Not only was Jesus never called Emmanuel, and not only does the Dead Sea Scrolls portion of that verse seems to use the word for "young woman" rather than "virgin" (plus people can be virgins before they conceive a child anyway—plus I don't think Mary was even a perpetual virgin, a few verses mention Jesus having brothers and sisters), but people seem to ignore the surrounding verses (just as I've seen people do far too often with Isaiah 14):
When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heartbecause of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce angerof Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’sson have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son,and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for 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. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
Why would Jesus need to know enough to "reject the wrong and choose the right"? Why is it referring to a sign to Ahaz in that time involving the two kings he feared? Why imply that the kings were at war now and they would be when Immanuel was born, but the lands of the kings would be laid waste at some point when the child was young?
Just as full context shows in Isaiah 14 that Lucifer isn't Satan (though people like to cherry pick Isaiah 14:12-15 and claim it's so), it seems clear to me by the full context that Immanuel can't have been Jesus (which even before I found out about the full context of the verse I found it odd that Jesus supposedly fulfilled the prophecy of "he shall be called Immanuel" when he never was).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 8, 2004
- 11,336
- 1,728
- 64
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Catholics doubting something have a rich history and traditions of the Church in offering understandings the Bible to guide them to a better understanding of why something (anything believed true) is said to be true. This is especially true where it comes to understanding the written Word of God and the message from it to both Christians and all of mankind. That should be one thing that would attract a Catholic with "doubts" to a Church that maintains (the RCC is not the only one) that it is not only NOT the Bible alone, but that our understanding of it can be rather whimsical without trusting to an external reliable source to appeal to for understanding it. In this especially is the thought that the Church alone has the teaching Authority (that is not a person or persons) to act as the "lens" for understanding and interpreting Scripture.Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers
If we remove all that and attempt to make a case for something believed true using ONLY our own judgement of what the Bible should be understand as saying (or not saying), then we should expect to get exactly the same number of various Christian faiths for opinions which we obviously have today. SO which understanding today is correct?
For me it seems obvious God never meant for our understanding of what He wants everyone to know to be left to each us of us reading a collection of books. Scripture says as much in the story of the Enoch on the side of the road trying to understand the OT message, saying "how can I unless SOMEONE explains it to me". The response to that question was not "just keep reading and pray about it" . He was shown the proper understanding by someone who had been appointed (by God and through the Church) to teach people what the message is.
So Catholics have boatloads of history of people defending the Catholic positions offered today, that defense called Apologetics, which we can appeal to as help for us to understand. Those defenses rather accept the position that as Catholics we can trust the teaching authority (Magisterium - again not people) which is guided/protected by the Spirit. That trust is not in some absolute scientific proof offered, meaning the doubter must accept it. It is a trust held with absolute morale certitude in those teachings and in the defenses of them.
Prophecy | Catholic Answers.
A Virgin according to Isaiah
Does the Bible prophecy say that the mother of the Messiah would be a virgin--or only a young girl? | Catholic Answers
Example (incomplete just index) of a modern source a Catholic could appeal do regarding doubting the Bible message:
http://mooringspress.com/articles/CCTableofContents.pdf
With links to more sources - Modern myths about Jesus
Five Mythical "Myths About Jesus” | Catholic Answers
Catholic detailed Bible argument for Him being the Messiah - rather technical - but presents the Scripture used
Messiah - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,258
- 9,996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Just a 'few internet pages,' ay?
Then why do you write, think, and sound as if you have some university education under your belt, Crystal? You're obviously a very rational person, and when you lay these things out the way you do, I have to surmise that you might be telling me less than what is the actual case. Regardless, I would recommend that a person as intelligent as you 'expand' your academic reading. (And yes, I know the purchasing of books can become expensive, but someone like yourself, who has a good mind but a lot of questions, really should try to find some of the best, more academic Christian sources to read for further consideration.) You need to do more than just "read the Bible" in order to understand the Bible, even if for the simple reason that we KNOW the Bible wasn't written in English but in languages that are not dropped from heaven, and that it also wasn't written with an audience of post Enlightenment England/America/Canada/Australia acculturation in mind.Well, this is where things get tricky, isn't it? Sure. On a surface level reading, we don't see these things. But, neither do we see things like the Old Testament indicating to us that the coming of Elijah will have an expected fulfillment by way of another person (i.e. John the Baptist). So, I'd recommend to you that, at some point, you should delve into the various ways that the Jews of Jesus' time would and could write commentaries upon, and interpret, Old Scriptures. It wasn't a monolithic process, and it wasn't always literal (some of which I'm sure you're already aware of).
Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls make up one source by which we can compare and contrast 'meanings,' but it isn't THE FINAL source by which we should measure biblical meanings. It's more complex than that.
I don't think Mary was or is a perpetual virgin. I've never been under the impression that Mary was a perpetual virgin (but that is an 'inhouse' debate in the Church at large, one made out of post-apostolic considerations in the Catholic Church, and one we have to place in this way first, whether it is true or not).
yep. On the surface, these things don't seem to 'link up.' But that's where studying typology, among other things, comes in within the realm of studying hermeneutics. There may be embedded meanings that only become evident upon closer inspection of the incongruities still present in the original texts, way before any even decides to reapply them in the New Testament.
You're going to have to study typology; and you're going to need to come to the realization that not everything in Jewish writing was meant to comport to stringent, literal communication patterns we use today in a scientific world.
How do you know when you've got the 'full context' Crystal? Maybe you have it; maybe you don't.
Again, I'm just pointing things out that you kinda need to consider. Not because I think you're uneducated, but rather because I think you have a high aptitude for rational thinking, and I don't think you're not being comprehensive enough in your studies. You'll do yourself a favor by expanding your academic horizons, not just with skeptical literature, but also with high-grade, academic Christian literature.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,582
- 6,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The native Hebrew and Greek speaking Jewish scholars who translated the OT into Greek, the Septuagint or LXX, ca. 225 BC, knew the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 and they translated Hebrew "almah" as Greek "parthenos," which means virgin, not young woman.
Some scholars insist that עלמה/"almah" only means "young woman" never "virgin." The word "almah" occurs only seven times in the OT. None of the occurrences can be shown to refer to a woman who is not a virgin.
Exodus 2:8
(8) And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid [עלמה] went and called the child's mother.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [עלמה] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Psalms 68:25
(25) The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels [עלמה] playing with timbrels.
Proverbs 30:19
(19) The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.[עלמה]
Song of Solomon 1:3
(3) Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins [עלמה] love thee.
Genesis 24:16
(16) And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, [בתולה] neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Genesis 24:43
(43) Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin [עלמה] cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
In one verse Gen 24:43 "almah" refers to a woman who is called בתולה/a virgin in vs. 16 (8) And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid [עלמה] went and called the child's mother.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [עלמה] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Psalms 68:25
(25) The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels [עלמה] playing with timbrels.
Proverbs 30:19
(19) The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.[עלמה]
Song of Solomon 1:3
(3) Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins [עלמה] love thee.
Genesis 24:16
(16) And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, [בתולה] neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Genesis 24:43
(43) Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin [עלמה] cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
Now let us examine "Immanuel". Here is the vs. in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society.
JPS Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
There is no son named "Immanuel" in the OT. Note it says "the young woman ...shall call his name Immanuel." The Jewish fathers named their children not the mothers. When Jacob's son Benjamin was born, while she was dying, his mother called him "benoni," son of my sorrow, Genesis 38:18, but Jacob named him Benjamin. We don't know what private name Mary had for Jesus.
Upvote
0
I see your point, but even if it was "virgin" it doesn't necessarily meant Mary the Ever-Virgin (though as I mentioned, the text doesn't indicate she was forever a virgin). Plenty of girls at the time were likely virgins before conceiving and bearing a child. And while I didn't know that about the name thing, the "Benjamin" case seems more of her using a word to refer to her son before her death, and then Jacob named the son Benjamin because it's similar. There no indication Mary ever called Jesus "Immanuel" or "secret names" were a thing like that, plus the rest of the passage indicates it can't be Jesus, it was referring to a time when Ahaz would be alive.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,582
- 6,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I was not arguing that Mary was perpetually a virgin. If the prophecy does not refer to Jesus where is the son named "Immanuel" in Isaiah? Genesis 35:18 says "as her [Rachel] soul was in departing - for she died - that she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." Why do you insist it means something else? Maybe the NT writers were right and all the people saying they weren't are wrong. As I said the fathers named their children not the mothers and Isaiah 7:14 says "she will call his name Immanuel." So Immanuel would not be his official name.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,258
- 9,996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I think Jesus' birth is a typological fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, rather than an ultra-literal fulfillment. The point is that, when Jesus was born, His birth came about reflecting the patterning found in similar acts of God in the Old Testament.
And what pattern would we glean from Isaiah7:14 alone, if that was the only verse we were to reference. The pattern would be that:
1) The mother would be Jewish (Mary was Jewish).
2) The mother wold be a young, Jewish maiden (Mary was that, and a virgin as well).
3) The child would be somehow divinely providential (i.e. called Emmanuel) (Jesus was the Son of God)
4) The child would be a male. (Jesus was definitely a male, not a female.)
5) The Lord would be instrumental in giving this child as a 'sign' to the Jews. (The Holy Spirit and His Angels were instrumental in the event of Jesus' Birth in 1st century Palestine).
There's the pattern provided just by Isaiah 7:14 alone. I'm sure you could draw some things out of Isaiah 7:15 if you wanted to practice this. See where I'm going with this?
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Upvote
0
Similar threads
