Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[bluethread]

Immanuel Maher-shalal-hash-baz

Yesha'yahu named him Maher-shalal-hash-baz

His mother named him 'Immanu'el.

[Goat]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Several things.. in the older times, the term 'parthenos' was not necessarily virgin. For example, Dinah, in Genesis 3.4, was referred to as "Parthnos" in the Septuagint , even after she got raped. There is also the following references in ancient Greek literature where the term 'Parthenos' refers to a non virgin.

Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.

Pindar, Pythian 3.34
and
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).

So, well, the meaning changed over the years.

[Nickman]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Why are we trying to read Jesus into Isaiah 7:14 in the first place? If the sign was fulfilled in chapter 8 then trying to add Jesus to it is folly. Regardless of who is trying to do it. Some author who is not even named Matthew who we don't know. All that appears to be happening in Matthew is a misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew says this was done in order to fulfill Isaiah. How can it fulfill Isaiah when Isaiah was already fulfilled? Thats being dishonest and trying to make Isaiah mean something that is not there.

[bluethread]

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Why are we trying to read Jesus into Isaiah 7:14 in the first place? If the sign was fulfilled in chapter 8 then trying to add Jesus to it is folly. Regardless of who is trying to do it. Some author who is not even named Matthew who we don't know. All that appears to be happening in Matthew is a misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew says this was done in order to fulfill Isaiah. How can it fulfill Isaiah when Isaiah was already fulfilled? Thats being dishonest and trying to make Isaiah mean something that is not there.

I am not and neither is Mattityahu. Mattityahu is using a shared cultural understanding to make a point. That is not dishonest, that is rabbinics. Now, one might argue that it is incorrect rabbinics, but the method is not dishonest. You do not seem to understand, we are looking at an Isrealite, quoting Isrealite Scripture, to make a point to other Isrealites. He is not obligated to be like a modern gentile, quoting gentile literature, to make a point to other gentiles.

[bluethread]

I never once said that Isaiah says virgin. What I did say is that it most certainly does not mean virgin. Matthew says it does which is incorrect. Matthew tried to make Isaiah mean virgin. Jesus birth is said to be that of a virgin. This has nothing to support it in the Hebrew bible.

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Several things.. in the older times, the term 'parthenos' was not necessarily virgin. For example, Dinah, in Genesis 3.4, was referred to as "Parthnos" in the Septuagint , even after she got raped. There is also the following references in ancient Greek literature where the term 'Parthenos' refers to a non virgin.

Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.

Pindar, Pythian 3.34
and
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).

So, well, the meaning changed over the years.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes Mattityahu's use of that term even more common. So, there is no deception, just an object lesson.

[bluethread]

Delete quoted when I should have edited

[Nickman]

Then are you saying that the jewish translators of the Septuagint were doing the same thing? They use the same greek word. What makes you think Mattityahu is not understanding Is. 7:14? Could he not be saying that Yesha'yahu spoke of what has been translated (almah), but here we have a true (virgin) and the child of this true will truly save Adonai's people?

Why are we trying to read Jesus into Isaiah 7:14 in the first place? If the sign was fulfilled in chapter 8 then trying to add Jesus to it is folly. Regardless of who is trying to do it. Some author who is not even named Matthew who we don't know. All that appears to be happening in Matthew is a misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew says this was done in order to fulfill Isaiah. How can it fulfill Isaiah when Isaiah was already fulfilled? Thats being dishonest and trying to make Isaiah mean something that is not there.

I am not and neither is Mattityahu. Mattityahu is using a shared cultural understanding to make a point. That is not dishonest, that is rabbinics. Now, one might argue that it is incorrect rabbinics, but the method is not dishonest. You do not seem to understand, we are looking at an Isrealite, quoting Isrealite Scripture, to make a point to other Isrealites. He is not obligated to be like a modern gentile, quoting gentile literature, to make a point to other gentiles.[/quote]
Please show me how you know that Matthew is an Israelite? Could he be Greek or Roman? He seems to be using Roman and Greek thought. A virgin birth is not anything we see in Hebrew thought. It is completely foreign. YVH having human children that he conceived is completely foreign to Hebrew thought.

The gospel of Matthew appears to be from a Greek or Roman author because of the mentality used within its pages. Mark however appears to be from a Jew. Luke also appears to be from a pagan origin as well as John. Mark is the only one that appears to show Israelite mentality.

I make the point that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Isaiah chapter 8, do you agree? If so then there is no need to make it have a double meaning. Do you agree with that? Instead of seeing the folly of Matthew you seem to close your eyes to it and twist the text to make it apply to Jesus when it clearly doesn't.

[Nickman]

To add, If there was a virgin birth then Jesus is disqualified as the messiah because the qualifications for the messiah were laid out and none of them mention a virgin birth. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin then the whole NT is full of even more contradictions because that is the core of the story.

[bluethread]

I am not and neither is Mattityahu. Mattityahu is using a shared cultural understanding to make a point. That is not dishonest, that is rabbinics. Now, one might argue that it is incorrect rabbinics, but the method is not dishonest. You do not seem to understand, we are looking at an Isrealite, quoting Isrealite Scripture, to make a point to other Isrealites. He is not obligated to be like a modern gentile, quoting gentile literature, to make a point to other gentiles.

Please show me how you know that Matthew is an Israelite? Could he be Greek or Roman? He seems to be using Roman and Greek thought. A virgin birth is not anything we see in Hebrew thought. It is completely foreign. YVH having human children that he conceived is completely foreign to Hebrew thought.

Well, are you saying that Yeshua had a goy talmidim? This is getting curiouser and curiouser. If Mattityahu were a goy writing to other goyim, why would he quote so much from the Tanakh?

The gospel of Matthew appears to be from a Greek or Roman author because of the mentality used within its pages. Mark however appears to be from a Jew. Luke also appears to be from a pagan origin as well as John. Mark is the only one that appears to show Israelite mentality.

I can see where that approach would more closely fit your prefered view of things. However, there is a basic logical principle, correlation does not equal causation. Just because polytheistic religions have views that are similar to those derived from the Apostolic Writings by the RCC, does not mean that the RCC doctrines are correct or that things stated directly in the Apostolic Writings were derived from polytheistic religions.

I make the point that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Isaiah chapter 8, do you agree? If so then there is no need to make it have a double meaning. Do you agree with that? Instead of seeing the folly of Matthew you seem to close your eyes to it and twist the text to make it apply to Jesus when it clearly doesn't.

I agree that the sign that Yesha'yahu was presenting to Achaz was originally intended to be used as an illustration of what would occur in chapter 8. However, if I were attempting to explain to a group of people, who were very familiar with this story, that something similar had happened, I to would use this illustration, knowing full well that they understood that I was not saying that Yesha'yahu had any idea what I was illustrating. There is no desception, because, this latter is understood by both the speaker and the audience. Is an orator deceiving the audience when he speaks the words of a well known play to fill those words full with added meaning. No, because the audience is familiar with those words and knows that he is using them for illustration.

[Nickman]

I am not and neither is Mattityahu. Mattityahu is using a shared cultural understanding to make a point. That is not dishonest, that is rabbinics. Now, one might argue that it is incorrect rabbinics, but the method is not dishonest. You do not seem to understand, we are looking at an Isrealite, quoting Isrealite Scripture, to make a point to other Isrealites. He is not obligated to be like a modern gentile, quoting gentile literature, to make a point to other gentiles.

Please show me how you know that Matthew is an Israelite? Could he be Greek or Roman? He seems to be using Roman and Greek thought. A virgin birth is not anything we see in Hebrew thought. It is completely foreign. YVH having human children that he conceived is completely foreign to Hebrew thought.

Well, are you saying that Yeshua had a goy talmidim? This is getting curiouser and curiouser. If Mattityahu were a goy writing to other goyim, why would he quote so much from the Tanakh?

The gospel of Matthew appears to be from a Greek or Roman author because of the mentality used within its pages. Mark however appears to be from a Jew. Luke also appears to be from a pagan origin as well as John. Mark is the only one that appears to show Israelite mentality.

I can see where that approach would more closely fit your prefered view of things. However, there is a basic logical principle, correlation does not equal causation. Just because polytheistic religions have views that are similar to those derived from the Apostolic Writings by the RCC, does not mean that the RCC doctrines are correct or that things stated directly in the Apostolic Writings were derived from polytheistic religions.

I make the point that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Isaiah chapter 8, do you agree? If so then there is no need to make it have a double meaning. Do you agree with that? Instead of seeing the folly of Matthew you seem to close your eyes to it and twist the text to make it apply to Jesus when it clearly doesn't.

I agree that the sign that Yesha'yahu was presenting to Achaz was originally intended to be used as an illustration of what would occur in chapter 8. However, if I were attempting to explain to a group of people, who were very familiar with this story, that something similar had happened, I to would use this illustration, knowing full well that they understood that I was not saying that Yesha'yahu had any idea what I was illustrating. There is no desception, because, this latter is understood by both the speaker and the audience. Is an orator deceiving the audience when he speaks the words of a well known play to fill those words full with added meaning. No, because the audience is familiar with those words and knows that he is using them for illustration.

No No No, Matthew makes it explicit that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to fulfill Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel[g] (which means God with us).

The word plerothe means
accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).

Isaiah 7:14 was a sign to Ahaz not to anyone else and it was fulfilled in chapter 8. Matthew disregards the fact that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled, probably because he liked to quote mine like most christians do. It seems to be an inherent trait amongst you's guys. There is no way that Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with Jesus.