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.....

[Nickman]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

Isaiah was not a messianic prophecy. It was a sign to the King Ahaz. How can it be a sign to Ahaz if if was to be fulfilled after his death?

Isaiah 7:12 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.

Now you will se the fulfillment of this sign in Chapter 8

The LORD said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. 3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

Now you see the exact sign being fulfilled right here.

In Isaiah 7:14 we have two possible meanings, virgin or non virgin woman. When put in context we see that the prophetess gave birth to a son for Ahaz as was promised. This is not messianic

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

[The Tongue]

...Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it...

Your logic is faulty. In order for your argument to work, the OT would have to have said, "The Messiah will not be resurrected," which of course it doesn't say.

...Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

Nope. I'm saying that the resurrection was a bonus, a surprise, coming from a God who is portrayed in the OT as a very surprising character.

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

[Nickman wrote]..My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Of course the Hebrew bible does not speak of any so called virgin birth, nor does the New Testament that was read by the early true Christians. That was a deliberate lie that was added by Jerome in his erroneous translation of the Gospels. (Beware of the yeast that is added to the unleavened bread of God, by the authorities of the universal church of Constantine.)

Akrause, has already pointed out in the Old Testament, where the resurrection is pointed to in Psalms 16: 10; because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful[a] one see decay.

In Acts 2: 25; Peter reveals that it was to Jesus that King David was referring when he said, And I, mortal that I am, will rest assured in hope, because you will not abandoned me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave, etc.

The Old and New Testaments are in agreement, as to the resurrection.

[Nickman wrote].. Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

Obviously you have never been inside the universal church of Constantine when the creed is being read.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man. (To them, Jesus is their god who lived among man.)

Again it is proven that your professed atheistic godless logic is way, way out of whack.

[bluethread]

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

I never said He was. I said, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was. Mattityahu is playing off of that to make a point from a shared cultural tradition. He is not saying that Yesha'yahu was in fact speaking directly to the birth of Yeshua. It is common understanding that HaMashiach will save Isra'el from her enemies. This story of Emmanuel is about Isra'el being save from her enemies. So, Mattityahu frames the birth of Yeshua in the context of Emmanuel, because he is making the point that Adonai is with us. Again, you might not agree with that view, but it is not an uncommon method of rabbinic teaching.

[Goat]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

Why yes, yes, that is true. Let's look at Isaiah 7:14 to 8:19 IN CONTEXT. One must look at thinks in context, and not yank a single line out to retrofit something into after the fact.

Isaiah 7:14 says a woman is with child and will soon give birth. This phrase is mistranslated by the Christians to make it a future pregnancy. It then gives some gushing about the child.

Isaiah 8:3 has Isaiah identifying the woman, and tells he had intercourse with the woman to insure she conceived. ..He went to the prophetess and insured she conceived. .. So.. we know have .. an woman conceivinving by the action of a man.. not God... And, in Isaiah 8:4, it gives how the child is important..

from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15939

3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.

So, we see here.. the pregnancy and the child were a timer as a sign for king Ahaz.

Isaiah confirms that the child is his own son in Isaiah 8:18

18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

Isn't context just wonderful, and I think everyone should look at context... and also confirm translation.. It appears to me that a certain number of Christian translations purposely translate the wrong tenses to make it appear miraculous. Either that, or they come up with some weird explanation calling it 'prophetic perfect' for past tense, that no one else accepts

[Nickman]

...Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it...

Your logic is faulty. In order for your argument to work, the OT would have to have said, "The Messiah will not be resurrected," which of course it doesn't say.

...Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

Nope. I'm saying that the resurrection was a bonus, a surprise, coming from a God who is portrayed in the OT as a very surprising character.

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

[Nickman wrote]..My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Of course the Hebrew bible does not speak of any so called virgin birth, nor does the New Testament that was read by the early true Christians. That was a deliberate lie that was added by Jerome in his erroneous translation of the Gospels. (Beware of the yeast that is added to the unleavened bread of God, by the authorities of the universal church of Constantine.)

Akrause, has already pointed out in the Old Testament, where the resurrection is pointed to in Psalms 16: 10; because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful[a] one see decay.

In Acts 2: 25; Peter reveals that it was to Jesus that King David was referring when he said, And I, mortal that I am, will rest assured in hope, because you will not abandoned me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave, etc.

The Old and New Testaments are in agreement, as to the resurrection.

[Nickman wrote].. Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

Obviously you have never been inside the universal church of Constantine when the creed is being read.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man. (To them, Jesus is their god who lived among man.)

Again it is proven that your professed atheistic godless logic is way, way out of whack.

I already showed Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Your point is moot.

No biblical text states that Jesus was "god with us".

[Nickman]

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

I never said He was. I said, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was. Mattityahu is playing off of that to make a point from a shared cultural tradition. He is not saying that Yesha'yahu was in fact speaking directly to the birth of Yeshua. It is common understanding that HaMashiach will save Isra'el from her enemies. This story of Emmanuel is about Isra'el being save from her enemies. So, Mattityahu frames the birth of Yeshua in the context of Emmanuel, because he is making the point that Adonai is with us. Again, you might not agree with that view, but it is not an uncommon method of rabbinic teaching.

No, Matthew rips Isaiah 7:14 out of context and states that Jesus fulfilled this messianic prophecy.

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).

This was fulfilled already as I have shown to be true. This shows that Matthew didn't understand that it was already fulfilled and he makes the verse into something it is not.

[cnorman18]

I've started at least two threads on this topic in the past, perhaps more. I don't find it much worth debating any more; even when I did, it was only of interest in an academic or theoretical sense.

The question is not about whether Jesus fulfilled this or that "prophecy," or even whether this or that passage is a "Messianic prophecy" at all. Nor is it about whether the Christian Christ and the Jewish Messiah are the same figure (they clearly aren't). The issue is that Christianity and Judaism are two wholly different approaches to the questions of religion -- the relationship between man and God, the role of each in that relationship, and the very meaning and purpose of religion, of faith, and of human existence.

Among the key concepts in Christianity are the ideas that (1) humans need individual salvation from sin, (2) that that salvation may only be obtained through faith (or belief, or trust), (3) in the substitutionary death/sacrifice of a (4) divine Savior who is at once both God and Man, (5) and who, as token and proof of his divinity and sacrifice, rose from the dead.

None of those ideas are or were to be found in the Jewish religion.

I suppose it's reasonable to speculate that God might "surprise" humans; but introducing an entirely new structure and grammar to His relationship with His people, and discarding and denying virtually everything that He has revealed or commanded in the past, goes rather far beyond that. It's not so much Jesus that we Jews reject; it's the Christian religion itself, which requires us to throw out everything that constitutes our own religion in favor of accepting and believing concepts and dogmas that are foreign to us -- when Judaism does not acknowledge the need or use of "accepting and believing concepts and dogmas" at all.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and belief on these matters; it's not like anyone is about to prove any of them true or false. But Christianity is not Judaism, the Christ was not the Messiah, and for us Jews at least, the question was settled two thousand years ago. We are Jews; we are not Christians. We spend about as much time thinking about Jesus as we spend thinking about the Buddha. He doesn't matter to us. And, yes, on this matter I CAN speak for virtually all Jews.

Everyone else can argue about these things as much as you like. A few Jews followed Jesus in his own day, and now and again a few still do (though very many former Christians take up the faith of Jesus himself, as I did). Peace to them all; for the overwhelming majority of us, the questions have not changed, and neither have the answers.

Let us all follow and serve God in our own ways, and let us all -- Christians, Jews, Muslims. and humanists alike -- work together for human freedom, human dignity, and peace, against the idol worshipers of our own day, those who worship power, or money, or themselves. There's much to be done there before we begin settling questions that no one can settle.

We Jews at concerned with this life; the next, we leave to God. If we are wrong to do so, that is between God and us. And as far as I, for one, am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

[The Tongue]

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

I never said He was. I said, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was. Mattityahu is playing off of that to make a point from a shared cultural tradition. He is not saying that Yesha'yahu was in fact speaking directly to the birth of Yeshua. It is common understanding that HaMashiach will save Isra'el from her enemies. This story of Emmanuel is about Isra'el being save from her enemies. So, Mattityahu frames the birth of Yeshua in the context of Emmanuel, because he is making the point that Adonai is with us. Again, you might not agree with that view, but it is not an uncommon method of rabbinic teaching.

No, Matthew rips Isaiah 7:14 out of context and states that Jesus fulfilled this messianic prophecy.

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).

This was fulfilled already as I have shown to be true. This shows that Matthew didn't understand that it was already fulfilled and he makes the verse into something it is not.

Wrong again mate. The prophet said that an "Almah"=unmarried woman would be with child etc, and Matthew said nothing about a virgin, what Matthew says is, "All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The "Parthenos=unmarried girl," will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

The word virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus, was not introduced into the bible until 405 AD with the erroneous translation by Jerome in the Latin vulgate.

BTW, I have never, never, never, never, said that Jesus was God, but that he was the host body through which the spirit of the "SON of MAN," revealed himself.

And your statement was that Jesus was never called, "God is with us" and you asked for evidence to prove that he has been called "God is with us."

Good heavens man are you that blind? Open your eyes. Are you honestly trying to say that the children of the bride of the Anti-Christ and all their denominational daughter bodies, do not worship Jesus as their God? Do they not pray to Jesus who they believe is with them, as their God? Have you never heard them say, "Jesus our 'god is with us'?"

The son of Isaiah was never called "God is with us," But Jesus, whether right or wrong, is certainly called and believed to be, "god is with us."

Read Isaiah 9: 3-7; and tell us who you think that Isaiah is here referring to?

[Nickman]

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

I never said He was. I said, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was. Mattityahu is playing off of that to make a point from a shared cultural tradition. He is not saying that Yesha'yahu was in fact speaking directly to the birth of Yeshua. It is common understanding that HaMashiach will save Isra'el from her enemies. This story of Emmanuel is about Isra'el being save from her enemies. So, Mattityahu frames the birth of Yeshua in the context of Emmanuel, because he is making the point that Adonai is with us. Again, you might not agree with that view, but it is not an uncommon method of rabbinic teaching.

No, Matthew rips Isaiah 7:14 out of context and states that Jesus fulfilled this messianic prophecy.

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).

This was fulfilled already as I have shown to be true. This shows that Matthew didn't understand that it was already fulfilled and he makes the verse into something it is not.

Wrong again mate. The prophet said that an "Almah"=unmarried woman would be with child etc, and Matthew said nothing about a virgin, what Matthew says is, "All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The "Parthenos=unmarried girl," will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

The word virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus, was not introduced into the bible until 405 AD with the erroneous translation by Jerome in the Latin vulgate.

BTW, I have never, never, never, never, said that Jesus was God, but that he was the host body through which the spirit of the "SON of MAN," revealed himself.

And your statement was that Jesus was never called, "God is with us" and you asked for evidence to prove that he has been called "God is with us."

Good heavens man are you that blind? Open your eyes man. Are you honestly trying to say that the children of the bride of the Anti-Christ and all their denominational daughter bodies, do not worship Jesus as their God? Do they not pray to Jesus who they believe is with them, as their God? have you never heard them say, "Jesus our 'god is with us'?"

Again you didn't provide any verses that say that Jesus is call "god with us"

[The Tongue]

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

Jesus was never called "god with us". Please provide said usage.

I never said He was. I said, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was. Mattityahu is playing off of that to make a point from a shared cultural tradition. He is not saying that Yesha'yahu was in fact speaking directly to the birth of Yeshua. It is common understanding that HaMashiach will save Isra'el from her enemies. This story of Emmanuel is about Isra'el being save from her enemies. So, Mattityahu frames the birth of Yeshua in the context of Emmanuel, because he is making the point that Adonai is with us. Again, you might not agree with that view, but it is not an uncommon method of rabbinic teaching.

No, Matthew rips Isaiah 7:14 out of context and states that Jesus fulfilled this messianic prophecy.

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).

This was fulfilled already as I have shown to be true. This shows that Matthew didn't understand that it was already fulfilled and he makes the verse into something it is not.

Wrong again mate. The prophet said that an "Almah"=unmarried woman would be with child etc, and Matthew said nothing about a virgin, what Matthew says is, "All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The "Parthenos=unmarried girl," will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

The word virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus, was not introduced into the bible until 405 AD with the erroneous translation by Jerome in the Latin vulgate.

BTW, I have never, never, never, never, said that Jesus was God, but that he was the host body through which the spirit of the "SON of MAN," revealed himself.

And your statement was that Jesus was never called, "God is with us" and you asked for evidence to prove that he has been called "God is with us."

Good heavens man are you that blind? Open your eyes man. Are you honestly trying to say that the children of the bride of the Anti-Christ and all their denominational daughter bodies, do not worship Jesus as their God? Do they not pray to Jesus who they believe is with them, as their God? have you never heard them say, "Jesus our 'god is with us'?"

Again you didn't provide any verses that say that Jesus is call "god with us"

I don't have to, none of the apostle believed that Jesus was God and nowhere will you find that reference in the holy scripture, for what the scripture says, is that the child born to the "Parthenos=unmarried woman" would be called "GOD IS WITH US," and only a blind person would believe that he has not been referred to as the God who is with us.

1st Timothy 1: 1; "From Paul, an apostle of Jesus the anointed one by order of GOD OUR SAVIOUR and the anointed one Jesus OUR HOPE.