nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
I'm just accepting the plain reading of the text. To read what you're claiming cannot be supported at all by the text.
I can apply those exact words to your reading of Isaiah 7.
The 65-year period is that in which Ephraim is to fall and "no longer be a people". The early life of the child in verse 14 is marking the time in which Rezin and Pekah, the two kings threatening the upcoming attack, will fall.
It could be.
What else "could" it be?
"Bulls of your lips" is a poetic rendering which refers to their repentence.
Yes, it's poetic. But it does not mean the Levitical sacrificial system has been annulled.
It was declared sufficient when they don't have access to a temple.
[Lev 16:21 KJV] 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
How do you read that as being merely symbolic?
So they could resume the everlasting statute after having no access to the temple.
Which statutes are you referring to?
The same Levitical statute which you pointed out was everlasting.
You did assert that he was God on earth.
I didn't assert he was in the form of God while on earth.
Being temptable or untemptable isn't about the "form" of God. It's about the intrinsic nature of God.
I will readily admit I don't fully understand the concept of the Trinity either. There are many unknowns in life.
Christian theology doesn't have an exclusive claim to the unknown.
Now that you mention it, I doubt the first Christians grasped the concept of the Trinity either. So, would they have been saved?
An interesting question. Do you think the Christian Bible gives an answer?
Interpretations have to depend on the text.
Then any interpretation of Isaiah 7 has to depend on what the text says, not on what you want it to say.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:46 pm
Are you finally admitting that the alma is not a virgin?
No, I'm trying to understand what you are claiming.
It's not about the author's "too amazing" literary device. It's about all of the examples leaving no trace, which shows that the alma is not a virgin.
I don't think the passage is referring to sexual activity between a man and a woman. Even if it is, wouldn't a virgin be the one to leave no trace?
Sure, I accept betulim means virgin. And you also stated before alma can also mean virgin.
Wrong. I pointed out that an alma can be a virgin, but that the word "alma" does not mean "virgin".
OK, if alma can be a virgin, then I rest my case.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 8:06 pm
I can apply those exact words to your reading of Isaiah 7.
I believe my interpretation of Isa 7:14 is based on the plain reading of it as well.
[Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
What else "could" it be?
It's not clear since there's nobody that is referred to as Immanuel afterwards in the Tanakh.
It was declared sufficient when they don't have access to a temple.
I might grant that in the case of a temporary situation that spans decades. But it is another matter when it spans millennia.
[Lev 16:21 KJV] 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
How do you read that as being merely symbolic?
The symbolism is the casting away of the nation's sins through a literal act of releasing the scapegoat.
So they could resume the everlasting statute after having no access to the temple.
Which statutes are you referring to?
The same Levitical statute which you pointed out was everlasting.
[Lev 16:34 KJV] 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
And the Jews have not resumed the sacrificial statutes for almost 2000 years after the destruction of the second temple. This is a longer period than when the Jews did follow the sacrificial requirements.
I didn't assert he was in the form of God while on earth.
Being temptable or untemptable isn't about the "form" of God. It's about the intrinsic nature of God.
One thing that can be sure about the intrinsic nature of God is he is sinless. So whether we're referring to Jesus or God the Father, they are sinless. Was Jesus tempted to commit a sin? Yes. Has Father God been tempted to commit a sin? No.
Christian theology doesn't have an exclusive claim to the unknown.
Of course. And as I've pointed out, even science has unknowns.
Now that you mention it, I doubt the first Christians grasped the concept of the Trinity either. So, would they have been saved?
An interesting question. Do you think the Christian Bible gives an answer?
There is only one person that Jesus explicitly said would be with him in paradise and he knew little about theology.
Then any interpretation of Isaiah 7 has to depend on what the text says, not on what you want it to say.
I don't think the passage is referring to sexual activity between a man and a woman.
Then what do you think it's about?
Even if it is, wouldn't a virgin be the one to leave no trace?
I don't know if there's already a name for this, but I call it the Recurring Question Fallacy. After a question is answered, it's asked again as if it hasn't been answered.
Here's the answer to that question again, from just a few posts back:
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him"
(Deuteronomy 22:13-18)
"The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin."
I pointed out that an alma can be a virgin, but that the word "alma" does not mean "virgin".
OK, if alma can be a virgin, then I rest my case.
Then who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?
I believe my interpretation of Isa 7:14 is based on the plain reading of it as well.
[Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Why do you pick out that one verse without putting it in the context of the chapter beginning with verse 1?
Who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time and how did anyone know that she was still a virgin after she conceived?
It was declared sufficient when they don't have access to a temple.
I might grant that in the case of a temporary situation that spans decades. But it is another matter when it spans millennia.
Why?
The symbolism is the casting away of the nation's sins through a literal act of releasing the scapegoat.
All you're saying is that the literal act is symbolic. You're not saying where the text says it's symbolic. The text says that the nation's sins are placed on the head of the goat "to make atonement".
And the Jews have not resumed the sacrificial statutes for almost 2000 years after the destruction of the second temple. This is a longer period than when the Jews did follow the sacrificial requirements.
Again, how is the length of time relevant?
One thing that can be sure about the intrinsic nature of God is he is sinless. So whether we're referring to Jesus or God the Father, they are sinless. Was Jesus tempted to commit a sin? Yes. Has Father God been tempted to commit a sin? No.
Being untemptable means that you cannot sin. Being temptable means that you can sin. If God cannot sin and Jesus could sin, then Jesus did not have all the definitive attributes of God, which means that he cannot have been God.
I don't think the passage is referring to sexual activity between a man and a woman.
Then what do you think it's about?
I think it's about courtship.
"The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin."[/i]
Yeah you said that before, and it still makes no sense to me.
Then who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?
I've never claimed it was fulfilled during Isaiah's time. If you believe it was, then you'll need to answer that question.
Why do you pick out that one verse without putting it in the context of the chapter beginning with verse 1?
Because we are specifically debating Isa 7:14. As for the context, we've already discussed it before.
I might grant that in the case of a temporary situation that spans decades. But it is another matter when it spans millennia.
Why?
It's like me getting my car repaired at the dealership. Since it'll take a day or two to get it fixed, the dealership will lend me a loaner car until it gets fixed. But, if it's totaled, the dealership is not going to lend me a car to drive for the rest of my life.
All you're saying is that the literal act is symbolic. You're not saying where the text says it's symbolic. The text says that the nation's sins are placed on the head of the goat "to make atonement".
There is no need for the text to explicitly use the word "symbolic". To read the text to find the symbolic meaning is a basic principle of hermeneutics.
Again, how is the length of time relevant?
Another illustration is if you can't make a payment on a debt, you can contact the lender and ask for an extension for a week to pay it back and they'll allow for that. But it cannot be extended indefinitely so that it'll never be paid.
Being temptable means that you can sin.
It means one might commit a sin. Being tempted does not automatically lead to one sinning.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 10:41 pm
(Deuteronomy 22:13-18)
"The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin."[/i]
I pointed out that an alma can be a virgin, but that the word "alma" does not mean "virgin".
I understand that the writers of the Bible were ignorant, but that's no excuse for modern people to be.
Sex is not the only way the hymen is ruptured. Virgins don't always bleed. Non-virgins can bleed depending on the sizes of things inserted.
Once again science proves the Bible wrong or misguided, so let's take what they say with a grain of salt. Not to mention the absolute disgusting craziness of treating girls like chattel.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
I don't think the passage is referring to sexual activity between a man and a woman.
Then what do you think it's about?
I think it's about courtship.
Then why does the very next verse [v. 20] explicitly identify the woman as a non-virgin?
Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
"The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin."
Yeah you said that before, and it still makes no sense to me.
It still makes sense. (boatsnguitars is technically correct, but for the sake of argument my point stands).
Then who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?
I've never claimed it was fulfilled during Isaiah's time. If you believe it was, then you'll need to answer that question.
I don't need to answer the question, because the woman who gave birth in Isaiah's time wasn't a virgin.
And I've already pointed out that foretelling a birth 700 years in the future would be meaningless as a prophecy of the downfall of Rezin and Pekah, which the text explicitly says the prophecy is about.
Why do you pick out that one verse without putting it in the context of the chapter beginning with verse 1?
Because we are specifically debating Isa 7:14. As for the context, we've already discussed it before.
Yes, and I've pointed out what the context is. You can't have a meaningful discussion about any verse without the context of the verses around it, so there is no "specifically" debating an individual verse.
I might grant that in the case of a temporary situation that spans decades. But it is another matter when it spans millennia.
Why?
It's like me getting my car repaired at the dealership. Since it'll take a day or two to get it fixed, the dealership will lend me a loaner car until it gets fixed. But, if it's totaled, the dealership is not going to lend me a car to drive for the rest of my life.
An offering is an offering, whether the bull is burned or spoken.
There is no need for the text to explicitly use the word "symbolic". To read the text to find the symbolic meaning is a basic principle of hermeneutics.
There's no need even for hermeneutics to read the text and see that it says that the sins are placed on the goat "to make atonement".
It's funny that when you take the text literally it's a plain reading, but when critics take it literally they're being "hyperliteral".
Another illustration is if you can't make a payment on a debt, you can contact the lender and ask for an extension for a week to pay it back and they'll allow for that. But it cannot be extended indefinitely so that it'll never be paid.
But it can be paid with the bulls of your lips until a new temple is built (the lender will certainly grant whatever is needed if the office you go to for payment is destroyed).
Being temptable means that you can sin.
It means one might commit a sin. Being tempted does not automatically lead to one sinning.
Then why is it so important that God be untemptable?
Then why does the very next verse [v. 20] explicitly identify the woman as a non-virgin?
This is a list of proverbs. Each saying stands independently. The maid in Prov 30:19 is not the same as the adulterer in Prov 30:20.
I've never claimed it was fulfilled during Isaiah's time. If you believe it was, then you'll need to answer that question.
I don't need to answer the question, because the woman who gave birth in Isaiah's time wasn't a virgin.
Even if we grant it was not a virgin, who was born that was named Immanuel?
And I've already pointed out that foretelling a birth 700 years in the future would be meaningless as a prophecy of the downfall of Rezin and Pekah, which the text explicitly says the prophecy is about.
The text does not explicitly say who the kings are. All it says is "both her kings". It could be referring to Rezin and Pekah, but it's not explicit.
[Isa 7:16 KJV] 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
You can't have a meaningful discussion about any verse without the context of the verses around it, so there is no "specifically" debating an individual verse.
Of course. I've never claimed we should not look at the context.
There's no need even for hermeneutics to read the text and see that it says that the sins are placed on the goat "to make atonement".
I'm not clear what you're claiming or what you're even disputing. How am I interpreting Lev 16:21 incorrectly?
[Lev 16:21 KJV] 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
As for atonement, are you referring to Lev 16:10?
[Lev 16:10 KJV] 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Yes, the scapegoat was also to make an atonement for the high priest as well. The scapegoat was used for both atoning for the sins of the high priest and carrying Israel's sins away.
An offering is an offering, whether the bull is burned or spoken.
But it can be paid with the bulls of your lips until a new temple is built (the lender will certainly grant whatever is needed if the office you go to for payment is destroyed).
Office might be destroyed, but the payment still needs to be made. Thus the dilemma for the Jews. The only way around this for the Jews is to not take the Torah seriously and discount the entire sacrificial system and say "an offering is an offering". So, ironically, it is the Christians that takes the Torah more seriously than the Jews.
Then why is it so important that God be untemptable?
I think it's a pointer to the fact that when we get to heaven, we won't be tempted to sin as well.
The concept of the Messiah has its foundation in our Jewish Bible, the Tanach, which teaches that all of the following criteria must be fulfilled before any person can be acknowledged as the Messiah
As Rabbi Skobac points out, the Tanakh does not mention "the Messiah".
"The word the Messiah or the expression the Messiah in Hebrew never appears in the Bible. Strange you would think from a Christian point of view where they believe that the idea of the Messiah is the most important concept in their entire religion you’d think that at least the word would appear in the Bible once or twice so it I point out to them that they should realize that the Bible never speaks about someone that’s called the Messiah." viewtopic.php?p=1131350#p1131350
So, how can "the Messiah" be the foundation of the Jewish Bible if "the Messiah" never appears?
The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon.
The Messiah must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct descendant of King David & King Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10).
Genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18).
There is no evidence that Jesus really had this pedigree, and the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a “birth-father” from the tribe of Judah descending from King David and King Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20).
True, Jesus's birth father did not have a lineage from David. Rather, it is claimed God is the biological father. This fulfilled Jesus being the son of God.
[Luk 1:35 KJV] 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
However, his legal father did have a lineage from David and Solomon.
[Mat 1:17 KJV] 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/1/18/s_930018
The genealogy in Luke is interpreted as his mother's genealogy. And even his mother had a lineage from David.
A common explanation among theologians is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph.
[Luk 3:23, 31 KJV] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, ... 31 Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,
Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles
When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland (Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24).
This has clearly not yet happened and we still await its fulfillment.
There are several problems with this argument. One is there is no direct connection between the future utopian world and the Messiah. There is no scriptural support from the Tanakh that shows a direct linkage between the two.
As pointed out by Rabbi Skobac:
"Bible says the world will become a place of universal peace. All weapons will be destroyed and we have now this beautiful portrait in the Bible that's portrayed in many many many passages over and over and over again. This theme of a restored utopian perfected fixed world. But when you read these passages it's very interesting the vast majority of them the vast majority don't speak about any particular person. Meaning that the focus of these passages in the Bible is not on a person it's on what the world will look like in the future. It focuses on the world." viewtopic.php?p=1131350#p1131350
Another point is the land of Israel has been reestablished since 1948. So Jews around the world are free to be a citizen of Israel if they wish.
Rebuilding of the Holy Temple
The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).
The Temple was still standing in Jesus’ day. It was destroyed 38 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and it has not yet been rebuilt.
Again, there is no scriptural support for a direct linkage between the Messiah's coming and the rebuilding of the temple from the Tanakh.
And why is it so important to rebuild the temple if Jews now claim they don't need the temple and the sacrificial system to atone for their sins?
Worldwide Reign of Peace
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity.
Same thing. Also the implied accusation that Christianity has caused the increase in wars is a misplaced accusation. There were plenty of wars prior to the start of Christianity. And there have been many wars that have been fought that was not in the name of Christ.
Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews
The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).
Jesus never ruled as King, nor have all Jews embraced the commandments of G-d’s Torah.
The basic tenet of Christianity is Christians must declare Jesus as Lord. So, for Christians, Jesus is their king and ruler.
It is true all Jews have not embraced the commandments of the Torah.
Universal Knowledge of G-d
The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).
This, as well, has not yet taken place and we await its fulfillment.
Christians believe this as well.
A Biblical Portrait of the Messiah
All of these criteria for the Messiah are found in numerous places in the Jewish Bible. One foundational example is in the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 37:24-28:
“24 And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them
25 and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers have lived; and they shall live there, they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever; and My servant David will be their prince for ever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant, which I will give them; and I will multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever
27 and My tabernacle shall be with them, and I will be their God and they will be My people.
28 And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”
Jesus is our shepherd and guiding us to keep the commandments. Jesus has instituted the new covenant. The Holy Spirit now resides in all believers. In the final consummation, God and his people will dwell together.
[Rev 21:3 KJV] 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
Anyone can claim to be the Messiah or a group of people can claim that someone is the Messiah. However, if that person fails to fulfill all the criteria found in the Jewish Bible, he cannot be the Messiah.
The only thing that Jesus claimed to prove his authority was the prophecy of his resurrection. Since he is the only person in the entire history of the world who prophesied this and it also was fulfilled, it validated him as the Messiah.
According to the Christian scriptures, Jesus seems to have understood this. As he was being crucified by the Romans, he cried out “My G-d, The Christian Rebuttal
In order to deal with Jesus’ failure to fulfill the Biblical messianic prophecies, missionaries argue that he will accomplish them when he returns in the future.
It’s important to understand that this second coming doctrine my G-d, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) is an admission that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic criteria. This rationalization for his failure certainly provides no reason to accept him as the Messiah today.
.
This was spoken by Jesus to show he was fulfilling the prophecies of Psalm 22.
[Psa 22:1 KJV] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa/22
Furthermore, the Jewish Bible does not have a Messianic “installment plan” where Messiah comes, fails in his mission, and then returns thousands of years later to finally succeed.
The Jews do have the concept of a marriage betrothal.
"There is now no legal duration of time between betrothal and marriage, the length of the engagement being left entirely to the option of the parties concerned, except that the marriage may not take place in less than seven days after the agreement to marry has been reached." https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... -betrothal
Jesus came to earth the first time as a betrothal to his bride, the church.
During the second coming, it will be the marriage of Jesus and the church.
[Rev 19:7 KJV] 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Missionaries will claim that because Jesus performed miracles, he must be the Messiah. However, we have no real evidence that Jesus actually performed any miracles.
We have the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.
More significantly, even if Jesus did perform miracles, they would not prove that he was the Messiah.
Our Bible never says that we will be able to recognize the Messiah through the miracles that he will do. The Torah actually teaches that even false prophets can have the ability to perform supernatural miracles (Deut. 13:2-6).
False prophets replicate miracles, not create novel miracles.
The Real Messiah
We Jews prefer to wait for the “real thing” according to G-d’s promises and guidelines. The Jewish Bible provides a clear and consistent description of what the world will look like when the Messiah comes and this has clearly not yet transpired. So, we still await the coming of the true Messiah. May he and a utopian world come soon!
The Jews have been waiting for thousands of years for their Messiah. Why continue to wait for who knows how much longer when it's clear Jesus has fulfilled prophecies of the Tanakh and confirmed his authenticity by his resurrection from the dead.
This is a list of proverbs. Each saying stands independently. The maid in Prov 30:19 is not the same as the adulterer in Prov 30:20.
There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.
The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give.
There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough:
The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.
The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
(Proverbs 30:11-17)
How many proverbs are here? How many generations are being referred to? This text is separated into seven verses, but aren't they all the same proverb?
It's implied that verse 20 is a continuation from verse 19. The women in those verses have something important in common; they've both done something which has left no trace. And the woman in verse 20 is not innocent, so it's implied that the woman in verse 19 isn't innocent either.
As for verse 19 referring to courtship, courtship doesn't entail anything being hidden. A man comes to court a girl, everyone sees that she's been courted and that's all that happens. But the whole passage from verse 18 through verse 20 refers to the same phenomenon----something which happens but doesn't appear to have happened after it happens.
If the verse 19 woman were a virgin [whether or not she had bled on her cloth], a change would be made in her. She would still be an alma, but would no longer be a betulah. If she's an adulterous woman, then she wasn't a betulah before and wasn't a betulah after and so there's no change in her, no trace of what she's done.
Even if we grant it was not a virgin, who was born that was named Immanuel?
Not Yeshua, that's for sure.
In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Emmanuel. In chapter 8, his father [Isaiah] is commanded to call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
The text does not explicitly say who the kings are. All it says is "both her kings". It could be referring to Rezin and Pekah, but it's not explicit.
Rezin and Pekah don't have to be referred to by name in verse 16. It's implied that they're still the kings being referred to.
If verse 16 refers to other kings, why aren't they named?
You're grasping at straws.
There's no need even for hermeneutics to read the text and see that it says that the sins are placed on the goat "to make atonement".
I'm not clear what you're claiming or what you're even disputing. How am I interpreting Lev 16:21 incorrectly?
You insist on interpreting it symbolically when the text implies that it's written literally.
Yes, the scapegoat was also to make an atonement for the high priest as well. The scapegoat was used for both atoning for the sins of the high priest and carrying Israel's sins away.
And it's implied that the atonement was literal, not symbolic.
Office might be destroyed, but the payment still needs to be made.
Payment is still made, with the bulls of their lips.
The only way around this for the Jews is to not take the Torah seriously and discount the entire sacrificial system
The only way to support your position is to conclude that Isaiah and Hosea were discounting the entire sacrificial system. Is that what you believe?
Then why is it so important that God be untemptable?
I think it's a pointer to the fact that when we get to heaven, we won't be tempted to sin as well.
Then if Jesus was God, was God temptable until he got back to heaven?
So, how can "the Messiah" be the foundation of the Jewish Bible if "the Messiah" never appears?
"The Messiah" does appear, just not under that title.
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
(Ezekiel 37:24)
Don't see how Num 1:1-18 is relevant to a requirement of a patristic genealogy. The passage is about men selected for a census.
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.
(Numbers 1:2,4)
True, Jesus's birth father did not have a lineage from David. Rather, it is claimed God is the biological father. This fulfilled Jesus being the son of God.
It doesn't fulfill the messianic requirement.
However, his legal father did have a lineage from David and Solomon.
His "legal" father also had lineage through Jeconiah, whose line was disqualified from future kingship (Jeremiah 22:28-30).
The genealogy in Luke is interpreted as his mother's genealogy. And even his mother had a lineage from David.
His mother had a lineage from David through Nathan, so she couldn't make him a descendent of David through Solomon, which the Jewish Messiah has to be.
And why is it so important to rebuild the temple if Jews now claim they don't need the temple and the sacrificial system to atone for their sins?
I've asked that question myself. I guess they would say that the temple is important to their spiritual identity.
It is true all Jews have not embraced the commandments of the Torah.
Then it must also be true that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established.
Jesus is our shepherd and guiding us to keep the commandments. Jesus has instituted the new covenant.
The new covenant was promised to the houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), whose fathers had broken the covenant after being led out of Egypt (v. 32). Therefore, the new covenant isn't established until it's established among them.
This was spoken by Jesus to show he was fulfilling the prophecies of Psalm 22.
Psalm 22 is a prayer by David to be delivered from his enemies. The only prophetic text in the psalm is in the last few verses, which foretell that the nations of the world will turn to Jehovah.
The only thing that Jesus claimed to prove his authority was the prophecy of his resurrection.
We have the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.
What you're referring to is this:
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(Matthew 12:39-40)
And here you paint Christian theology into a corner. If the only messianic sign that generation was given about Jesus would be the sign of his resurrection, then that generation was not given any sign that he was born to a virgin.
