Getting Down To The Root...

[Kat22]

You know, I just want to tell all of you one thing. Even with the hard time I have been given, you still have one big thing in your favor. You are nicer than the Mormons! I wanted to get a Mormon perspective on things and went to one of their forums. I got DOUSED with criticism and attacks even worse than here! At least there were a few of you that were willing to give me a chance. Only ONE person took me seriously in the Mormon forum and everyone else judged and ridiculed me.

 

Given a choice between the two, I would gladly come back here

[Amanda]

You know, I just want to tell all of you one thing. Even with the hard time I have been given, you still have one big thing in your favor. You are nicer than the Mormons! I wanted to get a Mormon perspective on things and went to one of their forums. I got DOUSED with criticism and attacks even worse than here! At least there were a few of you that were willing to give me a chance. Only ONE person took me seriously in the Mormon forum and everyone else judged and ridiculed me.

 

Given a choice between the two, I would gladly come back here

Kat22, that is how I felt! It wasn't a Mormon site, however... yet here was better than there!

 

I hope you stick around! It never hurts to think!

[RHEMtron]

It's because here, we dont tell you what we think you should believe. Instead, we tell you to look closer at what it is you believe.

[Fweethawt]

I said this before, and I'll say it again..."What does it matter WHAT anyone else thinks or says?" The only thing that matters...the ONLY thing that YOU need to do...is READ the Bible for yourself. Remove your rose-colored glasses. Take your BIASED fingers OFF the scales of Truth. Start with a blank slate and read the Bible as you would if you were an agnostic, who NEVER had any religious brain washing.

I've heard this advice given as a way to come to The Faith™.

 

With this approach, one has to be extremely aware of what is going on in their head at all times. It's very difficult for most people to do. Not because most of them are unable to do so, but because it's a "new" way of thinking that hasn't been taught to them before.

 

It's one of those things that you have to want to do in order to see how it works.

[Checkmate]

I said this before, and I'll say it again..."What does it matter WHAT anyone else thinks or says?" The only thing that matters...the ONLY thing that YOU need to do...is READ the Bible for yourself. Remove your rose-colored glasses. Take your BIASED fingers OFF the scales of Truth. Start with a blank slate and read the Bible as you would if you were an agnostic, who NEVER had any religious brain washing.

I've heard this advice given as a way to come to The Faith™.

 

With this approach, one has to be extremely aware of what is going on in their head at all times. It's very difficult for most people to do. Not because most of them are unable to do so, but because it's a "new" way of thinking that hasn't been taught to them before.

 

It's one of those things that you have to want to do in order to see how it works.

True. I learned of this "blank slate" method of Bible study from a Christian, but he wasn't REALLY offering a "blank slate". Actually you were to assume certain "facts", like there is a God, that he loves you, Jesus is Lord, that you were reading His word and that it is inerrant. THAT is not a "blank slate". THAT "slate" has words permanently gouged in it from jump street!

 

What he was REALLY offering was a way to sidestep certain dogma from OTHER Christians, and NOT a method of discerning Truth.

 

So, yes, it is difficult to accomplish without preconceived notions. You must be skilled in watching your mind "tip the scales" in favor of the religion's prior brain washing.

[Antlerman]

Hey Kat,

 

Sorry I really haven't had the time to put together some orderly from different sources on Paul and the conflict within the early church, and now I'm going out of town for a long weekend. So in short for now, this person has a good discussion of it here that I think is well worth your time to look at. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html (in fact that who site is worth spending your time at)

 

The fight between Paul and James and the authority of the Jerusalem church really adds a very human perspective to this whole "divine" institution. It's really more about different views and powerful personalities and politics. You can certainly see this in Paul's repeated fights to be the voice of authority for the churches he established; constantly trying to prove to them he is given authority by Christ over those other apostles who challenged him. He "told off" those in the Jerusalem church, but the texts fail to show that he prevailed, and more than likely lost the day with them. Hardly a church of "one faith".

 

All in all, the whole of the Church's evolution has been about this. As a young Bible student studying to become a minister, I was struck by the changes of teachings throughout history; leading up to the "true" church coming though and being "restored" in the end times before Christ's return. I would think to myself, "If Christ established the church on the rock of truth and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it, then what happened?" It was the beginning of my realization that God in the world was far less a black and white truth than what I was being sold, eventually seeing it was far more about man's ideas in everything.

 

Good luck to you in your searching. It's a lot to sift through.

[SkepticOfBible]

This makes me think of my growing up. When I was a child, I accepted the Mormon faith willingly but questioned responses that seemed to limit the power of God. For instance, I asked my dad about the virgin birth and he said Mary was a virgin until the Holy Spirit "came down" and concieved Christ with her.

 

Maybe you should have asked your Daddy, as why was Is 7:14 a messianic prophecy, when the context shows that the sign was given to King Ahaz, and that it is known fact today that Is 7:14 is not even talking about virgin birth?

 

And when did Jesus fulfill Is 7:13 and Is 7:15?

[Ouroboros]

And when did Jesus fulfill Is 7:13 and Is 7:15?

Even more this verse: Isa 7:16 But 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.

 

The time when a "boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" I think when they turn 12 in Jewish tradition. So did land get laid to waist during the time of Jesus? The way I read it it's between Jesus birth and 12 year birthday. And nothing of that sort happened during that time...

[freeday]

And when did Jesus fulfill Is 7:13 and Is 7:15?

Even more this verse: Isa 7:16 But 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.

 

The time when a "boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" I think when they turn 12 in Jewish tradition. So did land get laid to waist during the time of Jesus? The way I read it it's between Jesus birth and 12 year birthday. And nothing of that sort happened during that time...

 

this passage seems to have a double meaning to it, one an immidiate fullfillment and a reference to the Messiah. it distinctly uses the world almah to describe the woman. here is a link describing the difference vs bethulah which is the more common way to describe a virgin in the bible. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

 

some think he is reffering to his 2nd child. (Is 8:18) gives refference to this. if this is the case they are reffering to Judah's two main enemies israel and aram. which would have been destroyed by asyria, just as the prophecy stated.

 

oh SkepticOfBible Is 7:13 is not a prophecy.

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't make sense, the prophecy is that this particular boy, that is supposed to be born by a virgin, is expressed in such a way that the event should happen between his birth and the age of 12. Not before his birth. Then it should have been expressed that way.

 

It's like saying, "Hans was born in 1965, but before he was 40 the dinosaurs roamed the earth and the world have an ice age." How do you interpret a phrase like that?

 

And why is it so special that something happened 100 years before Jesus age of 12, and not something (or all things) between the prophets words and the Jesus age 12? He could have said "before the boy is 12, God will create the world and Noah will build an ark." It's just extremely silly to say anything if the timeline has nothing to do with the boys birth vs his age of maturity.

[Amanda]

And when did Jesus fulfill Is 7:13 and Is 7:15?

Even more this verse: Isa 7:16 But 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.

 

The time when a "boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" I think when they turn 12 in Jewish tradition. So did land get laid to waist during the time of Jesus? The way I read it it's between Jesus birth and 12 year birthday. And nothing of that sort happened during that time...

 

It is written differently in this version here

 

7:16 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.

 

I think this is before the age of accountability of Jesus, the warring Kings of Syria and Ephraim against Jerusalem, shall be gone and their country will be left without these kings. Maybe they died?

[Dhampir]

Maybe they died?

If that's the case, then this is an example of one of the stupider biblical prophesies, and I know if I were a god, I wouldn't want one of my greatest works associated with something so retarded.

[Ouroboros]

It is written differently in this version here

 

7:16 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.

 

I think this is before the age of accountability of Jesus, the warring Kings of Syria and Ephraim against Jerusalem, shall be gone and their country will be left without these kings. Maybe they died?

I think you also are missing the subtle meaning in the passage. When did the warring Kings of Syria and Ephraim leave the country? If you read the passages in sequence, it should be between Jesus' birth and Jesus' age of accountability (as you so eloquently called it). Not before Jesus' birth.

 

The verses go:

 

A Messiah will be born.

A war in the country will stop.

The Messiah will be 12 years old.

 

And I see that as the sequence of events, and nothing in the verses hints otherwise. If the war was supposed to stop before the Messiah's birth, then why bring in the age of accountability even into the phrases? Why not say, "and before this boy is born, the land that thou..."

 

I still wonder, what two kings is it referring to in the time of 1-12 AD?

 

(I might be totally off by this discussion, and if I'm wrong I will correct myself. I just want an answer to what was supposed to happen between 1 and 12 AD.)

[SkepticOfBible]

 

this passage seems to have a double meaning to it, one an immidiate fullfillment and a reference to the Messiah. it distinctly uses the world almah to describe the woman. here is a link describing the difference vs bethulah which is the more common way to describe a virgin in the bible. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

 

And here is Jewish Counter missionay site which refutes this, along with references Christian translation that have translated it as young women

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

 

some think he is reffering to his 2nd child. (Is 8:18) gives refference to this. if this is the case they are reffering to Judah's two main enemies israel and aram. which would have been destroyed by asyria, just as the prophecy stated.

 

Which happened in 2 Kings 16:9. Therefore the prophecy was fufilled.

 

So where does Isaiah say that this would be fulfilled twice?

 

So once again....

 

And when did Jesus fulfill Is 7:15-17, which is talking about the same Immanuel?And btw Jesus was never called Immanuel, so how was Is 7:14 fulfilled by him?

[Ouroboros]

this passage seems to have a double meaning to it, one an immidiate fullfillment and a reference to the Messiah. it distinctly uses the world almah to describe the woman. here is a link describing the difference vs bethulah which is the more common way to describe a virgin in the bible. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

If it has a double meaning, or double fulfilling, then my question is:

 

The first child (whoever it was in the years BC) born by a virgin too?

 

And the second child (Jesus) fulfilling the second part of the context?

 

some think he is reffering to his 2nd child. (Is 8:18) gives refference to this. if this is the case they are reffering to Judah's two main enemies israel and aram. which would have been destroyed by asyria, just as the prophecy stated.

So who was born by a virgin at that time?

 

oh SkepticOfBible Is 7:13 is not a prophecy.

True, it's just a statement.

 

But what about the rest of the chapter? The people would suppsedly be blessed with milk and honey, and when did that happen? Israel got destroyed, and the Christians persectued, and after that Christian rulers started the dark ages. When were the blessed times?

 

If you allude to a spiritual understanding of the verses, say for instance that these blessed times is now because Christians are so "happy" inside, then why is just one of the verses interpreted as literally a virgin, and the rest interpreted as spiritual and emotional understanding?

[freeday]

this passage seems to have a double meaning to it, one an immidiate fullfillment and a reference to the Messiah. it distinctly uses the world almah to describe the woman. here is a link describing the difference vs bethulah which is the more common way to describe a virgin in the bible. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

If it has a double meaning, or double fulfilling, then my question is:

 

The first child (whoever it was in the years BC) born by a virgin too?

 

And the second child (Jesus) fulfilling the second part of the context?

 

some think he is reffering to his 2nd child. (Is 8:18) gives refference to this. if this is the case they are reffering to Judah's two main enemies israel and aram. which would have been destroyed by asyria, just as the prophecy stated.

So who was born by a virgin at that time?

 

oh SkepticOfBible Is 7:13 is not a prophecy.

True, it's just a statement.

 

But what about the rest of the chapter? The people would suppsedly be blessed with milk and honey, and when did that happen? Israel got destroyed, and the Christians persectued, and after that Christian rulers started the dark ages. When were the blessed times?

 

If you allude to a spiritual understanding of the verses, say for instance that these blessed times is now because Christians are so "happy" inside, then why is just one of the verses interpreted as literally a virgin, and the rest interpreted as spiritual and emotional understanding?

 

technically this happened well before there were christians. he was saying the mainden-born son will live in poverty (eating curds and honey) until he reaches the age of accountability. but before he reaches that age, the lands of asyria and israel will be forsaken by their kings, thus the alliance that judah feared would come to nothing.

[Ouroboros]

technically this happened well before there were christians. he was saying the mainden-born son will live in poverty (eating curds and honey) until he reaches the age of accountability. but before he reaches that age, the lands of asyria and israel will be forsaken by their kings, thus the alliance that judah feared would come to nothing.

I thought Curd (Yogurt and Cottage Cheese made from milk) and Honey meant wealth... (Moses going to the land of milk and honey, was he going to poverty?)

 

I'm not sure, because I'm missing a part in history here, was Syria and Israel forsaken by their kings between 1 and 12 AD? Israel didn't even have a real king at that time... or?

 

--edit--

 

Link to Hebrew Bible in English

[SkepticOfBible]

Hey freeday,

 

I had a closer look at your article

 

A look at the Septuagint translation of almah by Semitics scholar Dr. Cyrus Gordon, provides additional insight on the matter:

 

...

Jewish and Christian scholars would be hard pressed to deny that the Greek term parthenos and the Hebrew term almah may have been used interchangeably by those Jewish communities that adopted the Septuagint.

 

On the other hand, J. Gresham Machen, who has done a definitive study on this passage, asserts that the translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew word almah as parthenos cannot be used to show a Jewish doctrine of the virgin birth, for one also finds the word parthenos used in the Septuagint to translate the word na'arah, which merely means "young girl."

The main arguement here hinges on the fact, that because the Septuigent uses the word parthenos, therefore Is 7:14 has to mean virgin. However the Septuiguint, is not the question here, unless you want to claim that Septuigent was divinely inspired. So why was Matthew, who is claimed to be a Jewish expert, by many christian, use a Greek translation? Did he not know Hebrew or did the HS forget to teach him that?

 

Btw, it pays you read your link carefully.

 

One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah

technically this happened well before there were christians. he was saying the mainden-born son will live in poverty (eating curds and honey) until he reaches the age of accountability. but before he reaches that age, the lands of asyria and israel will be forsaken by their kings, thus the alliance that judah feared would come to nothing.

 

So..... what's your point?

 

You haven't answered any of my questions.

[Antlerman]

Freeday or anyone else interested, this is a well put together article on the whole virgin birth story in the early church, looking not only at the language usage with "virgin" but the absence of such a phenomenal event in the earliest writings of Paul and the Gospels of Mark and Luke. It worth the read. BTW he's a good friend of mine and fellow Bible College classmate : http://www.talkingtimeline.com/part02_Virgin_Birth.htm

[Amanda]

I think you also are missing the subtle meaning in the passage. When did the warring Kings of Syria and Ephraim leave the country? If you read the passages in sequence, it should be between Jesus' birth and Jesus' age of accountability (as you so eloquently called it). Not before Jesus' birth.

I think you're right... my apologies.

 

I still wonder, what two kings is it referring to in the time of 1-12 AD?

 

(I might be totally off by this discussion, and if I'm wrong I will correct myself. I just want an answer to what was supposed to happen between 1 and 12 AD.)

It seems to me it is Asyria and Egypt. It seems that at that time, Egypt did whatever Syria wanted, in regards to Jerusalem. I don't know who the rulers were during this period, and have tried to research this to no avail. *sigh*

[Ouroboros]

What's funny is that I never thought of that "prophesy" until this discussion. And it has been there in the Bible all the time, but I don't think I've heard anyone give an explanation to what it prophesied about. If it was literal, just like the "virgin" birth, and just as miraculous and grandiose, shouldn't it be pretty clear from historical evidence what it was? Or maybe the simple explanation is (to y'all fundamentalists) the whole part of the scripture isn't a prophesy at all!