Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lyra

Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

Recommended Posts

Perhaps poster Stranger is a very clever POE.

 

Poe's Law states:

"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."
 
 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess they had a threesome, but now I'm confused. If the Father and Jesus are both male, then the Holy Spirit would have to be his mother, but then how could a female Holy Spirit impregnate Mary? :)

 

 

Ok, I have a theory. Hear me out. You know some animals can change sex roles? Well maybe the holy spirit is like that - female for god to god production of humans (Stranger) then male for god to human reproduction.

 

 

 

With his last post, I do have to wonder. I've seen plenty religious stupidity, but that one was beyond it all.

 

 

Yep, an absolute dinger. And he's changed his position... again. He's gone from God is his father, to God is his parents.

 

Stranger

 

wpid-Photo-Nov-22-2011-1037-AM.jpg

 

Or you are a genius as Sdelsolray points out.

 

I can't tell which... I mean right up until the God parents thing I was like, yep you just a fundy Christian. Now I'm like.... yeah, nah, could be a troll, and a bloody good one.

 

Hey maybe he's Bibler version 2.0??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Good god... well they fucked up proper then didn't he.

 

Hang on... your parent is god, or your parents are gods? Might have gotten your singular and plurals mixed up.

 

Maybe its an asexual god hence the singular nature of God versus the plural nature of parents.

 

Guys maybe, just maybe, Stranger is fucking with us ya know? I mean this is either insanity territory, or boss troll territory.

 

Stranger's every sentence must contain God, the Bible, or Jesus. :) Obsessive Jesus Disorder.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

:banghead:

 

Let's all bang our heads together!!

 

Stranger....your parents are Adam and Eve!!! :spanka:

 

 

Used to be.

 

Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

All three of em? :)

 

No just God.

 

Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I've been thinking he is a troll for awhile now.....

 

Why?

 

Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Used to be.

 

Stranger

But are not Adam and Eve at least your spiritual parents, in the sense that you inherited a sin nature because of their disobedience to God?  Or are you saying that because God is your parent, you no longer have the capacity to commit sins?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I guess they had a threesome, but now I'm confused. If the Father and Jesus are both male, then the Holy Spirit would have to be his mother, but then how could a female Holy Spirit impregnate Mary? :)

 

Asherah-as hell don't know!  ^_^

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.   

 

This is not a prophecy from Old Testament prophets.   This is a prophecy of the coming of the Holy Ghost.    That He has come in (Acts 2) is clear.  That He continues to indwell, and fill the lives of believers is clear also.   So there are future implications until the time appointed by God for the Church to be removed.   

 

That these verses speak to mohammed  is just another lie.

 

Stranger

 

If you can see how Muslims take 16:7-15 out of its original context in order to make it apply to Mohammed instead of to the holy spirit, do you not see how the authors of the gospels could have taken Hebrew bible passages out of their original contexts and made them apply to Messiah and to Jesus?  You don't see how a Jew would read the context surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and see Matthew taking the passage completely out of context to have it be about a virgin birth for Jesus?  The prophecy in the Isaiah passage is only about the son that would be born as a sign to King Ahaz.  There is nothing there related to the Messiah.  The double near fulfillment / far fulfillment is a midrash-like re-interpretation of the text to claim that there is another, hidden meaning present.  In addition to what LogicalFallacy mentioned in post #956, the next verses, Isaiah 7:15-16, state that the child had to learn how to refuse evil and choose good, and that before the child would know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land that the two kings that Ahaz feared would be deserted.  So this means that Jesus, who as God incarnate is omniscient, had to learn how to choose good and refuse evil?  Also, if the woman who gave birth to Isaiah's son was a virgin, is this not miraculous birth of a son of God, some 600 years earlier than Jesus?  Was Isaiah's son a divine child who was born without sin, like Jesus?  If Matthew used the Greek word for virgin in Matthew 1:23 in speaking about the woman prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, do you not claim this for the woman referenced in Isaiah and instead rely on the Hebrew word almah meaning a young woman? 

 

In reading some of your earlier responses, I'm not sure if you ever read through Citsonga's posts 537 - 539, but those are other examples of Hebrew bible passages taken out of their original contexts. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Asherah-as hell don't know!  ^_^

 

Ohhhh yyeeeessss!

 

10000 points for the reference!

 

TRP is the man... or god... or whatever he wants to be!

 

Yahweh and Asherah up a tree

Making babies for you and me!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

If you can see how Muslims take 16:7-15 out of its original context in order to make it apply to Mohammed instead of to the holy spirit, do you not see how the authors of the gospels could have taken Hebrew bible passages out of their original contexts and made them apply to Messiah and to Jesus?  You don't see how a Jew would read the context surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and see Matthew taking the passage completely out of context to have it be about a virgin birth for Jesus?  The prophecy in the Isaiah passage is only about the son that would be born as a sign to King Ahaz.  There is nothing there related to the Messiah.  The double near fulfillment / far fulfillment is a midrash-like re-interpretation of the text to claim that there is another, hidden meaning present.  In addition to what LogicalFallacy mentioned in post #956, the next verses, Isaiah 7:15-16, state that the child had to learn how to refuse evil and choose good, and that before the child would know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land that the two kings that Ahaz feared would be deserted.  So this means that Jesus, who as God incarnate is omniscient, had to learn how to choose good and refuse evil?  Also, if the woman who gave birth to Isaiah's son was a virgin, is this not miraculous birth of a son of God, some 600 years earlier than Jesus?  Was Isaiah's son a divine child who was born without sin, like Jesus?  If Matthew used the Greek word for virgin in Matthew 1:23 in speaking about the woman prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, do you not claim this for the woman referenced in Isaiah and instead rely on the Hebrew word almah meaning a young woman? 

 

Remembering two things:

 

1) There is a word in Aramaic that means virgin.

2) The writers were very specific with their choice of words.

 

Thus if the writer of Isaiah had wanted to mean virgin, he would have used the word for virgin, not young woman. So while a young woman may be a virgin, in the context of prophesy virgin is not explicitly stated UNTIL Matthew gets hold of it and perverts the meaning. And therein lies the Christian perversion of Jewish writings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I guess they had a threesome, but now I'm confused. If the Father and Jesus are both male, then the Holy Spirit would have to be his mother, but then how could a female Holy Spirit impregnate Mary? :)

 

 

Not a threesome - a fivesome.  (Does that qualify as an orgy?  :P)  Unfortunately Stranger does have 2 real parents somewhere.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

It was just that.  God appearing as a man or as the angel of the LORD.

 

Stranger

But is this not God taking on a form other than spirit?  When God walks in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3:8, how could there not be some type of physical representation of God present there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

But is this not God taking on a form other than spirit?  When God walks in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3:8, how could there not be some type of physical representation of God present there?

 

What Stranger doesn't understand, and doesn't want to know is that the writers are discussing a physical God, who is part of reality and looks and acts like a human. (Moses sees the back parts of a man, references to the hand of god etc) Also hence man made in the image of God. In Genesis god is not a spirit form, he is a physical being, who sits in the sky on a throne, comes down, and walks among humans. We can see this concept of an anthropological god with early clay figurines depicting Yahweh sitting on a throne. This is also why Abraham sees three "men" when god visits. Note he doesn't have a vision or dream of god, he physically sees god and angels as men.

 

This is because, unlike the claim in Genesis, we are not made in the image of god, the bible god is made in our image, after our likeness, and having our good attributes and our flaws. This is why this god can be an angry wrathful killer, and loving god at the same time. God is all too human.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

If you can see how Muslims take 16:7-15 out of its original context in order to make it apply to Mohammed instead of to the holy spirit, do you not see how the authors of the gospels could have taken Hebrew bible passages out of their original contexts and made them apply to Messiah and to Jesus?  You don't see how a Jew would read the context surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and see Matthew taking the passage completely out of context to have it be about a virgin birth for Jesus?  The prophecy in the Isaiah passage is only about the son that would be born as a sign to King Ahaz.  There is nothing there related to the Messiah.  The double near fulfillment / far fulfillment is a midrash-like re-interpretation of the text to claim that there is another, hidden meaning present.  In addition to what LogicalFallacy mentioned in post #956, the next verses, Isaiah 7:15-16, state that the child had to learn how to refuse evil and choose good, and that before the child would know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land that the two kings that Ahaz feared would be deserted.  So this means that Jesus, who as God incarnate is omniscient, had to learn how to choose good and refuse evil?  Also, if the woman who gave birth to Isaiah's son was a virgin, is this not miraculous birth of a son of God, some 600 years earlier than Jesus?  Was Isaiah's son a divine child who was born without sin, like Jesus?  If Matthew used the Greek word for virgin in Matthew 1:23 in speaking about the woman prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, do you not claim this for the woman referenced in Isaiah and instead rely on the Hebrew word almah meaning a young woman? 

 

In reading some of your earlier responses, I'm not sure if you ever read through Citsonga's posts 537 - 539, but those are other examples of Hebrew bible passages taken out of their original contexts. 

 

That makes too much sense for Stranger to comprehend. The only thing he understands is "I believe because I believe." ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

But are not Adam and Eve at least your spiritual parents, in the sense that you inherited a sin nature because of their disobedience to God?  Or are you saying that because God is your parent, you no longer have the capacity to commit sins?

 

Of course I have a link back to Adam and Eve.  But when one becomes a Christian God severs that link and places the Christian in the a new lineage of the Last Adam.  (1Cor. 15:44-45)  I do still sin because the body was never born-again.  It will still die.   My body is of the first Adam.  My Spirit is of the Last Adam.

 

Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

That is exactly what the Gospel writers did with the Old Testament. I addressed this issue in detail in post 538, but you didn't even bother reading it or the other posts I made at that time. If you really had an omniscient god living in you and guiding you into truth, then you easily could've answered the problems I raised instead of tucking your tail and running. You complained that it was too much, but such is the nature of problems in the Bible; they're insurmountable. However, I told you that those posts were broken down into a bunch of little topics that you could address one at a time, but you were too cowardly to even bother with that. So, I'll do it for you on the subject of how Gospel writers changed things in the OT by taking them completely out of context. Here are the topics under Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments broken down into individual posts.

 

The Virgin Birth

            After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the prediction in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace     

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyriaceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible. 

 

Out of Egypt

            Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

            Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

            Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

            So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.

 

The Slaughtered Children

            Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

            Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

            At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

            So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

The Chosen Servant

            Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

            This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

            He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

            While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

            But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

            Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

            So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

            Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

Uttering Parables

            After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

Shared Bread

            John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

            Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

            Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

            So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

            John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

            The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

            The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

            So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.