It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the Mystery of the Trinity…?

page: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Anyway, you wouldn’t accept the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6 that I posted 4 pages back. So why are you suddenly accepting Septuagint translation here of Isaiah 7.


After doing extensive research on the term "virgin", I have come across many conflicting translations that lead me to believe that no one is sure of the exact definition and many fights and changes in translations have taken place because of it. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the "Immanuel" prophecies covers the births of many sons, including Jesus, that would make both definitions of "virgins" correct. It appears to be a twofold prophecy, which is not uncommon throughout scriptures.

"Immanuel" (God with us) appears to be used as a prophetic name to describe signs as well as actual kings, like Hezekiah, who would rule over Judah the way God wanted them to (God with us) in order to preserve it from destruction. I believe that Matthew used this verse to refer to Jesus because the Bible tells us that God/Jesus will eventually reunite Israel and Judah into one kingdom at the time of his rule right before the Millennial Kingdom (the kingdom that will endure forever) starts.

Based on the explanations in the link below, it appears as though Isaiah 7:14 was describing the birth of Isaiah's second son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, which was used as a sign of what was to come (see Isaiah 8) and Hezekiah would be the king who would carry it out during Ahaz's time. Hezekiah would have been in the crowd when Isaiah was addressing "The House of David", as he was the son of Ahaz.

www.gotquestions.org...

Secondly, the verse of Isaiah 9:6 may also be an inclusive statement with many adjectives to describe the many kings who followed God, such as Soloman (called "Wonderful" or 'Counselor"??), but also includes names and titles given to Jesus. Personally, I think this backs up my theory that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and the God that was with them. I believe Jesus was indeed called the "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 because we know that kings were also called the fathers of the kingdoms they ruled over and we know that Jesus' kingdom (Millennial Kingdom) will last forever, just like the Bible tells us.

Below is a very indepth explanation for how I came up with the summary above:

www.agapebiblestudy.com...


edit on 11-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

*: ... having used this video before (mentioning some caveats that I don't feel like repeating again, ...):

You can basically ignore everything after 12:18, the translation he uses there isn't entirely accurate anyway (starting with Col.1:16). The most important evidence regarding Proverbs 8:22-30 is in the first part anyway.
edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

Wrong again. This has already been pointed out in this thread...

Revelation 1:7-8

...

As it has been discussed in a comment of mine before that you choose to ignore or won't say anything about.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Source: Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”?


Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus
...
At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1)


Source: Trinity: Reasoning From the Scriptures
Btw, nowhere in the bible is Jesus referred to as "the Alpha and the Omega". Of course, as usual, Trinitarians have twisted a few verses to make it appear that way. I skipped those parts above. One example is discussed in the video below:

Some of what I skipped:

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

And a little about the ridiculousness of suggesting that the "him" in Rev 1:7, the one that got "pierced", is actually the "I" in verse 8, so "the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga", "Jehovah God", "the Almighty" (NW, verse 8) was the one that got pierced (and died)? How come you get to conveniently split them up again if I would ask you if the eternal God died? After just implying that both verses are referring to the same individual by saying I'm wrong when I repeated the sidenote (a 'by the way') that nowhere in the bible is Jesus referred to as "the Alpha and the Omega". As if quoting Rev. 1:7,8 from a translation that conveniently leaves out God's name in verse 8 in spite of the evidence from the bible itself and from archeology shows that sidenote to be wrong, which it doesn't (not even when quoting from such a translation that won't use God's name in verse 8; common sense applied to the context as well as the bible as a whole shows quite clearly it's not talking about the same individual).

edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
How come you get to conveniently split them up again if I would ask you if the eternal God died? After just implying that both verses are referring to the same individual by saying I'm wrong when I repeated the sidenote (a 'by the way') that nowhere in the bible is Jesus referred to as "the Alpha and the Omega". As if quoting Rev. 1:7,8 from a translation that conveniently leaves out God's name in verse 8 in spite of the evidence from the bible itself and from archeology shows that sidenote to be wrong, which it doesn't (not even when quoting from such a translation that won't use God's name in verse 8; common sense applied to the context as well as the bible as a whole shows quite clearly it's not talking about the same individual).

Correction: you were actually responding to this point:

At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

I got confused there with the interpretation that Trinititarians read into Rev.1:8 that it's Jesus saying that (see verse 2 where God and Jesus Christ are again distinguished from one another, showing that the angel actually is bearing "witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave". Verse 4 shows that in verse 7 it's John talking about Jesus). Which you seemed to want to use to claim that it's wrong to say that "only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1." or the way I phrased it before that regarding the title "Mighty God" not meaning "Almighty God" (or "God Almighty"). Which is similar to the title "the Alpha and the Omega" only being applied to (Jehovah) God in the bible and the attempts by Trinitarians to pretend it's also applied to Jesus at places such as Rev.1:8.
edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Revelation 1:8

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Deny it all you want, but Jesus is the only one who "is", "was", and "is to come" again.

He was "is" in the beginning, he became "was" when he died a human death on the cross, and He "is to come" in the physical again for all to see at His second coming.

And for anyone trying to change the definition of "was", it tells us in Revelation 2:8 what that means...

Revelation 2:8

8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

and Revelation 4 confirms the two...

Revelation 4:8

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Once again, Jesus is the one who "is to come".


edit on 12-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined
Revelation 1:4,5a (NW)

John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia:

May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”


That shows me that "the seven spirits that are before his throne" are not "the One who is and who was and who is coming", just like "Jesus Christ" is not "the One who is and who was and who is coming". Jesus Christ is “the Faithful Witness” of "the One who is and who was and who is coming", i.e. "the Faithful Witness" of Jehovah.

Rev. 4:8

As for the four living creatures, each one of them had six wings; they were full of eyes all around and underneath. And continuously, day and night, they say: “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is coming.”

Pretty clear to me who it's talking about, Jehovah God, the Almighty. Not his Faithful Witness and Son, Jesus. Yes, Jesus was a witness of Jehovah, i.e. one of Jehovah's Witnesses, the most important one and the most faithful (obedient, loyal) one.

Rev. 4:8 (Divine Name King James Bible)

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY( Jehovah Exo 6:3; Isa 6:3; Isa 44:6 ), which was, and is, and is to come.

It's not like they don't know or anything, they just like to pretend "LORD" is an adequate (or honest) substitute (or translation) for "Jehovah". It's quite useful when you want to pretend these texts are about the Lord Jesus Christ rather than "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph.1:3). Anyway, Revelation 1:8 shows Jehovah as coming, he comes representatively, through Christ Jesus. Revelation 4:8 speaks of Jehovah as coming, and Revelation 21 shows his presence with humankind. “Look! the tent of God is with humankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Re 21 Vss. 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to Jehovah God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons. They are Christ’s brothers, not sons, so the text is speaking of Jehovah, and it calls him “the Alpha and the Omega”.

We must remember that the revelation God gave to Jesus Christ was passed on to the apostle John by one of Christ’s angels, and that this angel sometimes spoke for Jehovah God and sometimes for Christ Jesus; so we must watch for these changes and note them on the basis of content and context. And as mentioned before:

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.


At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1)

Heb 3:1b:

...consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge* [Or “confess.”]—Jesus.

Why doesn't he say: "consider the God whom we acknowledge—Jesus"?
What is an apostle?

The basic sense of the word is “one sent forth,” and it is used of Jesus and certain ones who were sent to serve others. Most frequently, it is used with regard to the disciples whom Jesus personally selected as a group of 12 appointed representatives.​—Mr 3:14; Ac 14:14.

Source: Apostle: Glossary

Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

Source: Apostle: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1

You can't be a representative of yourself. And you cannot send yourself forth. And if someone says "the one that sent him", it is clear that "the one that sent" is not "him". Logic and the untwisted noncontradictory rational and honest use of language demands that to be someone else.
edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”


There you go using the Jehovah's Witnesses faulty New World Translation again to try and make your point because there really isn't any. You give yourself away when you post unmarked and unnamed scriptures.



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined
The KJB basically says the same thing in Rev.1:4,5a, using "and" to differentiate between those mentioned there.

You must be confusing me with yourself. I make it clear when I feel it's neccessary that I'm quoting from the NW and when there's nothing mentioned I'm still quoting from the NW (which should be obvious to anyone like yourself who is familiar with my commentary, so why the subtle implication that I'm not clear about it?). Just like I made it clear that I was quoting from the Divine Name King James Bible in my previous comment (again contradicting what you are painting on me, I could do the same for Rev. 1:8, which also mentions Jehovah there in the same manner). It wasn't obvious from your commentary at the start of this thread that you were quoting from the KJB (well, it was a bit more obvious to me but you didn't mention it until later, but I'm not the one making an issue out of it).

You give yourself away when you call the New World Translation faulty when conveniently ignoring the approx. 7000 times the KJB has "the LORD", "LORD" or "God" where the original bible writers wrote God's name and the evidence concerning this is clear as crystal (especially in the Hebrew Scriptures). Or when you quote 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the KJB as supposed evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. You clearly have no intention to speak God's word truthfully. Interesting sidenote: when you copy-paste what appears as "LORD" in capitals from some websites that have the KJB text, it pastes it as "Lord" (see your own quotations earlier in this thread, for example Isaiah 44:6 on page 6). Quite deceptive as well, don't even know how they do that, cause it looks like "LORD" on the website (of course "Lord" is even more easier to confuse and conflate with the one called "the Lord Jesus Christ" in the Christian Greek Scriptures a.k.a. the New Testament; or to get people to overlook where it's actually talking about Jehovah, such as at Isaiah 44:6 where the divine name is mentioned twice, it helps there as well with making your argument about it; it's not talking about "the Lord of hosts", it's talking about "Jehovah of armies/hosts", i.e. the same "Jehovah" mentioned at the start of the verse, very easy to see when you don't swap out God's name with a noun that doesn't even appear in that verse in the Hebrew, "Lord" is not mentioned at all).

Jeremiah 23:27,28 (NW)

They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal. 28 Let the prophet who has a dream relate the dream, but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”
“What does the straw have in common with the grain?” declares Jehovah.


Likewise, the ASV mentions "Jehovah" there at the end, the name some people want to make others forget (figuratively).
edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Deetermined

And if someone says "the one that sent him", it is clear that "the one that sent" is not "him". Logic and the untwisted noncontradictory rational and honest use of language demands that to be someone else.

Just like "nothing" still means "nothing" no matter what Dawkins, Krauss and Stephen Hawking are blabbering on about (the behaviour I'm reminded of by those conveniently ignoring or talking past this point of the rational and honest use of language when it comes to what the bible teaches, twisting the plain meaning arrived at by using common sense, or talking past that as if it doesn't even matter in the discussion):

edit on 12-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined



Originally posted by Deetermined
I'm beginning to think that the "Immanuel" prophecies covers the births of many sons, including Jesus, that would make both definitions of "virgins" correct.


How can both definitions of virgins be correct…?

So you think Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Isaiah's son, who was also born of a virgin…?



Originally posted by Deetermined
"Immanuel" (God with us) appears to be used as a prophetic name to describe signs as well as actual kings, like Hezekiah, who would rule over Judah the way God wanted them to (God with us) in order to preserve it from destruction.


If Immanuel meaning God with us, can refer to Isaiah's son, then we know the term Immanuel does mean he is God in the flesh.



Originally posted by Deetermined
I believe that Matthew used this verse to refer to Jesus because the Bible tells us that God/Jesus will eventually reunite Israel and Judah into one kingdom at the time of his rule right before the Millennial Kingdom (the kingdom that will endure forever) starts.


But we can’t infer that the term Immanuel (God with us) clearly shows that Jesus is God…bearing in mind the same term was used for Isaiah's prophesied son.


You do realize that the majority of Christians see Matthew 1:23 as pointing directly to Jesus as the child prophesied in Isaiah 7:14…


Personally I don’t think your idea works…because the context of Matthew 1:20-23 is drawing a parallel with Jesus being born of a virgin, with the prophesy about a child being born of a virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

But we already know that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a child being born in that time period…probably Isaiah’s son. So why would Isaiah's son need to be born of a virgin…?

- JC



edit on 12-8-2018 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Personally I don’t think your idea works…because the context of Matthew 1:20-23 is drawing a parallel with Jesus being born of a virgin, with the prophesy about a child being born of a virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

But we already know that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a child being born in that time period…probably Isaiah’s son. So why would Isaiah's son need to be born of a virgin…?


I already told you that I thought this may be a dual prophecy. One where the term "virgin" may just be referring to a young woman giving birth to Isaiah's son as a prophecy of the immediate time period and another where "virgin" may be a true virgin giving birth to Jesus to continue to cover the entire Davidic Covenant that God promised them. Immanuel may have been just a prophetic name that was used to describe everyone that fulfilled the Davidic Covenant, showing that God was with them in fulfilling the promises He made to them.

If I'm wrong, then we can only conclude that Matthew was correct and that Isaiah 7:14 was only referring to Jesus and the proclamation that Isaiah made was nothing more than a reminder to the House of David that God would always be with them to ensure the protection of Israel and Judah forever and ever, which is how Jesus' rule is described when He returns in the Bible.

I'll point to Matthew 24 as another example of a dual prophecy. The disciples ask Jesus when will the destruction of the temple take place and when will the end of the world come. Jesus describes the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:15-17, and also goes on to describe the end of the world as if it were to happen immediately afterwards, but we know it doesn't. In fact, based on the book of Revelation, we have every reason to believe that another temple will be built and the great tribulation will take place after it. There are other instances of prophecy relating to an immediate event and also a future event, but I'll leave it here.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Seems I came in late to this thread so I will just reply to whatever happens to be the last post in it rather than reading through 17 pages.
I seriously doubt any prophecies like Isaiah have anything to do with anything other than what was the immediate concerns at the time it was written.
I think the New Testament writers were just quoting things from the Old Testament as a way of showing some sort of continuity between the old religion of Jesus' day, grounding Jesus as a Jew, and his original followers as being Jews, and that if the God of the Jews was something close to who God actually is, then this would be a convenient way to reference God, rather than just a vague reference to the Greek pantheon of gods being the thing behind a generic referral to "God".
I think that the writing style of the New Testament writers just reflects the common way of interpreting prophecies that was current at that time.
Examples from the Gospels show people on purpose doing things to mimic what was said in prophecies, such as the donkey conveniently being tethered for Jesus to ride on to enter onto Jerusalem. Or you have God and Satan acting to make Judas to leave the Last Supper to go and betray Jesus to the Jews, in order to have one that he supped with betray him, like it says in one of the psalms.
So it is more like, "Isn't this an interesting coincidence?" way of citing these incidents, rather than any of it being the original intent of the Old Testament prophets, but things God could have arranged later to make use of these sayings to reinforce the idea that He was supporting Jesus.
edit on 2018813 by LolliKum because: fixing mispelling



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

I seriously think your theory is a bit of a stretch to say the least. And it’s a complete twist on how those verses are interpreted by the majority of mainstream Christianity.


Firstly, we don’t know for certain if “virgin” is the correct translation. You said yourself in another post that it isn’t entirely clear.

And secondly, the dual prophecy that you proposed could be slightly different…for example...

It could mean Isiah's son would be born of a young woman, to be with his people, to help guide them etc…

And Matthew 1:23 could just be drawing an exact parallel to that of Isaiah’s son, with Jesus. In that Jesus will be born of a young woman (not virgin) and will be with his people to help guide them etc…

So in both examples both Jesus and Isaiah's son are born (normally) and both represent God being with his people, in plan, purpose and action …

Anyway, getting back to what we were initially discussing (proving Jesus is God) Assuming that your dual prophecy idea is correct, it could be interpreted in the way I just outlined above. But either way none of those dual prophecies proves Jesus is definitely God in the flesh.

Immanuel (God with us) when applied to Isaiah's son, or whoever the child may have been in the time of Isaiah, clearly does mean that child is God in the flesh, therefore we can’t imply that it means Jesus is God either.


- JC



edit on 13-8-2018 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft




...what we were initially discussing (proving Jesus is God)...

Oh! maybe I can address that. There is nothing to prove. Pretty simple thing to do, just look at the Bible, it says there is one name given for people to believe, Jesus. "Jesus", for all intents and purposes, until The End, is the name of God.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LolliKum


I seriously doubt any prophecies like Isaiah have anything to do with anything other than what was the immediate concerns at the time it was written.


Forgive me for saying this, but you're not very familiar with the entire Bible, are you?

Jesus speaking...

Luke 24:44

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


It could mean Isaiah's son would be born of a young woman, to be with his people, to help guide them etc…


Except it wasn't Isaiah's son who guided the people and actually fulfilled the prophecy and fulfilled the Davidic Covenant. It was Hezekiah who actually lead the people and helped to fulfill the Davidic Covenant after the incident with Ahaz. Isaiah had a dream about the meaning of his son's name in Isaiah 8, but he wasn't the one who ever became King of Judah. The proclamation from Isaiah had everything to do with the Davidic Covenant in some way.


edit on 13-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




...which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms...

Jesus was talking to the disciples in a room in Jerusalem after he was raised from the dead, and says that he had been saying things to them all along, as he was with them, previous to his getting arrested and put on trial.
So he is having them recall that he said a lot of things which at the time he said them, they did not understand.
Then he goes ahead and spells out what those things were that he said, such as his being killed.
Then he says that those things had to happen, as he predicted, so that what was said about him would be fulfilled.
Jesus does not specify what was said in those books about him, just that these books were saying something about him.
It did not mean that you can look in the Old Testament and read a discourse on Jesus.
It means that there were things predicted, like the world becoming a better place. It just happens that it was Jesus' opinion that those better things would come about through him as their agent.
Heb.8:11 "And they shall not teach, each his neighbor, and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because all will know Me, from the least of them to the greatest,"
This is an example of the idea Jesus was trying to get across, the writer of Hebrews quoting from the Prophets, predicting that people will learn about God, and then the suggestion that it was fulfilled through the activities of Jesus.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LolliKum


It did not mean that you can look in the Old Testament and read a discourse on Jesus.


Sure you can. It's just that He was going by the names God Almighty and Jehovah at the time. But that part of the discussion has already come and gone in this thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




But that part of the discussion has already come and gone in this thread.

OK, "this part", the part you just named, Where you claim that Jesus is God or that Jesus is part of what makes up God, or God is just everywhere, so in Jesus too, so then Jesus is God.
I don't accept any of this, seeing how I find all these arguments unbiblical and frankly, quite pantheistic.
Regardless of if you did discuss these things, and independent of whether what you say is right or not, it has no bearing on this discussion we were just having about prophecy that Jesus was fulfilling.
Saying that Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as quoting from the Old Testament is in no way an argument that his repeating lines was a fulfillment and saying that characters in the OT were somehow a proto-Jesus does not mean stories about those in the OT were somehow stories about the actual Jesus.
I get the impression that you just have an agenda and whenever you think you might be able to squeeze in this propaganda into a thread, you do it regardless of if it is on topic or not and don't really care about having an honest discussion about it and quickly turn to ridicule when you are getting ready to put out your most absurd claims.
And I do not think listing 50 Bible verses into a thread is a substitute for an argument. You need to at least explain how these support your positions.



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LolliKum




Some Christians just work that way... I've talked to a few that claim that Jesus is on every page of the bible, which of course is nonsense...

Some claim he was the one in the garden... others say he started the flood etc etc...

To some Christians all of the OT is attributed to Jesus... which as you've stated... is completely unbiblical and dogmatic

I guess it depends on your church, or upbringing...




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join