It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by XplanetX
And since that “morphing” included creating the bible then aren’t you just going along with the program?
Or are you saying this Jesus character was the embodiment of the Age of Pisces and you have no problem with that?
edit on 19-8-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)
Mark 1:17 "Come after Me, and I will make you become fishers of men."
Matthew 12:40 "...Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 14:17 "And they said to Him, 'We have here only five loaves and two fish.'"
Luke 5:6 "And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking."
Luke 24:42 "So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb."
John 21:6 "And He said to them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.' So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish."
Originally posted by Cataka
Jesus Christ = Osiris..
Or MANY other names that came *before* Jesus and had the same story. He is just a character that was created and re-told many times thousands of years before the name was changed to Jesus.
It reminds of today's entertainment. We have a 1980's version of Conan with AH-NOLD, now we have a 2011 Conan with a new guy. Same basic story...different lead character.
The winter solstice fell within the Saturnalia and was referred to as the “Natalis Solis Invicti” (the “Nativity of the unconquered Sun”). Saturnalia was celebrated from December 17th to January 1st in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: December 25th. In Roman mythology
I wonder if it ever occurred to you that the Christian converts in Rome in the time of Paul were worshipers of Isis?
I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone of the possibility that "Osiris" or any of these others that came "before" Jesus were just.. made up? I mean, there were prophecies about Jesus' death for centuries before his actual birth. Wouldn't it be likely that some people wanted to fulfill that prophecy with their own "gods"?
Jesus Christ qualifies as the messiah as he fulfilled nearly all of the scriptures in the old testament.
I'm not too surprised by the silence over your question.
. . .and Jesus supposedly had no male father, well you can see how that prevents Jesus from being the Messiah.
Originally posted by shaneR
reply to post by FriendlyGopher
there are Roman sources that mention Jesus...
see Tacitus (Annals) XV chapter 44 (written about 114AD)
"Christ executed during reign of Tiberius...by Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate..."
Jesus was recognised by the Romans as being real...
see also : Celcus;
edit = correct chapter ref for Tacitus...= chapter 44edit on 18/8/2011 by shaneR because: edit = correct chapter ref for Tacitus...
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23"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."
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4For 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.
Originally posted by novastrike81
You must also remember that the Messiah was supposed to be the "seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, whom everyone knows isn't Jesus' real father. Since kinship was traced throuh the males, and Jesus supposedly had no male father, well you can see how that prevents Jesus from being the Messiah.
Before you say Luke was tracing Mary's lineage, he clearly mentions Joseph (Luke 3:23).
Dear Rabbi Singer, One of the methods you used in your tape series to refute missionary claims is to point out the context of the prophecy. For example, you point out that the seventh chapter of Isaiah cannot be a prophecy about Jesus’ virgin birth because it suggests that the prophecy was to have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime, some 700 years before Jesus. Still, maybe this is a “double prophecy,” a prophecy about a boy to be born in the days of Ahaz and also a prophecy to the birth of Jesus. The context is only for the first application of this double prophecy. Rabbi, do you have any comments?
When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a “dual prophecy.” In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, I will first describe the traumatic events that are unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah which are completely inconsistent with Matthew’s application of these passages to his virgin birth story. To begin with, the word “virgin” does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”
Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context in order to apply it to his birth narrative of Jesus.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . .’’ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when both kings were assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved. Or is it? The self-inflicted problems created by this far-reaching explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion 2 of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.
Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha’almah means a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz’s time? Were there two virgin births? That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha’almah can only mean virgin. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child? Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad? Remember, Isaiah 7:15-16 reads, Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; 16for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus’ lifetime that were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn’t because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.
Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
The post above yours goes through the prophecy you just listed. Maybe you missed it, or ignored it?
Isaiah 7 is about his son and not Jesus. It's also not a dual prophecy. The author of Matthew took this prophecy out of context due to a faulty translation. Isaiah 7's prophecy is not about a virgin birth and nor does the context allow for it to be even remotely close to Jesus.
I don't see any problem here. I read your post and all I can think is that it is difficult for a person of one religion to understand someone else's religion if they were not brought up in it.
. . .questions by a Christian asking if the verse is a dual prophecy.
I have no idea what you mean.
Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by jmdewey60
Well I guess anyone would see it differently. Trying to influnce someone to become a Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian; or just say fudge it and become an Atheist.