Never had a good response to this

[abelcainsbrother]

Are you kidding? It is fulfilled bible prophecy that the Jews would reject their messiah until the last days and this is fulfilled bible prophecy that you try to use as evidence? You're probably not a Jew but if you want to act like one then here

Ummm...it's one thing to say that the Jews would reject the Messiah, but you do realize the Jews are awaiting the Messiah, yes? And that the Jews think the OT speaks of the coming of the Messiah, yes? Well, it seems kind of important to understand that Jews in no way take Isaiah 7 as Messianic prophecy. Now if they saw it as prophecy about Messiah, but just refused in their stubborn hearts to admit that Jesus was the fulfillment, I think you'd have a point here.

Yeah I know we have have a hard time pointing them to the prophecies concerning Jesus that were fulfilled and so he is their Messiah.I showed one Genesis 22 once and how it was a future prophecy that God would sacrifice his own son oneday and he said it was a ram,not a lamb,like it matters,they just can't get it yet,but will during the tribulation one.144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel,that represent the 12 signs in the heavens by the way,will get saved by Jesus before he comes.

[PaulSacramento]

Are you kidding? It is fulfilled bible prophecy that the Jews would reject their messiah until the last days and this is fulfilled bible prophecy that you try to use as evidence? You're probably not a Jew but if you want to act like one then here

Ummm...it's one thing to say that the Jews would reject the Messiah, but you do realize the Jews are awaiting the Messiah, yes? And that the Jews think the OT speaks of the coming of the Messiah, yes? Well, it seems kind of important to understand that Jews in no way take Isaiah 7 as Messianic prophecy. Now if they saw it as prophecy about Messiah, but just refused in their stubborn hearts to admit that Jesus was the fulfillment, I think you'd have a point here.

That some Jews did not take Isaiah 7 as a Messianic prophecy doesn't mean they were right.
It is clear to many that they were wrong.

[PaulSacramento]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

[RickD]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

Well, it seems my response to questioner wasn't as far-fetched as he made it out to be.

[PaulSacramento]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

Well, it seems my response to questioner wasn't as far-fetched as he made it out to be.

IMO, Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah, which was read via the Septuagint which used the term that is usually is read "virgin", and applied it to the situation of Jesus' birth.
He knew that Jesus was born of a virgin and he, through the HS, connected the dots and made the prophecy into a messianic one.
Something not all uncommon in 2nd temple Judaism of Matthew's time and since Matthew audience were Jews ( as opposed to Luke's that were gentiles), this was something that they would have understood, especially those that had received the HS.
This is something that we modern readers tend to forget, that the audience of the gospels were CONVERTED gentiles and Jews ( typically) and many, if not all, under the HS.
These issues were not issues for people of true faith.

[RickD]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

Well, it seems my response to questioner wasn't as far-fetched as he made it out to be.

IMO, Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah, which was read via the Septuagint which used the term that is usually is read "virgin", and applied it to the situation of Jesus' birth.
He knew that Jesus was born of a virgin and he, through the HS, connected the dots and made the prophecy into a messianic one.
Something not all uncommon in 2nd temple Judaism of Matthew's time and since Matthew audience were Jews ( as opposed to Luke's that were gentiles), this was something that they would have understood, especially those that had received the HS.
This is something that we modern readers tend to forget, that the audience of the gospels were CONVERTED gentiles and Jews ( typically) and many, if not all, under the HS.
These issues were not issues for people of true faith.

It almost sounds like you think that Matthew through the HS, mistakenly applied the prophecy to Christ, because he misunderstood the meaning of the word translated as "virgin".

That sounds like Matthew, through the HS, was wrong. And that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how that wouldn't compromise the inerrancy of scripture.

[PaulSacramento]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

Well, it seems my response to questioner wasn't as far-fetched as he made it out to be.

IMO, Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah, which was read via the Septuagint which used the term that is usually is read "virgin", and applied it to the situation of Jesus' birth.
He knew that Jesus was born of a virgin and he, through the HS, connected the dots and made the prophecy into a messianic one.
Something not all uncommon in 2nd temple Judaism of Matthew's time and since Matthew audience were Jews ( as opposed to Luke's that were gentiles), this was something that they would have understood, especially those that had received the HS.
This is something that we modern readers tend to forget, that the audience of the gospels were CONVERTED gentiles and Jews ( typically) and many, if not all, under the HS.
These issues were not issues for people of true faith.

It almost sounds like you think that Matthew through the HS, mistakenly applied the prophecy to Christ, because he misunderstood the meaning of the word translated as "virgin".

That sounds like Matthew, through the HS, was wrong. And that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how that wouldn't compromise the inerrancy of scripture.

No, on the contrary, through the HS he understood a prophecy that he knew already, in a different light.
He understood it to mean MORE than it was.
He used virgin because that is what his audience, through the Septuagint, was familiar with ( and because He knew it to be correct).

[RickD]

Hebrew scholar weights in on Isaiah:
http://drmsh.com/2009/12/15/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/

Well, it seems my response to questioner wasn't as far-fetched as he made it out to be.

IMO, Matthew took the prophecy of Isaiah, which was read via the Septuagint which used the term that is usually is read "virgin", and applied it to the situation of Jesus' birth.
He knew that Jesus was born of a virgin and he, through the HS, connected the dots and made the prophecy into a messianic one.
Something not all uncommon in 2nd temple Judaism of Matthew's time and since Matthew audience were Jews ( as opposed to Luke's that were gentiles), this was something that they would have understood, especially those that had received the HS.
This is something that we modern readers tend to forget, that the audience of the gospels were CONVERTED gentiles and Jews ( typically) and many, if not all, under the HS.
These issues were not issues for people of true faith.

It almost sounds like you think that Matthew through the HS, mistakenly applied the prophecy to Christ, because he misunderstood the meaning of the word translated as "virgin".

That sounds like Matthew, through the HS, was wrong. And that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how that wouldn't compromise the inerrancy of scripture.

No, on the contrary, through the HS he understood a prophecy that he knew already, in a different light.
He understood it to mean MORE than it was.
He used virgin because that is what his audience, through the Septuagint, was familiar with ( and because He knew it to be correct).

If the Lord, through Isaiah, meant it as a double fulfilling prophecy, how did Matthew understand it as MORE than that? I'm not sure I'm following you.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't think and there doesn't seem to be evidence that Isaiah and his readers understood it as a double prophecy.
It seems that cam later on.
I don't know if Matthew was the first to see it as such BUT he was certainly the first to put it into writing.
It may be that Matthew, being an educated Jew, knew the prophecy in the typical way that all jews knew and after, it was revealed to him by the HS that there was more to it than what was commonly believed.
Or it can be that He used it as an analogy, muck like the Hosea passage about calling Israel out of Egypt.

[RickD]

I don't think and there doesn't seem to be evidence that Isaiah and his readers understood it as a double prophecy.
It seems that cam later on.
I don't know if Matthew was the first to see it as such BUT he was certainly the first to put it into writing.
It may be that Matthew, being an educated Jew, knew the prophecy in the typical way that all jews knew and after, it was revealed to him by the HS that there was more to it than what was commonly believed.
Or it can be that He used it as an analogy, muck like the Hosea passage about calling Israel out of Egypt.

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. When you said, "He understood it to mean MORE than it was.", you meant more than it was typically understood to mean.

Because obviously, God speaking through Isaiah knew exactly what it meant. Even if Isaiah didn't.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't think and there doesn't seem to be evidence that Isaiah and his readers understood it as a double prophecy.
It seems that cam later on.
I don't know if Matthew was the first to see it as such BUT he was certainly the first to put it into writing.
It may be that Matthew, being an educated Jew, knew the prophecy in the typical way that all jews knew and after, it was revealed to him by the HS that there was more to it than what was commonly believed.
Or it can be that He used it as an analogy, muck like the Hosea passage about calling Israel out of Egypt.

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. When you said, "He understood it to mean MORE than it was.", you meant more than it was typically understood to mean.

Because obviously, God speaking through Isaiah knew exactly what it meant. Even if Isaiah didn't.

Yes, exactly, sorry I wan't clear on that.

[jlay]

So what made you re-evaluate what you believe?
I have no problem with your pov even if I disagree with it, I just cannot fathom how, if you were once so sure, you have changed your mind. As far I see (and I admit I may be wrong) nothing that has been put forward by science disproves God.
I have only recently come to Christ yet my life has changed so much since then, for the better. How can that be wrong? I can`t see anything, ever, shaking my faith so what shook yours so? To the point of saying you no longer believe? Doubts I can understand but a total change of mind?

Long story, but it started with a lull in my faith where I just couldn't hear God anymore, and reading the Bible had no impact on me whatsoever (this was never the case before). I was praying, begging God to reveal himself to me. Not for a sign, or a miracle...just that I'd feel his presence again. After a couple years of this, I decided to open myself up to exploring Christianity from a secular viewpoint - something I'd never done. As I stated before, if all you ever do is read Christian apologetics, you'll never know the arguments against your position. Much like if you were witnessing to a Mormon and wanted him to see the error of Mormon doctrine, you wouldn't recommend he pick up an apologetic work written by a Mormon author. But that's what Christians do, and then because they read a book by Lee Strobel, they think the case for Jesus Christ is absolutely bulletproof. They read a book by Ken Ham, and think that evolution is laughable - only a theory (I encourage you to read up on what it takes to be considered a 'theory' in science).

It took very little time after reading books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and actually a great book called 'Why I Believed' by Kenneth Daniels, a former Wycliff Bible Translator missionary that, like me, decided to question, and found his faith didn't stand up to logic, reason, and evidence.

Couldn't hear god ANYMORE? Interesting way to phrase that. So, are you saying you were hearing God and then stopped?

FWIW, I think it is just as important for a Christian to read books and positions that do not agree with their own and possibly even challenge those beliefs. Not every Christian does and not every Christian is required to do so to have justifiable reasons for their beliefs. In fact, the leading apologists not only read and study opposing views but debate those who hold them. Bart Erhman and Dawkins especially. I've read through a good bit of Paine's criticism and it isn't anything new. A believer doesn't have to read this because these same arguments have been repeated by a variety of skeptics. So, unless there is something new here, I doubt you are going to traverse any new territory.

In fact, we've had this discussion on the thread where apologists tend to exaggerate the prophetic evidence. If I recall, Jac had some really good information on this. The writers likely had a much different view of those texts, and our use of proof text today is likely much different than in that day. It is interesting that any evidence of contemporary criticism similar to Paine's simply doesn't exist. I guess these things escaped Greek and Hebrew speaking people until 1700 years later, when Paine's genius happened along. (who didn't speak or read Greek or Hebrew)


Good luck in your search for truth. If we are all simply wet robots, what purpose is there in searching for truth?

[bippy123]

Hi - I was a believer for over 30 years, but since 3 years ago, I would no longer label myself as such. I think there are a lot of gray areas with respect to the debate about God and the Bible, but a few years back, I came across an article that I've yet to hear any of my Christian friends or family even pose a rebuttal to (let alone a well-thought-out response). It's an essay written by Thomas Paine titled "An Examination of the Prophecies", and it was written in the late 1700's I believe. Below is a link.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/paine/proph.htm

I'd love to have someone actually take an hour or so and actually READ the article and provide a response. And by all means, please cross reference EVERYTHING he says in whatever version of the Bible you're fond of. I've had 3 different pastors as well as several family members look at this, and most read it and then never bring it up again. Those that have brought it up end up googling some apologetic response about 'dual prophecies' or something along those lines - mind you, I've never heard this mentioned in a Sunday sermon.

Thanks for reading this post! Please don't reply if you haven't taken the time to read the article - I promise it will be an interesting read, and will challenge your knowledge of well-accepted prophecies that you may have thought were 'bullet-proofe'...most notably the virgin birth prophecy.

Happy Monday.

Questioner I'm sorry but is this the same Thomas Paine that said this ? I would suggest that u actually do amore full reading into Thomas Paine before believing his works.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/painet01.php

As a supposed parallel to the virginal conception, Paine offers the story of Jupiter and Leda. This was a story wherein Jupiter disguised himself as a swan, snuck up to this poor girl, and -- well, this is a family website I'm doing; you'll need to piece together the rest. But Paine thought that this offered a parallel to the virginal conception,

Do you seriously want us to believe that paine's reasoning is what caused you to leave Christianity ?
Some mythical God who disguised himself as a swan and impregnated some girl ?

The reason why we say "ohh not this again" is because few scholars take paine's reasoning seriously anymore . Maybe some did take him seriously back in his time but not now .

[bippy123]

Questioner, you said that you suddenly couldn't feel God anymore .
This is a very important statement here since the bible specifically warns us when it comes to our faith not to trust our feelings because as human beings our feelings can be very fickle.

People like mother Teresa , the evangelist preacher john Bunyan , spurgeon and many others went through lomg periods of not being able to FEEL God . Did they leave their faith even when they couldn't even feel their faith any longer?
Just the opposite , they clinged onto God with everything they Got and trusted God to bring them through it , and you know what ? God brought them all through it . Mother Teresa went through it for 60 years and only came out of it the last few months before she died .

My question to you is how badly do you want God and how much are you willing to sacrifice to cling into him ?
The training wheels of you faith have been taken off , do you get back on the bike after you fall or do you just get off the bike ?

[RickD]

Guys,

It looks like questioner22 may have bailed on us. He wrote on page 4:

So one last thought before I leave you. In most discussions with believers, I find it comes down to accusations (by the believers) that I'm not truly open to the Truth, and I've made up my mind, and I'm making myself God, yadda yadda. You couldn't be more wrong, but I don't expect you to know that from a few posts on a forum like this. I read both sides of all arguments, and don't think I have all the answers. I still go to Church, and I listen to sermon podcasts every week with the idea that maybe I'll hear something that will give me pause. The easiest thing that could happen to me, given that I have a wife who believes, and 4 believing kids, is that I'd return to the fold, and all would be made right. I just have too much integrity to do that with any spirit of disingenuousness, as that's not who I am.

To this point, I've heard not one argument for God or the Bible that's made me think 'hey maybe I'm wrong'...but at least I'm open to it. And maybe some of you are too...but not most, from what I've seen.

Take care all.

If he has a believing wife and 4 kids, that most likely means he has quite a few people praying for him. I hope he comes back around.
And I suggest that we all pray for him as well.