Never had a good response to this

[Storyteller]

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.

I came to Christ with very little knowledge of Christian apologetics, in fact, a lot of what I read is considered heretic. The Gospel of Thomas was a big impact on me. I think we all have to find our own path to God.
I appreciate what you`re saying about not feeling Him. I had a spell where I I didn`t hear Him for a while and it frustrated me no end but I clung on to my faith and I was (relatively, for me) patient. Please do not think I mean this with any malice but it seems to me you just gave up. God will not force you to follow Him or believe in Him. You have free will, you chose to turn away from God, not the other way round.
I have read quite a few books concerning whether God is just a delusion and absolutely nothing I have read has convinced me He is.
You can accept evolution and still believe in God so I still don`t really get why you chose to turn away from God.

There is a great book, Beyond Belief by Philip Meadows (I think) that for me, was another book that showed me God has to be more than just a possibilty.
So, now we have the fact that what you have read has enticed you away from God yet it has enticed me closer to God.
If I am wrong, and there is no God, then I lose nothing. If you`re wrong, and there is, you lose everything.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Long story, but it started with a lull in my faith where I just couldn't hear God anymore

Sister Theresa of Calcutta never heard the call of God for 70 + years... her faith was not shaken and her continued journey saved hundreds of thousand of lives and brought even more to death's door step close to and in union with God.

Your story is no different to God, except your path has changed. As I said earlier, I hope for your return. It is up to you and your will to make faith's return a reality. Faith Q22, not observational knowledge that is so easily mused in our thoughts only to reeducate ourselves, morph into whomever we want to be and not who He wants us to be.

His ways truly are not ours and trust in His is the only antidote to your issues.

[questioner22]

Sister Theresa of Calcutta never heard the call of God for 70 + years... her faith was not shaken and her continued journey saved hundreds of thousand of lives and brought even more to death's door step close to and in union with God.

This makes perfect sense to me and how I view the world. She was being honest in those letters. That has to be difficult for a believer to reconcile. It didn't rattle me at all when the pastor of my church was kicked out after his wife filed a restraining order...or when the pastor of my in-laws church went to jail for child porn. Terrible people do terrible things. Hard to make this stuff mesh when you think God's in control of putting certain people into positions of authority.

[Storyteller]

Sister Theresa of Calcutta never heard the call of God for 70 + years... her faith was not shaken and her continued journey saved hundreds of thousand of lives and brought even more to death's door step close to and in union with God.

This makes perfect sense to me and how I view the world. She was being honest in those letters. That has to be difficult for a believer to reconcile. It didn't rattle me at all when the pastor of my church was kicked out after his wife filed a restraining order...or when the pastor of my in-laws church went to jail for child porn. Terrible people do terrible things. Hard to make this stuff mesh when you think God's in control of putting certain people into positions of authority.

What makes you say God is in control of putting certain people into positions of authority?

[questioner22]

If I am wrong, and there is no God, then I lose nothing. If you`re wrong, and there is, you lose everything.

I can appreciate most of what you wrote above, and respect your openness to read and learn differing viewpoints. This last sentence struck me though - and I hear it a lot - as profoundly narrow minded. It assumes that either Christianity is correct, or there is no true religion. As Sam Harris pointed out in a debate I heard a while back, if the Muslims are correct, you have an awful eternity in a much worse version of hell than the Christian version. To put it differently, imagine a Muslim saying to you "Welp, if I'm wrong about Allah, what have I lost?". You would be quick to point out that he's lost quite a bit.

[Storyteller]

Like I say, I could be wrong BUT Christianity is the only religion that offers the answers to all of my questions.

For me, the difference between Christianity and the other religions is that Christianity is the only religion where God Himself chose to live amongst us. He showed us what it means to be a Christian. I think there are a lot, and I do mean a lot, of good points in a lot of religions but for me, Christianity is the only one where there has been a personal record of living with God. As another poster pointed out on another thread He humbled Himself enough, He cared enough to live among us and show us.

[abelcainsbrother]

One of us indeed.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=O0cToEoUr3A

[RickD]

Again, if you have a specific issue you want to discuss, maybe a specific bible verse, then post it please. I generally don't make it a habit of locking topics, but this is going nowhere fast. And If I get a sense that you are here only to attack, then you will be banned.

The ball is in your court.

Isaiah 7. Please read the entire chapter and answer the following questions:
1. What was Ahaz worried about?
2. What did the Lord promise Ahaz?
3. What sign was the Lord going to give Ahaz?
4. What was this sign supposed to signify to Ahaz?
5. How could Ahaz know that the prophecy was in fact fulfilled (with respect to what he was worried about)?

After you answer these questions in your reply, I want you to then go on and explain to me how Isaiah 7 has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ. No smoke - no mirrors - no laughing this challenge off and telling me how scholars hundreds of years ago put this issue to bed. Please answer the 5 questions above, then the ensuing question about Jesus. There. That's my very specific issue.

Ok questioner, to the best of my layman's ability, I'll give it a shot.

1. What was Ahaz worried about?

That Israel would be taken over, and he (Ahaz) would no longer be king.

2. What did the Lord promise Ahaz?

That it shall not come to pass.(An enemy king taking over)

3. What sign was the Lord going to give Ahaz?

That a particular pregnant young woman would bear a son and name Him "Immanuel".

4. What was this sign supposed to signify to Ahaz?

That God's promise will be true.

5. How could Ahaz know that the prophecy was in fact fulfilled (with respect to what he was worried about)?

With respect to what Ahaz was worried about, he would know it was fulfilled if "a particular pregnant young woman would bear a son and name Him "Immanuel"."

So far, pretty straightforward, right?

After you answer these questions in your reply, I want you to then go on and explain to me how Isaiah 7 has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ. No smoke - no mirrors - no laughing this challenge off and telling me how scholars hundreds of years ago put this issue to bed. Please answer the 5 questions above, then the ensuing question about Jesus. There. That's my very specific issue.

Ok, as far as how Isaiah 7 has "anything whatsoever" to do with a Messianic prophecy about Christ, I guess I'd say the following:

I'm no Hebrew expert, but the word translated as "virgin", in Isaiah 7:14 is the Hebrew word `almah . It means a young woman of marriageable age. But from what I understand, `almah is never used in the OT when referring to married women. And again, from what I understand, it's the only word in Hebrew that unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman, which may be a virgin. Instead of using the Hebrew word bethula, which means virgin, Isaiah may have been saying that the mother was simply an unmarried young woman, or a virgin. Which leaves open the possibility that Isaiah was talking about a double fulfillment. A young woman in Isaiah's day(read forward to Isaiah 8, up to verse 10), and a virgin many years later(Matthew 1:23).

[questioner22]

Ok, as far as how Isaiah 7 has "anything whatsoever" to do with a Messianic prophecy about Christ, I guess I'd say the following:

I'm no Hebrew expert, but the word translated as "virgin", in Isaiah 7:14 is the Hebrew word `almah . It means a young woman of marriageable age. But from what I understand, `almah is never used in the OT when referring to married women. And again, from what I understand, it's the only word in Hebrew that unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman, which may be a virgin. Instead of using the Hebrew word bethula, which means virgin, Isaiah may have been saying that the mother was simply an unmarried young woman, or a virgin. Which leaves open the possibility that Isaiah was talking about a double fulfillment. A young woman in Isaiah's day(read forward to Isaiah 8, up to verse 10), and a virgin many years later(Matthew 1:23).

Ok, so well done on the first 5 questions. I was looking for something a little different in 5., (namely that the land of the 2 kings he dreaded will be laid waste), but I realize it was a clumsily asked question on my part. When you got to the question about Jesus, you somehow derailed and went off on the word almah, completely ignoring your very own answers to 1-5 above. I'm asking you to tie together the birth of Jesus as somehow a sign to Ahaz who lived many hundreds of years prior as fulfillment of a promise made about 2 kings in Ahaz' day that he was worried about invading his country. Can you take another stab at it?

*Note: This is where someone jumps in and pastes a link that they just found from a Google search, upon hearing of this problem for the very first time. The link will no doubt talk of 'dual prophecy', despite the fact that none of us has ever heard of this term in relation to the virgin birth in any sermon, ever.

[RickD]

Ok, as far as how Isaiah 7 has "anything whatsoever" to do with a Messianic prophecy about Christ, I guess I'd say the following:

I'm no Hebrew expert, but the word translated as "virgin", in Isaiah 7:14 is the Hebrew word `almah . It means a young woman of marriageable age. But from what I understand, `almah is never used in the OT when referring to married women. And again, from what I understand, it's the only word in Hebrew that unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman, which may be a virgin. Instead of using the Hebrew word bethula, which means virgin, Isaiah may have been saying that the mother was simply an unmarried young woman, or a virgin. Which leaves open the possibility that Isaiah was talking about a double fulfillment. A young woman in Isaiah's day(read forward to Isaiah 8, up to verse 10), and a virgin many years later(Matthew 1:23).

Ok, so well done on the first 5 questions. I was looking for something a little different in 5., (namely that the land of the 2 kings he dreaded will be laid waste), but I realize it was a clumsily asked question on my part. When you got to the question about Jesus, you somehow derailed and went off on the word almah, completely ignoring your very own answers to 1-5 above. I'm asking you to tie together the birth of Jesus as somehow a sign to Ahaz who lived many hundreds of years prior as fulfillment of a promise made about 2 kings in Ahaz' day that he was worried about invading his country. Can you take another stab at it?

I didn't ignore my 1-5 answers. My 1-5 answers were answered as directly as I thought possible, to the questions you asked.

I don't believe the birth of Jesus was a sign to Ahaz. I already thought I made that clear with my answer to your question #5. As far as a sign to Ahaz, I said to read forward to Isaiah 8:1-10.

****Edit after you edited your post and added:

*Note: This is where someone jumps in and pastes a link that they just found from a Google search, upon hearing of this problem for the very first time. The link will no doubt talk of 'dual prophecy', despite the fact that none of us has ever heard of this term in relation to the virgin birth in any sermon, ever.

1) Can you prove that none of us has ever heard of a dual fulfillment prophecy? Of course you can't. You don't know what everyone here has or hasn't heard.

2) Even if nobody here hasn't heard of a dual fullfilling prophesy, does that necessarily make it untrue?

[questioner22]

I didn't ignore my 1-5 answers. My 1-5 answers were answered as directly as I thought possible, to the questions you asked.

I don't believe the birth of Jesus was a sign to Ahaz. I already thought I made that clear with my answer to your question #5. As far as a sign to Ahaz, I said to read forward to Isaiah 8:1-10.

Wait-what?!?! So you're admitting that Matthew had it wrong when he erroneously implied that the 'virgin shall conceive' prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus? Remember, you already answered that the sign to Ahaz was that a young woman/virgin would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel, and you further said that this was fulfilled later in Isaiah. So where is the tie in between this prophecy and Jesus?

[RickD]

I didn't ignore my 1-5 answers. My 1-5 answers were answered as directly as I thought possible, to the questions you asked.

I don't believe the birth of Jesus was a sign to Ahaz. I already thought I made that clear with my answer to your question #5. As far as a sign to Ahaz, I said to read forward to Isaiah 8:1-10.

Wait-what?!?! So you're admitting that Matthew had it wrong when he erroneously implied that the 'virgin shall conceive' prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus? Remember, you already answered that the sign to Ahaz was that a young woman/virgin would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel, and you further said that this was fulfilled later in Isaiah. So where is the tie in between this prophecy and Jesus?

No. You asked specifically how Ahaz would know the prophecy was fulfilled. I answered that.

If it's a double fullfillment, I believe it's tied into Jesus, here in Isaiah 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel.

When the Lord was speaking to Ahaz in verse 14, He referred to Ahaz as "you plural". Which I think was God referring to Ahaz, and the house of David.
So, the prophecy was a sign to Ahaz, fullfilled in Isaiah 8:1-10. And a sign to the house of David, fulfilled at Christ's birth.

The prophecy was a sign that God was with His people.

[questioner22]

If it's a double fullfillment, I believe it's tied into Jesus, here in Isaiah 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel.

When the Lord was speaking to Ahaz in verse 14, He referred to Ahaz as "you plural". Which I think was God referring to Ahaz, and the house of David.
So, the prophecy was a sign to Ahaz, fullfilled in Isaiah 8:1-10. And a sign to the house of David, fulfilled at Christ's birth.

The prophecy was a sign that God was with His people.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I hope you're at least a little embarrassed by this answer. Look, I'm not going to belabor the point, but this is pure nonsense, and I maintain that it's highly likely that the only people who hold to what you just said are those that had to look it up because someone challenged them on it. And no, I can't prove this. But I've sat through a looooooooottttta Christmas sermons, and I never heard any reference to this. Even graduated from a Christian college with a minor in Bible - and never heard this in any class.

I think it speaks volumes that Jews do not look at Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy, with some hidden, dual fulfillment. Why would they? A prophecy is given to Ahaz, and later fulfilled. You have to read into the text something that is not there to make it be about Christ. And if this makes sense to you, or anyone else reading it - congrats. You are guaranteed to be a lifelong believer. If that passage doesn't give you pause, nothing will.

[abelcainsbrother]

If it's a double fullfillment, I believe it's tied into Jesus, here in Isaiah 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel.

When the Lord was speaking to Ahaz in verse 14, He referred to Ahaz as "you plural". Which I think was God referring to Ahaz, and the house of David.
So, the prophecy was a sign to Ahaz, fullfilled in Isaiah 8:1-10. And a sign to the house of David, fulfilled at Christ's birth.

The prophecy was a sign that God was with His people.

[/quote][/quote]

I hope you're at least a little embarrassed by this answer. Look, I'm not going to belabor the point, but this is pure nonsense, and I maintain that it's highly likely that the only people who hold to what you just said are those that had to look it up because someone challenged them on it. And no, I can't prove this. But I've sat through a looooooooottttta Christmas sermons, and I never heard any reference to this. Even graduated from a Christian college with a minor in Bible - and never heard this in any class.

I think it speaks volumes that Jews do not look at Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy, with some hidden, dual fulfillment. Why would they? A prophecy is given to Ahaz, and later fulfilled. You have to read into the text something that is not there to make it be about Christ. And if this makes sense to you, or anyone else reading it - congrats. You are guaranteed to be a lifelong believer. If that passage doesn't give you pause, nothing will.

[/quote]

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

Genny 22 for you.
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=AoKXxpqFVyE

[RickD]

questioner wrote:
I hope you're at least a little embarrassed by this answer. Look, I'm not going to belabor the point, but this is pure nonsense, and I maintain that it's highly likely that the only people who hold to what you just said are those that had to look it up because someone challenged them on it. And no, I can't prove this. But I've sat through a looooooooottttta Christmas sermons, and I never heard any reference to this. Even graduated from a Christian college with a minor in Bible - and never heard this in any class.

How many fallacies can we get in one paragraph?

I'm not going to belabor the point, but this is pure nonsense

Then show me why you think it's nonsense. I already told you that God referred to Ahaz in the plural "you".

and I maintain that it's highly likely that the only people who hold to what you just said are those that had to look it up because someone challenged them on it.

I didn't hold to anything on it until you asked me about it. I never even thought about it until you asked me. So, I read the chapter in Isaiah, and did some research. And I came to a conclusion. That's how I answer any question that I don't already know the answer to. If you don't like my answer, show me why you think it's wrong. Simply calling it "pure nonsense", and dismissing it without a reason, isn't very charitable.

And no, I can't prove this

Well until you can prove it, That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

But I've sat through a looooooooottttta Christmas sermons, and I never heard any reference to this. Even graduated from a Christian college with a minor in Bible - and never heard this in any class.

So, if I'm not sure if anything is true, I'll just ask you. If you've heard of it, it must be true, right oh wise and powerful one?

questioner,

Perhaps against my better judgement, I thought you came here for rational discussions. I'm starting to think I was wrong. If this keeps up, you won't last long here.

And if this makes sense to you, or anyone else reading it - congrats. You are guaranteed to be a lifelong believer. If that passage doesn't give you pause, nothing will.

I have already told you that I am guaranteed to be a lifelong believer, because God promised it. Read John 3:16. I believed in Christ, therefore I have eternal life!