SIN IN CHRIST JESUS...NO!!!
Michael Christ
Him is no sin'.
Gain understanding. A person who has the *wrong spirit* can say with eyes
wide open, 'I can open my eyes' or indeed 'Jesus is Lord' but they are still
*wrong in spirit* because they say it with pride in their heart. Any
self-righteousness (yeast) is unacceptable to God. What is acceptable to
God then...
Psalm 51:17 (KJV)
The sacrifices of God are a *broken spirit*: a *broken and a contrite
heart*, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalm 34:18 (KJV)
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a *broken heart*; and saveth
such as be of a *contrite spirit*
Fighting against me will not help you, you can't win against the truth. The
answer is simple...A person who has a broken heart and contrite spirit knows
that in everything he/says, and everything he/she does, is wrong. When
*this person* repents before God. God cleanses that person of *all*
unrighteousness. And He means ***all***. It is the truth.
You can "flush" what I say if you wish, but someone understands it, or it
would have never been written. If you want to "flush" something, flush your
self-righteousness, it is a filthy thing.
Michael Christ
Barry O'Grady
:'You cannot be seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus as a sinner. In
:Him is no sin'.
I know what you mean. I have no sin in me either.
Barry Christ
Barry
==========
Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post
as my news server is missing a lot of articles.
sighm...@mindspring.com
@go.com Mike NIGHT
You're a wanna be, a thief, and a copy cat like your Idol....
Now to the mistakes and lies you tell;
sins of Jesus
John's Baptism was for the "Forgiveness of Sins", Why would Jesus be
Baptised {Mark 1:4}
Jesus offered Alcohol to people {John 2:8}
The Bible says Alcohol takes away from peoples understanding {Hosea
4:11}
Jesus is quoted in the Bible "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.
"No one is good-except God alone." {Mark 10:18}
The Bible says Jesus lies {John 7:8-10} "Go to the feast yourselves; I
am not going up to the feast" and after his brothers were gone "he also
went up, not publicly but in private"
Jesus spoke to his Mother with Contempt {John 2:4} "O Woman; What have
you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
John 20:1-17 Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to lie for him
Jesus said to her, "Mary". She turned herself, and said to him, "Rabboni",
which is to say, "Master". Jesus said to her, "Do not touch me; for I have
not yet ascended to my father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, I
ascend to my father, and your father; and to my god, and your god."
Jesus refused, or was unable, to prove that he was sent from G0D. Instead,
he relied on the expert witness of his own claim, and his own witness that
G0D was his witness. By Old Testament religious law, a man needed two
independent witnesses to prove a claim in court (Deut 19:15, 17:6). In an
utterly mind-numbing display of question-begging, he presented his "two"
witnesses. "If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true", he said
in John 5:31. And, then he proceeded to bear witness to himself, and also
bore witness that his father bore witness to him (John 8:14,18), which was
circular reasoning.
lies; false prophecy
John 2:19-21
19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in
three days."
20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and
you are going to raise it in three days?"
21But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Jesus out right Lied in
· John 18:19-21 The high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples, and
about his doctrine. Jesus answered him:
· "I spoke in openness to the world;
· I always taught in the synagogue and the temple, where the Jews always
come;
· and I have said nothing in secret.
Mark 4:10-12
But, when he was in private... the twelve asked him the meaning of the
parable. And he said, "You are permitted to know the SECRETS of the kingdom
of God.
But to those outside, these things are said in parables,
SO THAT they MAY see but not perceive, and MAY hear but not understand...
Matt 13:10-15
And the disciples came and asked, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He
answered, "Because you are permitted to know the SECRETS of the kingdom of
heaven, but they are not permitted."
Mark 16: 15-18, "15 And He [Jesus] said to them, 'Go into all the world and
preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been
baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
(Now these same people who teach and read this complain about persecution of
their own when it says nothing would harm them. Hospitals are filled with
sick Christians, they have no immunities to poison, cannot cure the sick &
Dying, &can barely speak this language let alone new languages so this is
false promises and wonders.)
John 16: 23, "23 And in that day you will ask Me no question. TRULY, TRULY,
I say to you, if you ask the Father for ANYTHING, He will give it to you in
My name."
(Jesus promises that all that is needed is his name, and anything is
possible, is that like saying beetle juice three times?)
Be careful who you wish to pretend you are....you wanna be Jesus imitating
Michael but see who Jesus was.
http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/match.html
Michael Christ
had an eternity.
This is what you will come to know, whether it be before you die or after.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
Born Again
Michael Christ wrote ...
What do we have here ... Instead of using the word "you" you should have
used the word "we," because you are at the very same level as every other
mortal.
You show nothing but subjective thinking; judging people from behind your
key-board, without even knowing anything personal about them. Even Jesus
said that He did not judge any man, but left the judgment to His father in
Heaven. I advise you to do the same. Leave other people to God and don't try
to sit on His Throne to do His job for Him.
BA
Michael Christ
> Michael Christ wrote ...
>Jesus has done more with one cell in his body than you could ever do if you
>had an eternity.
>This is what you will come to know, whether it be before you die or after.
BA wrote:
> What do we have here ... Instead of using the word "you" you should have
> used the word "we," because you are at the very same level as every other
> mortal.
> You show nothing but subjective thinking; judging people from behind your
> key-board, without even knowing anything personal about them. Even Jesus
> said that He did not judge any man, but left the judgment to His father in
> Heaven. I advise you to do the same. Leave other people to God and don't
> try to sit on His Throne to do His job for Him.
The person I replied to spoke blasphemy about the Lord. Read my words
again, there is no lie. You come against me instead of him. Now you can
see the antichrist in you, there it is as plain as day.
Michael Christ
Born Again
Right, okay. This shows still your subjectivity. I hope this misunderstanding
gets out of the way.
BA
Michael Christ wrote ......
sighm...@mindspring.com
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:51:09 +1000, "Michael Christ"
<onc...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Jesus has done more with one cell in his body than you could ever do if you
>had an eternity.
>
>This is what you will come to know, whether it be before you die or after.
>
>
>Michael Christ
>
>
>
sighm...@mindspring.com
Read this:
Zec 2 and 3
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:46:15 -0500, "Mike NIGHT" <don't @go.com>
wrote:
Pastor Frank
>"Michael Christ" <onc...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>:'You cannot be seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus as a sinner. In
>:Him is no sin'.
>
>I know what you mean. I have no sin in me either.
>
one", but Jesus who resurrected IN YOU has no sin. Your only hope of
salvation is to have the sinlessness of Jesus ATTRIBUTED to you, as you will
never be sinless yourself.
Pastor Frank
"Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect"
- Jesus in Matt. 5:48
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
gentleness, goodness, faith, generosity, self control."
- Galatians 5:22-23
Barry O'Grady
:Jesus has done more with one cell in his body than you could ever do if you
:had an eternity.
Perhaps, but nothing useful.
:This is what you will come to know, whether it be before you die or after.
Only if you go insane.
:Michael Christ
Barry No Christ
Barry
==========
Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
Barry O'Grady
:The person I replied to spoke blasphemy about the Lord. Read my words
:again, there is no lie. You come against me instead of him. Now you can
:see the antichrist in you, there it is as plain as day.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
:Michael Christ
Barry Anti Christ
LightoftheWorld
Loki
<ak...@asheboro.com> wrote:
>Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost. He did not sin
He was only filled with the Holy Spirit after he was baptized by John,
though..
--
Et in Arcadia Ego...
Loki
-[E-Mail]- juv...@citrus.infi.net
-[WWW]- http://members.xoom.com/balsebub
-[ICQ]- #13134728
"I'm an anti-bomb liberal. Those sweet innocent
children had explosive devices made from propane,
gasoline, and soap. These items are far too accessible.
We must pass laws banning their manufacture and
distribution at once. It's for the children." - Jason Steiner (ja...@gaydeceiver.com)
walksalone
>Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost. He did not sin
Only if you consider the things told of him in the gospels to NOT BE
SINS IF THE LAD DOES THEM. That is to say, the theft of the property
of others, the breaking of the sabbath, being disrespectful to his
mother, wantonly & knowingly destroying the property of others,
calling women dogs, taking a scrouge to others, public disturbance, no
knowledge of biology & discussing it, killing fig trees [ a source of
food for everyone back then] that weren't his? But then, that is the
way you think, isn't it. No matter what evil the claimed lad said or
did, because it was the lad, it can't be evil. That's repugnant.
It's also special pleading, which is dishonest of & by itself.
remanent snipped.
Michael Christ
> :The person I replied to spoke blasphemy about the Lord. Read my words
> :again, there is no lie. You come against me instead of him. Now you can
> :see the antichrist in you, there it is as plain as day.
> Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
> Barry Anti Christ
Then why do you call it a crime :-).
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
>Jesus has done more with one cell in his body than you could ever do if
> you had an eternity.
Barry wrote:
> Perhaps, but nothing useful.
Michael Christ wrote:
>This is what you will come to know, whether it be before you die or
>after.
Barry wrote:
> Only if you go insane.
> Barry No Christ
Barry you've lost your wit...what happened?
Michael Christ
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <371e83b...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>"Michael Christ" <onc...@bigpond.com> wrote:
:>
:>:'You cannot be seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus as a sinner. In
:>:Him is no sin'.
:>
:>I know what you mean. I have no sin in me either.
:>
: WRONG!!!!! You have lots of sin in you, for "no one is perfect, no, not
:one", but Jesus who resurrected IN YOU has no sin.
You are WRONG!!!!!! I was able to prevent Jesus being resurected in me
by not being a Bible follower. Sin is a Biblical concept, so those of
us who do not follow the Bible have no sin.
:Your only hope of salvation is to have the sinlessness of Jesus
:ATTRIBUTED to you, as you will never be sinless yourself.
No thank you. I may not be the smartest person in the world but I
don't want to sink to the level of being like Jesus.
:
:Pastor Frank
:
:"Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect"
: - Jesus in Matt. 5:48
"Rather, keep your intelligence, unlike those that fall for the
Christian mytholigy."
:"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
:gentleness, goodness, faith, generosity, self control."
: - Galatians 5:22-23
God can't seem to get anything right.
luckiegirl
fellowship without fear of "flamers" ? where we can fellowship in love and
understanding? ask questions and get sensitive replies? perhaps a monitored
group? can anyone help me please????????
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
oving
We are not of this world, so we will be strangers to the others.
There are places of fellowship in love and understanding, like in the
gatherings of the believers:
http://home.wxs.nl/~oving/lordpres.htm
Peace,
Oving.
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
http://home.wxs.nl/~oving/
luckiegirl heeft geschreven in bericht <7fvo4p$jqh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Pastor Frank
>is there a safe place on deja news?? where born-again christians can
>fellowship without fear of "flamers" ? where we can fellowship in love and
>understanding? ask questions and get sensitive replies? perhaps a
monitored
>group? can anyone help me please????????
>
Try moderated groups, such as christnet.bible. No crossposting permitted
there.
Pastor Frank
Tolerance is the virtue of those who
don't care about anything or anyone.
-anon-
walksalone
<lucki...@my-dejanews.com> Pondered long an spake thusly unto the
masses!
>is there a safe place on deja news?? where born-again christians can
>fellowship without fear of "flamers" ? where we can fellowship in love and
>understanding? ask questions and get sensitive replies? perhaps a monitored
>group? can anyone help me please????????
Not a xian, but try the SOC> or moderated groups. If you are looking
for amens & warm fuzzy feelings, one of the soc.religion.christian
might be your best bet.
Born Again
great spiritual works. Rember that He was driven by the Spirit into the
desert directly after His baptism to be tempted by the devil. Jesus however,
did not need baptism. He did this only to identify Himself with sinners,
taking their place in death, burial, and resurrection.
BA
Ben Mitts
Good luck finding what you are looking
for. Been on most NG's but have not
found any like you want. My suggestion
is surf around awhile. Find those who
demonstrate what you want, establish
contact, then ignore the rest.
Ben Mitts
========================================
luckiegirl wrote in message <7fvo4p$jqh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>is there a safe place on deja news?? where born-again christians can
>fellowship without fear of "flamers" ? where we can fellowship in love and
>understanding? ask questions and get sensitive replies? perhaps a
monitored
>group? can anyone help me please????????
>
Graeme
He was not baptised with the Spirit, it says the Spirit decsended upon
Him - Old Testament; the baptism of the Holy Spirit never occurred
until Pentecost.
Graeme Hunt
invi...@world-net.co.nz
http://www.worldnet.co.nz/~invictus/beacon/index.htm
ICQ 31662222
Barry O'Grady
:Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost. He did not sin
Why doesn't God make us all like Jesus? Is Gods unlimited power
limited?
Barry O'Grady
In some places it is called a crime.
Christianity is a crime.
:Michael Christ
Barry No Christ
Barry
Barry O'Grady
Christianity is too stupid to be considerd funny.
:Michael Christ
sighm...@mindspring.com
careful about who is included though. Don't get me wrong, it is not a
club, but the things discussed are so in-depth that withought good
working knowledge of the Bible,, you would be lost a tt the concepts.
Oh, pays to get a strongs concordance as well, they look at a verse or
two that conflicts with something, and see wha tthey believe that is
not right.
THrey have a very good group, many many truth seekers that answer just
about any question you pose, not in anger or intolerance, but out of
the Bible to help you.
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 18:50:02 GMT, luckiegirl
Pastor Frank
>You are WRONG!!!!!! I was able to prevent Jesus being resurected in me
>by not being a Bible follower. Sin is a Biblical concept, so those of
>us who do not follow the Bible have no sin.
>
I don't see alt.atheism in the header, which makes you an atheist troll,
out to waste bandwidth in our religious NGs with inane remarks.
Do stay out of here willya?
In2Home User
turned our backs on Him - not the other way around. We CHOSE not to obey
God. However, if we repent of out sins the promise is that we recieve the
Holy Spirit and God will make us more and more like Jesus untill that
Glorious day when He returns once again.
It's not God that refuses to make us like Jesus - it's us and our sins !
P.J
Barry O'Grady wrote in message <37246be4...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>LightoftheWorld <ak...@asheboro.com> wrote:
>
>:Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost. He did not sin
>
>Why doesn't God make us all like Jesus? Is Gods unlimited power
>limited?
>
In2Home User
fulfillment of old testament Prophesy !
P.J
Born Again wrote in message <7g0n99$j95$1...@reader.wxs.nl>...
>The reason He was baptized with the Spirit was for the accomplishing of
>great spiritual works. Rember that He was driven by the Spirit into the
>desert directly after His baptism to be tempted by the devil. Jesus
however,
>did not need baptism. He did this only to identify Himself with sinners,
>taking their place in death, burial, and resurrection.
>
>BA
>
>
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <37246be4...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>LightoftheWorld <ak...@asheboro.com> wrote:
:>
:>:Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost. He did not sin
:>
:>Why doesn't God make us all like Jesus? Is Gods unlimited power
:>limited?
:>
:>Barry
:God did indeed make us perfect my friend. But the problem was that we
:turned our backs on Him - not the other way around. We CHOSE not to obey
:God.
My memory must be really bad. I can't remember chooseing to disobey
God. Do you remember disobeying God and why you did it?
:However, if we repent of out sins the promise is that we recieve the
:Holy Spirit and God will make us more and more like Jesus untill that
:Glorious day when He returns once again.
That doesn't make sense. If God can make us like Jesus why hasn't
he done it already?
:It's not God that refuses to make us like Jesus - it's us and our sins !
Are you saying that God wants to make us like Jesus but we have
overpowered him and prevented God from exercising his will?
If we were all like Jesus there would be no fig trees left and sick
people would only be cured if there was a political point to be made.
Jesus was not a good role model.
:P.J
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <3723014c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
It's important that you know these things.
: Do stay out of here willya?
I think I should remain to shield you guys from your masters.
In2Home User
>My memory must be really bad. I can't remember chooseing to disobey
>God. Do you remember disobeying God and why you did it?
When we do things mate - we always have a choice. We can either choose to
ignore God and carry on sinning without repentance, or we can take heed of
His word and His wisdom and repent of out sins. Every action you take as a
human being - YOU are responsible for, no-one else. As this is the case -
it is us who CHOOSES not to follow Him, even though we have His word showing
us clearly that it is both necessary and on offer !
>:However, if we repent of out sins the promise is that we recieve the
>:Holy Spirit and God will make us more and more like Jesus untill that
>:Glorious day when He returns once again.
>
>That doesn't make sense. If God can make us like Jesus why hasn't
>he done it already?
The fact is that you have to choose to follow God in order that you recieve
the Holy spirit. Yes God could just make us all like Jesus if He wished -
but that's simply not the way He has chosen to work - and who are we to
question God ?!?!? If He created us, surely He knows what's best for us
???? Or do you question God - your very creator ??
>:It's not God that refuses to make us like Jesus - it's us and our sins !
>
>Are you saying that God wants to make us like Jesus but we have
>overpowered him and prevented God from exercising his will?
No I'm not.
>If we were all like Jesus there would be no fig trees left and sick
>people would only be cured if there was a political point to be made.
>Jesus was not a good role model.
I think you'd benefit more from reading what God has to say rather than what
other people say. I'm more than happy to reply to questions - but It's only
God who can ultimately enlighten our natural lack of wisdom and insight.
Read through Romans - it'll help answer your questions. If you don't
agree - then hey, at least you've read the most popular book of all time,
and the number 1 best seller in all the world !
P.J
Barry O'Grady
:Barry,
:
:
:>My memory must be really bad. I can't remember chooseing to disobey
:>God. Do you remember disobeying God and why you did it?
:
:
:When we do things mate - we always have a choice.
Except maybe people with mental disorders, and automatic bodily
functions, and when someone has a gun to your head, and Christians.
:We can either choose to
:ignore God and carry on sinning without repentance, or we can take heed of
:His word and His wisdom and repent of out sins.
I chose not to be a sinner.
:Every action you take as a
:human being - YOU are responsible for, no-one else.
I don't hold you responsable for being brainwashed.
:As this is the case -
:it is us who CHOOSES not to follow Him, even though we have His word showing
:us clearly that it is both necessary and on offer !
I am glad it is so clear. Now, which of the hundreds of versions should
I follow?
:>:However, if we repent of out sins the promise is that we recieve the
:>:Holy Spirit and God will make us more and more like Jesus untill that
:>:Glorious day when He returns once again.
:>
:>That doesn't make sense. If God can make us like Jesus why hasn't
:>he done it already?
:
:
:The fact is that you have to choose to follow God in order that you recieve
:the Holy spirit. Yes God could just make us all like Jesus if He wished -
:but that's simply not the way He has chosen to work - and who are we to
:question God ?!?!?
You can choose to question God. Of course your master will not want
you to do so since you might just see how silly the God concept is.
:If He created us, surely He knows what's best for us ????
Doesn't follow. The evidence shows that God does not have a clue.
God is too proud to ask us for help.
:Or do you question God - your very creator ??
You too can question God. Just stand up straight and choose to
question God. Remember, if you don't question God you will be
responsable for being in the dark.
:>:It's not God that refuses to make us like Jesus - it's us and our sins !
:>
:>Are you saying that God wants to make us like Jesus but we have
:>overpowered him and prevented God from exercising his will?
:
:
:No I'm not.
So what is stopping him?
:>If we were all like Jesus there would be no fig trees left and sick
:>people would only be cured if there was a political point to be made.
:>Jesus was not a good role model.
:
:
:I think you'd benefit more from reading what God has to say rather than what
:other people say.
I have read the Wholly Babble. God has nothing to say.
It's time you broke away from your masters and try to think for
yourself. Just choose to do it and take responsability.
:I'm more than happy to reply to questions - but It's only
:God who can ultimately enlighten our natural lack of wisdom and insight.
May God forgive you for being critical of his ultimate creation!
:Read through Romans - it'll help answer your questions. If you don't
:agree - then hey, at least you've read the most popular book of all time,
:and the number 1 best seller in all the world !
It's a sad commentry on humanity. The most sold and least read book.
If you understood the Bible you would be an atheist.
:P.J
Able
O'Grady) wrote:
>"In2Home User" <us...@peejay.in2home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:Barry,
>:
>:
>:>My memory must be really bad. I can't remember chooseing to disobey
>:>God. Do you remember disobeying God and why you did it?
Hey Bazza, your spell chekka ain't working again.
>:
>:When we do things mate - we always have a choice.
>
>Except maybe people with mental disorders, and automatic bodily
>functions, and when someone has a gun to your head, and Christians.
>
>:We can either choose to
>:ignore God and carry on sinning without repentance, or we can take heed of
>:His word and His wisdom and repent of out sins.
>
>I chose not to be a sinner.
>
>:Every action you take as a
>:human being - YOU are responsible for, no-one else.
>
>I don't hold you responsable for being brainwashed.
Hey Bazza, your spell chekka ain't working again.
>:As this is the case -
>:it is us who CHOOSES not to follow Him, even though we have His word showing
>:us clearly that it is both necessary and on offer !
>
>I am glad it is so clear. Now, which of the hundreds of versions should
>I follow?
>
>:>:However, if we repent of out sins the promise is that we recieve the
>:>:Holy Spirit and God will make us more and more like Jesus untill that
>:>:Glorious day when He returns once again.
>:>
>:>That doesn't make sense. If God can make us like Jesus why hasn't
>:>he done it already?
>:
>:
>:The fact is that you have to choose to follow God in order that you recieve
>:the Holy spirit. Yes God could just make us all like Jesus if He wished -
>:but that's simply not the way He has chosen to work - and who are we to
>:question God ?!?!?
>
>You can choose to question God. Of course your master will not want
>you to do so since you might just see how silly the God concept is.
>
>:If He created us, surely He knows what's best for us ????
>
>Doesn't follow. The evidence shows that God does not have a clue.
>God is too proud to ask us for help.
>
>:Or do you question God - your very creator ??
>
>You too can question God. Just stand up straight and choose to
>question God. Remember, if you don't question God you will be
>responsable for being in the dark.
Hey Bazza, your spell chekka ain't working again.
>:>:It's not God that refuses to make us like Jesus - it's us and our sins !
>:>
>:>Are you saying that God wants to make us like Jesus but we have
>:>overpowered him and prevented God from exercising his will?
>:
>:
>:No I'm not.
>
>So what is stopping him?
>
>:>If we were all like Jesus there would be no fig trees left and sick
>:>people would only be cured if there was a political point to be made.
>:>Jesus was not a good role model.
>:
>:
>:I think you'd benefit more from reading what God has to say rather than what
>:other people say.
>
>I have read the Wholly Babble. God has nothing to say.
>It's time you broke away from your masters and try to think for
>yourself. Just choose to do it and take responsability.
Hey Bazza, your spell chekka ain't working again.
>:I'm more than happy to reply to questions - but It's only
>:God who can ultimately enlighten our natural lack of wisdom and insight.
>
>May God forgive you for being critical of his ultimate creation!
>
>:Read through Romans - it'll help answer your questions. If you don't
>:agree - then hey, at least you've read the most popular book of all time,
>:and the number 1 best seller in all the world !
>
>It's a sad commentry on humanity.
Hey Bazza, your spell chekka ain't working again.
>The most sold and least read book.
>If you understood the Bible you would be an atheist.
If you read more you would be a betta spella.
Able
Able
<se...@no.junk.mail> wrote:
>Praise be to Able. You have finally seen the light!
>
>You obviously have nothing to rebuke the truth written by Barry, so
>therefore you must accept it.
As Barry has never ever made any statements that are intelligible, It
is difficult to know if he is speaking the truth.
Peter, you have not been around long enough to realise this.
All I can help him with is his spelling.
Able
>Welcome to the real world.
>
>Peter
>
>Able wrote in message <372f490e....@news.wantree.com.au>...
Peter Sundstrom
You obviously have nothing to rebuke the truth written by Barry, so
therefore you must accept it.
Welcome to the real world.
Peter Sundstrom
Able wrote in message <372f6206....@news.wantree.com.au>...
>On Wed, 5 May 1999 08:37:18 +1200, "Peter Sundstrom"
><se...@no.junk.mail> wrote:
>
>>
>>You obviously have nothing to rebuke the truth written by Barry, so
>>therefore you must accept it.
>
>is difficult to know if he is speaking the truth.
> Peter, you have not been around long enough to realise this.
>All I can help him with is his spelling.
>Able
>
>
I have been around a lot longer than you think. I am very familar with
Barry's postings. I suggest you read them a little MORE carefully and you
will see the truth.
Peter
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <371e83b...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>"Michael Christ" <onc...@bigpond.com> wrote:
:>
:>:'You cannot be seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus as a sinner. In
:>:Him is no sin'.
:>
:>I know what you mean. I have no sin in me either.
:>
: WRONG!!!!! You have lots of sin in you, for "no one is perfect, no, not
:one", but Jesus who resurrected IN YOU has no sin.
How did Jesus get so lucky?
:Your only hope of
:salvation is to have the sinlessness of Jesus ATTRIBUTED to you, as you will
:never be sinless yourself.
That's not quite correct. Only Christians sin.
:Pastor Frank
Barry
==========
Please send me an email copy if you reply to this post.
Web page: http://www.acay.com.au/~barryo
merlin
sin is breaking a promise to jesus, so to break a promise to jesus one
would have to have made a promise to jesus as every christian does. and
that promise to jesus is to LOVE EVERYONE AS WE LOVE OURSELVES. think
about it, make a list of christians you know that actually follow jesus
teachings, there are as many christians on this planet as their were
lovers of god in sodom. sad to say.
the easiest promises to note that suggest that christians sin is the lack
of love for everyone. the second is the willingness to call others names
like sodomite and spawn of satan etc.
Barry O'Grady
:dear barry,
:
:sin is breaking a promise to jesus, so to break a promise to jesus one
:would have to have made a promise to jesus as every christian does.
You make a powerful arguement for not becoming a Christian.
:and that promise to jesus is to LOVE EVERYONE AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.
That explains why so many Christians hate everyone.
:think
:about it, make a list of christians you know that actually follow jesus
:teachings, there are as many christians on this planet as their were
:lovers of god in sodom. sad to say.
Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
been.
:the easiest promises to note that suggest that christians sin is the lack
:of love for everyone. the second is the willingness to call others names
:like sodomite and spawn of satan etc.
Jesus came do cause division. He came to bring not peace, but a sword.
The true Christian is the one who causes the most trouble.
You make a powerful arguement against not capitalising the first letter
of a sentence. It looks stupid.
J.P.H.
Barry O'Grady wrote in message <3747dc5c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
>
>:dear barry,
>:
>:sin is breaking a promise to jesus, so to break a promise to jesus one
>:would have to have made a promise to jesus as every christian does.
>
>You make a powerful arguement for not becoming a Christian.
>
>:and that promise to jesus is to LOVE EVERYONE AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.
>
>That explains why so many Christians hate everyone.
>
>:think
>:about it, make a list of christians you know that actually follow jesus
>:teachings, there are as many christians on this planet as their were
>:lovers of god in sodom. sad to say.
>
>Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
>been.
That low life scum as you call Him, did nothing but teach love, life and
wholeness. He was beaten, kicked, whipped, spat on and nailed to a tree for
you, whether you believe it or not. He maybe scum in your eyes, but He had
more guts than you will ever have.
J.
Able
O'Grady) wrote:
>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
>
>:dear barry,
>:
>:sin is breaking a promise to jesus, so to break a promise to jesus one
>:would have to have made a promise to jesus as every christian does.
>
>You make a powerful arguement for not becoming a Christian.
>
>:and that promise to jesus is to LOVE EVERYONE AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.
>
>That explains why so many Christians hate everyone.
>
>:think
>:about it, make a list of christians you know that actually follow jesus
>:teachings, there are as many christians on this planet as their were
>:lovers of god in sodom. sad to say.
>
>Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
>been.
>
>:the easiest promises to note that suggest that christians sin is the lack
>:of love for everyone. the second is the willingness to call others names
>:like sodomite and spawn of satan etc.
>
>Jesus came do cause division. He came to bring not peace, but a sword.
>The true Christian is the one who causes the most trouble.
>
>You make a powerful arguement against not capitalising the first letter
>of a sentence. It looks stupid.
Arguement, do cause division, existance, lieing, looks stupid?
Bazza I just read some of your other posts, your spelling is getting
worse mate. Get a grip.
Able
Able
O N L Y O N E
Barry O'Grady
:
:--------------140E3078D9F70CD0C5F66DF0
:Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
:
:There is a big need for all Christians
There is a bigger need for people to set their newsreader
to avoid polluting the newsgroups withe unwanted and useless
HTML code.
:--------------140E3078D9F70CD0C5F66DF0
merlin
> Arguement, do cause division, existance, lieing, looks stupid?
then when does the light shine and christianity begin to reflect jesus
love in the world? when do the attacks on others by christians stop so
that we may all live in love?
> Bazza I just read some of your other posts, your spelling is getting
> worse mate.
gee a personal criticism. gee a note on personal style? can only become
part of the problem of personal attack and not consider dealing with
ideas?
> Get a grip.
lol, you make everything someone elses fault?
in love,
melrin
merlin
> Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
> to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
> been.
very few christians follow jesus, most follow the ones that came after and
wrote their thoughts down in the bible about what they remembered or
wished jesus had said. these are the ones being worshipped not jesus.
on belonging to any religion, i can only say, be your best, show you best
to others, and live the best life you know how, and love, love, everyone
and everything, then we will all have a better world to live in with you.
so, realizing that jesus is not responsible for either the religion that
worships him OR the book that jesus is quoted in, do you not think that
maybe jesus is being falsely accused by you of being scum?
> :the easiest promises to note that suggest that christians sin is the lack
> :of love for everyone. the second is the willingness to call others names
> :like sodomite and spawn of satan etc.
> Jesus came do cause division. He came to bring not peace, but a sword.
these are the words of a premative society that could only see jesus in
terms of the sword and military justice. there is no civic sense in the
above, no sense that anyone lived in the suburbs or went to high school
before college or trade school.
> The true Christian is the one who causes the most trouble.
this is again an idea from a premative society that did not believe in
democracy or doing the best for ones neighbors no matter who those
neighbors may be. yes, christianity supported slavery and segregation,
jesus does not.
> You make a powerful arguement against not capitalising the first letter
> of a sentence. It looks stupid.
are you a newbie? when on the net no one capitualises anything except
shouts! lol
in love with jesus,
merlin
Barry O'Grady
: Arguement, do cause division, existance, lieing, looks stupid?
That's not even a sentence. You are losing the plot. Get a life.
Lose the the mythology and you might have something to say, Unable.
:Able
Barry O'Grady
:
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <3747dc5c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
:>
:>:dear barry,
:>:
:>:sin is breaking a promise to jesus, so to break a promise to jesus one
:>:would have to have made a promise to jesus as every christian does.
:>
:>You make a powerful arguement for not becoming a Christian.
:>
:>:and that promise to jesus is to LOVE EVERYONE AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.
:>
:>That explains why so many Christians hate everyone.
:>
:>:think
:>:about it, make a list of christians you know that actually follow jesus
:>:teachings, there are as many christians on this planet as their were
:>:lovers of god in sodom. sad to say.
:>
:>Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
:>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
:>been.
:
:That low life scum as you call Him, did nothing but teach love, life and
:wholeness.
You should read the Bible before you post nonsense like that.
:He was beaten, kicked, whipped, spat on and nailed to a tree for
:you, whether you believe it or not.
If that happened then he deserved it.
:He maybe scum in your eyes, but He had more guts than you will ever
:have.
I can't parse that sentence.
Did you mean;
He maybe, scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
have.
or
He may be scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
have.
or something else?
A being that can feel no pain can not be brave, although the Bible
does tell us of occasions when Jesus wimped out.
J.P.H.
Barry O'Grady wrote in message <374b5bdd...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>"J.P.H." <boyi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>:
>:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <3747dc5c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>:>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
>:>
>:>
>:>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
>:>been.
>:
>:That low life scum as you call Him, did nothing but teach love, life and
>:wholeness.
>
>You should read the Bible before you post nonsense like that.
>
>:He was beaten, kicked, whipped, spat on and nailed to a tree for
>:you, whether you believe it or not.
>
>If that happened then he deserved it.
You did.
>
>:He maybe scum in your eyes, but He had more guts than you will ever
>:have.
>
>I can't parse that sentence.
>Did you mean;
>
>He maybe, scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
>have.
>
>or
>
>He may be scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
>have.
>
>or something else?
>
>A being that can feel no pain can not be brave, although the Bible
>does tell us of occasions when Jesus wimped out.
You really are silly.
J.
merlin
> >A being that can feel no pain can not be brave, although the Bible
> >does tell us of occasions when Jesus wimped out.
>
> You really are silly.
>
barry is not being silly, why do you we only have the good jesus stories
in the bible? why don't we have the ones where jesus failed? don't you
think that the bible is too prejudicially written in the bio for jesus?
don't you think it is obvious that the bible was written to get people to
worship jesus and not see jesus for the man jesus was?
in love,
merolin
J.P.H.
merlin wrote in message ...
Hi merlin
Failed in what? He fulfilled all that was required of Him.
Are you saying the entire bible, from start to finish, was written by men
(hundreds of years apart) just so people could worship a future man? If
so, then who
was the instigator of it, and what would have been the point.
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
J.
merlin
> Hi merlin
that is merlin's name,
> Failed in what? He fulfilled all that was required of Him.
all humans fail and come short of the glory of god. so you buy this
propaganda about jesus being perfect? then he never lived as a human.
you are one of those that is breaking one of the ten commandments and have
set jesus up as a perfect god next to yahwew?
> Are you saying the entire bible, from start to finish, was written by men
> (hundreds of years apart) just so people could worship a future man?
you got that right.
> If
there are not ifs in god.
> so, then who
> was the instigator of it, and what would have been the point.
you have the suspects in the authors of the books written, it is pretty
clear someone is in charge today as we see newer and newer translations of
the bible that include words and concepts that did not occure naturally in
literature or faith at the time of jesus.
>
> Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
that is a wonderful idea. and yes, jesus did realize god and was able to
speak with god the father. why worship any man that is able to talk to
god? why not live your life as jesus did and find a way of talking with
god yourself enstead of worshiping your brother jesus who came before to
show us how this is done,
in love,
merlin
bobjef...@my-deja.com
mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
> dear jph,
>
> > Hi merlin
>
> that is merlin's name,
>
> > Failed in what? He fulfilled all that was required of Him.
>
> all humans fail and come short of the glory of god. so you buy this
> propaganda about jesus being perfect? then he never lived as a human.
That is a baseless assertion.
> you are one of those that is breaking one of the ten commandments and
have
> set jesus up as a perfect god next to yahwew?
Jesus and YHWH are one in the same.
>
> > Are you saying the entire bible, from start to finish, was written
by men
> > (hundreds of years apart) just so people could worship a future
man?
>
> you got that right.
>
> > If
>
> there are not ifs in god.
>
> > so, then who
> > was the instigator of it, and what would have been the point.
>
> you have the suspects in the authors of the books written, it is
pretty
> clear someone is in charge today as we see newer and newer
translations of
> the bible that include words and concepts that did not occure
naturally in
> literature or faith at the time of jesus.
Huh, most people I suppose that even you could learn to read and write
greek and Hebrew then you to could translate the scripture, too. It
aint that hard. There is no conspiracy to mistranslate the words.
>
> >
> > Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
>
> that is a wonderful idea. and yes, jesus did realize god and was
able to
> speak with god the father. why worship any man that is able to talk
to
> god?
Jesus = GOD; Jesus = Creator
why not live your life as jesus did and find a way of talking with
> god yourself enstead of worshiping your brother jesus who came before
to
> show us how this is done,
>
> in love,
>
> merlin
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
J.P.H.
merlin wrote in message ...
>
>> Hi merlin
>
>that is merlin's name,
>
>> Failed in what? He fulfilled all that was required of Him.
>
>all humans fail and come short of the glory of god. so you buy this
>propaganda about jesus being perfect? then he never lived as a human.
>set jesus up as a perfect god next to yahwew?
Hi Merlin
No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself shall
give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
call his name ....
Emmanuel...God with us.
Isa. 9:6...For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the
government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called.....
Wonderful
Counsellor
The Mighty God
The everlasrting Father
The Prince of Peace
God came to earth as a man in Jesus Christ,... He made Himself of no
reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men.
And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.
He was tempted in every way we are, yet didn't sin.
When He was beaten and crucified, the humanness of Him felt every punch,
kick, lash and nail that was driven into Him.
>
>> Are you saying the entire bible, from start to finish, was written by men
>> (hundreds of years apart) just so people could worship a future man?
>
>you got that right.
>
>> If
>
>there are not ifs in god.
>
>> so, then who
>> was the instigator of it, and what would have been the point.
>
>you have the suspects in the authors of the books written, it is pretty
>clear someone is in charge today as we see newer and newer translations of
>the bible that include words and concepts that did not occure naturally in
>literature or faith at the time of jesus.
As the passages above read, these were written long before Jesus appeared,
yet they prophecy of Him.
>
>>
>> Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
>
>that is a wonderful idea. and yes, jesus did realize god and was able to
>speak with god the father. why worship any man that is able to talk to
>god? why not live your life as jesus did and find a way of talking with
>god yourself enstead of worshiping your brother jesus who came before to
>show us how this is done,
Jesus didn't just come to show us how it was done. He was the Lamb of God,
slain for the sins of the world. Which is why He said..no-one comes to the
Father but by me.
J.
>
>in love,
>
>merlin
Edward Ruvinski
> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself shall
> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
become pregnant...
(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation forced to fit
events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it cannot be
made to fit.
Regards,
Edward
Able
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>"J.P.H." wrote:
>
>> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself shall
>> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
>> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
>
>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
The prophecy has three levels.(IMHO)
Preteritist, Futurist and Presentist.
>(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
>become pregnant...
Edward , you are not quite correct here..this is a popular
misconception, generally, but not exclusively confined to atheists.
We have a thread running on aus.religion.christian which categorically
proves this satement is not correct. I can do it for you right here
and now..
The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
Almah can mean either..if you look to Genesis, you will see that
Rebekah was referred to as almah, although she was clearly a virgin.
Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote
virgins on two occasions.
The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
Greek.
Almah is the only word that can fit the different levels of
prophesy.
The word almah is used because in the ultimate fulfilment, the
woman to bring forth a son would be a virgin . The use of almah in
Isaiah made it correct for the historic fulfilment, but did not
preclude the Futurist fulfilment.
>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
It means "God with us."
Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go
over, he shall reach [even] to the neck; and the stretching out of his
wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
Isa 8:9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in
pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye
shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in
pieces.
Isa 8:10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the
word, and it shall not stand: for God [is] with us.
>Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation forced to fit
>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it cannot be
>made to fit.
>
You need to look a little deeper into this aspect perhaps.
Regards,
Able.
> Edward
>
merlin
> Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself shall
why do you quote the old testament and then not follow the laws in the old
testment? why do you rely on old testament professy and not rely on old
testament laws?
this is a contradiction in faith,
in love,
merlin
merlin
> That is a baseless assertion.
and what do you base your statement on? LOL
in love,
merlin
J.P.H.
merlin wrote in message ...
Hi merlin
>
>> Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself shall
>
>why do you quote the old testament and then not follow the laws in the old
>testment? why do you rely on old testament professy and not rely on old
>testament laws?
It was obvious why they were quoted.
>
>this is a contradiction in faith,
No, it's the reason for it.
J.
>
>in love,
>
>merlin
Libertarius
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
>"J.P.H." wrote:
>
>> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself
shall
>> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall
>> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
>
>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the
passage in
>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between
the years
>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE).
Your claim is
>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether
Judah would be
>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>
Hebrew word
>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew
word for
>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew
(which I
>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage
actually
>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a
sign, and
>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has
attributed the
>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become
pregnant.
===>If you would check more up-to-date translations, you would find
that the ALMAH is NOW PREGNANT, not "shall conceive"! The prediction is
absolutely NOT about the CONCEPTION but about what happens when the
child is a certain AGE!!! The writer of Matthew got it completely
wrong, and since then, most Christians fall for that mistranslation and
misinterpretation.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
That
>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young
woman shall
>become pregnant...
>
>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the
translation of
>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be
the
>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>
>Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation
forced to fit
>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it
cannot be
>made to fit.
>
>Regards,
> Edward
>
Libertarius
writes:
>>
>>> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord
Himself shall
>>> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall
>>> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
>>
>>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the
passage in
>>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between
the years
>>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE).
Your claim is
>>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether
Judah would be
>>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>
>Preteritist, Futurist and Presentist.
===>That is a silly attempt at excusing the author of "Matthew". The
ALMAH in 7:14 IS ALREADY PREGNANT. The "prophecy" has to do with the
AGE of the child to be born and the NAME, meaning that "God" will be on
the side of KING AHAZ.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
>>(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the
Hebrew word
>>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The
Hebrew word for
>>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew
(which I
>>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage
actually
>>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a
sign, and
>>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has
attributed the
>>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become
pregnant. That
>>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young
woman shall
>>become pregnant...
>
>Edward , you are not quite correct here..this is a popular
>misconception, generally, but not exclusively confined to atheists.
>
>We have a thread running on aus.religion.christian which categorically
>proves this satement is not correct. I can do it for you right here
>and now..
> The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
>Almah can mean either..if you look to Genesis, you will see that
>Rebekah was referred to as almah, although she was clearly a virgin.
>Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote
>virgins on two occasions.
> The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
>Greek.
> Almah is the only word that can fit the different levels of
>prophesy.
> The word almah is used because in the ultimate fulfilment, the
>woman to bring forth a son would be a virgin . The use of almah in
>Isaiah made it correct for the historic fulfilment, but did not
>preclude the Futurist fulfilment.
>
>>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the
translation of
>>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be
the
>>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>
> It means "God with us."
>
>Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go
>over, he shall reach [even] to the neck; and the stretching out of his
>wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
>
>Isa 8:9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in
>pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye
>shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in
>pieces.
>
>Isa 8:10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the
>word, and it shall not stand: for God [is] with us.
>
>>Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation
forced to fit
>>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it
cannot be
>>made to fit.
>>
Moshe Shulman
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 12:37:52 +1000, Edward Ruvinski
><yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>"J.P.H." wrote:
>>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
>>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
>>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
>>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
>>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>The prophecy has three levels.(IMHO)
>Preteritist, Futurist and Presentist.
ROTFL
>>(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
>>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
>>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
>>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
>>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
>>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
>>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
>>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
>>become pregnant...
>Edward , you are not quite correct here..this is a popular
>misconception, generally, but not exclusively confined to atheists.
Actually he is quite correct. BTW I am not an atheist, and I am fluent in
Biblical Hebrew.
> The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
Correct. Every place in the Torah where being a virgin has legal consequences
the word 'betulah' is used. (The reason is that the Hebrew word for hymen is
Betulim. Betulah and betulim are obviously of similar meaning.)
>Almah can mean either..if you look to Genesis, you will see that
>Rebekah was referred to as almah, although she was clearly a virgin.
True. Almah has no connotations as to the sexual activity of the girl/women in
question. A 90 year old nun is not an almah, a 15 year old prostitute is.
>Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote
>virgins on two occasions.
This is a translation error.
> The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
>Greek.
This is also an error. Parthenos did not acquire the meaning of 'virgin' until
around the 1st or 2nd century BCE. If you look at Gen 34.3 the word parthenos
is used of Dinah AFTER having been raped. (She was obviously no longer a virgin
but she was a parthenos.)
> The word almah is used because in the ultimate fulfilment, the
>woman to bring forth a son would be a virgin . The use of almah in
>Isaiah made it correct for the historic fulfilment, but did not
>preclude the Futurist fulfilment.
This is wishful thinking and not supportable by the language.
>>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
>>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
>>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
> It means "God with us."
No. It means G-d IS with us. Like Gavriel means G-d is strong.
J.P.H.
Edward Ruvinski wrote in message <374E0180...@alphalink.com.au>...
>"J.P.H." wrote:
>
>> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself
shall
>> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall
>> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
>
in
>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the
years
>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your
claim is
>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah
would be
>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>
word
>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word
for
>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which
I
>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage
actually
>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign,
and
>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed
the
>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant.
That
>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman
shall
>become pregnant...
>
translation of
>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>
to fit
>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it
cannot be
>made to fit.
I don't believe so......Matt. 1:21-23...And she shall bring forth a son, and
thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their
sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of by 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
interpretated, God with us.
J.
>
>Regards,
> Edward
>
Able
Shulman) wrote:
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 04:24:31 GMT, p...@wantree.com.au (Able) wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 May 1999 12:37:52 +1000, Edward Ruvinski
>><yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>>"J.P.H." wrote:
>>>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
>>>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
>>>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
>>>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
>>>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>>The prophecy has three levels.(IMHO)
>>Preteritist, Futurist and Presentist.
>
>ROTFL
You have not heard the explanation yet.
Do you want a good joke?
No 33.
ROTFL?
>>>(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
>>>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
>>>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
>>>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
>>>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
>>>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
>>>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
>>>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
>>>become pregnant...
>>Edward , you are not quite correct here..this is a popular
>>misconception, generally, but not exclusively confined to atheists.
>
>Actually he is quite correct. BTW I am not an atheist, and I am fluent in
>Biblical Hebrew.
Thank you, perhaps the atheists will look a little deeper themselves
instead of relying on atheists books.
>> The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
>
>Correct. Every place in the Torah where being a virgin has legal consequences
>the word 'betulah' is used. (The reason is that the Hebrew word for hymen is
>Betulim. Betulah and betulim are obviously of similar meaning.)
Try...
(Deut 22:19; Joel 1:8)
What do you think?
>>Almah can mean either..if you look to Genesis, you will see that
>>Rebekah was referred to as almah, although she was clearly a virgin.
>
>True. Almah has no connotations as to the sexual activity of the girl/women in
>question. A 90 year old nun is not an almah, a 15 year old prostitute is.
>
>>Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote
>>virgins on two occasions.
>
>This is a translation error.
Convenient one.
But check the context .
>> The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
>>Greek.
>
>This is also an error. Parthenos did not acquire the meaning of 'virgin' until
>around the 1st or 2nd century BCE. If you look at Gen 34.3 the word parthenos
>is used of Dinah AFTER having been raped. (She was obviously no longer a virgin
>but she was a parthenos.)
The Septuagint has problems I agree.
However Matthew didn't have a problem.
Even if one attempts to argue that Matthew merely followed the LXX in
using parthenos, he followed the source that represented the oldest
available interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 into Greek. His contextual
usage of "hina plarotha" is certainly indicative of his understanding
the passage to contain a definitely predictive element. There can be
no doubt that until the rise of so-called "modern" scholarship, those
closest historically to the actual statement by the prophet Isaiah
have always taken it to be a prediction of the miraculous virgin birth
of the coming Messiah. (For a thorough study of this entire prophecy
see E. Hindson, Isaiah’s Immanuel.)
>> The word almah is used because in the ultimate fulfilment, the
>>woman to bring forth a son would be a virgin . The use of almah in
>>Isaiah made it correct for the historic fulfilment, but did not
>>preclude the Futurist fulfilment.
>
>This is wishful thinking and not supportable by the language.
You have not heard the explanation yet.
However I will not be giving it on this combined posting as there are
a few two many scoffers around.
Something about casting pearls comes to mind.:-)
>>>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
>>>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
>>>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>> It means "God with us."
>
>No. It means G-d IS with us. Like Gavriel means G-d is strong.
>
Of course he is.
Thanks for your input.
It just makes me a little sad that all the ateists come out of the
woodwork over almah. Poor girl.
Able
Able
>In <374E0180...@alphalink.com.au> Edward Ruvinski
><yis...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>>
>>"J.P.H." wrote:
>>
>>> No, not next to God....is God. Isa. 7:14..Therefore the Lord Himself
>shall
>>> give you a sign, begold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
>and shall
>>> call his name .... Emmanual... God is with us.
>>
>>(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the
>passage in
>>context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between
>the years
>>3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE).
>Your claim is
>>that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether
>Judah would be
>>saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>>
>>(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the
>Hebrew word
>>Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew
>word for
>>virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew
>(which I
>>have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage
>actually
>>reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a
>sign, and
>>she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has
>attributed the
>>definate article to the young woman who shall actually become
>pregnant.
>
>===>If you would check more up-to-date translations, you would find
>that the ALMAH is NOW PREGNANT, not "shall conceive"! The prediction is
>absolutely NOT about the CONCEPTION but about what happens when the
>child is a certain AGE!!! The writer of Matthew got it completely
>wrong, and since then, most Christians fall for that mistranslation and
>misinterpretation.
>
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
Don't you just HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE SHOUT.
Shall conceive (Heb harah) should actually be translated "is
pregnant." It is neither a verb nor a participle, but a feminine
adjective connected with an active participle (bearing); and it
denotes that the scene is present to the prophet’s view. Alexander (p.
121) discusses this point at length with conclusive evidence to show
that the virgin is already pregnant and bearing a son. Thus, we can
not escape the conclusion that this is a picture of the virgin birth
of Christ Himself. The context makes it clear that the virgin is
pregnant and is still a virgin! :-)
Able
>>means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young
>woman shall
>>become pregnant...
>>
>>(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the
>translation of
>>the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be
>the
>>person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>>
>>Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation
>forced to fit
>>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it
>cannot be
>>made to fit.
>>
>>Regards,
>> Edward
>>
>
J.P.H.
Edward Ruvinski wrote in message <374FA046...@alphalink.com.au>...
>"J.P.H." wrote:
>
>> I don't believe so......Matt. 1:21-23...And she shall bring forth a son,
and
>> thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their
>> sins.
>
by
>Isaiah, which was the proof-text you brought down originally.
What are you talking about! It's the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, v.
22-23
J
>
>
Edward Ruvinski
Edward Ruvinski
> >(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
> >context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
> >3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
> >that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
> >saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>
> The prophecy has three levels.(IMHO)
I am not interested in discussing unsopported opinions. If you can present a
hypothesis backed by evidence and not simply rely on your own heresay, I'd be glad to
consider it. Until then, there isn't much point.
> >(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
> >Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
> >virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
> >have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
> >reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
> >she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
> >definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
> >means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
> >become pregnant...
>
> We have a thread running on aus.religion.christian which categorically
> proves this satement is not correct. I can do it for you right here
> and now..
If the quality of evidence and proof that you have presented below is typical of the
quality to be found on a.r.c then I do not find it at all surprising that you
conclude the things that you do.
> The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
You're wrong already. But don't take my word for it, take the word of "The New
Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew-English Dictionary."
> Almah can mean either..
You're wrong again. Goodness, it's quite ironic but you've actually attributed a
singular meaning to a word with a plural meaning and vice versa....
> if you look to Genesis, you will see that Rebekah was referred to as almah,
> although she was clearly a virgin.
As a favor, if you're going to quote passages from the TaNaCh, would you be so kind
as to provide chapter and verses?
Because you did not provide me with a reference to chapter and verse, I set it as a
task on Shabbat to study that portion of B'resheet (Genesis) that deals with
Rebeccah. I imagine that you may be referring to B'resheet 24:16, "Now the maiden
was very fair to look upon; a virgin whom no man had known..."
"V'hana'arah tovat mareh m'od B'TULAH v'esh lo y'da'ah"
What you're suggesting is that it could read, "Now the virgin was very fair to look
upon; a virgin whom no man had known." However, as I stated above, since it's
actually b'tulah which has two meanings and not almah as you claimed, I have no
problem with that word being used there.
A further problem with this verse for your argument is that the word for maiden is
"hana'arah" which is neither B'tulah nor almah and which has only one meaning in
Hebrew. And "virgin" ain't it. :)
Perhaps you mean B'resheeet 24:43. "Behold, I am standing by the spring of water;
let it be that the young woman who comes out to draw and to whom I shall say, "Please
give me some water...""
"Hinei anochi nitzav al-ein hamayim v'haya HA'ALMAH ha'yitseit..."
I fail to see how this supports or detracts from either of our cases.
But there's one thing that I have failed to find Able. That is, I have failed to see
anywhere in the Hebrew text dealing with Rivkah the word "b'tulah." Only "almah" and
"hana'arah."
> Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote virgins on two
occasions.
Again, because you failed to provide references to any portion of the Song of Songs
that you were actually referring to, I read the Song of Songs three times during
Shabbat. Only once did I find the word "almah" in its plural form, "alamot" in SoS
1:3. I did find many references to "Daughters of Israel" and "Daughters of Zion" but
nothing that fits the supposed references to implicit virgins.
> The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
> Greek.
To begin with, your contention that parthenos means virgin is incorrect. The Greek
word parthenos can mean either a young
woman or a virgin. For this reason the Greek word parthenos canbe found in the
Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4,
Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers
to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after
Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX:
parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos)." Clearly, Dinah was
not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the
very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.
Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a
Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish
translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore
did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we
have it today, which includes theProphets and Writings as well, is a product of the
church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old
Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our
Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known
as the Apocrypha, which areuniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church,
arefound in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the
Jewishness of the Septuagint.
Christians such as Origin and Lucian (3rd and 4th century C.E.) hadan enormous impact
on creating and shaping the Septuagint. In essence, the present Septuagint is
largely a post-second century, Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by
the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to
defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.
The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago
was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is
confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the
earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this
explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the
Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities
of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly
be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the
authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions [St.
Jerome, Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Volume 6. Pg. 487. Hendrickson.]
Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening
sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, "The word "Septuagint," (from
Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders
translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to
those five books." [The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Excerpt from "Septuagint," New York:
Vol. 5, pg. 1093.]
In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points
out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint
deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole TaNaCh. Bruce writes, "The Jews
might have gone on at a later time to
authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in
the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the
Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not
Jewish, circles." "The Books and The Parchment," p. 150.
> >(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
> >the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
> >person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>
> It means "God with us."
I don't know how much simpler I can express this than in the first sentence of the
preceeding paragraph... I will try again.
It is true that Moses means "From the Reeds" and "Abraham" means "Father of Nations"
and "Benjamin" means "Son of the Right" but this does not alter the fact that Moses'
NAME was Moses, Abraham's NAME was Abraham and Benjamin's NAME was Benjamin.
Similarly, the NAME Edward in English means "Guardian of the Wealth" but this does
not mean that people go around calling me Jesse, because it has the same meaning in
Hebrew. Why is that? Because my NAME is Edward. In this vein, since the NAME of
the subject of Isaiah's prophecy would be Immanuel, this precludes anyone else with
any other NAME, including Jesus.
Capiche?
> You need to look a little deeper into this aspect perhaps.
I have, based on the loose quotes that you have provided and I have deduced a number
of things.
Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation forced to fit
events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it cannot be made
to fit. Furthermore, your ad hoc attempts at casting Isaiah's prophecy onto matters
which it was obviously not referring to by creating IYHO a means to allow the
prophecy to refer to what you want it to refer to, is as lame as B. Thierring's use
of the Pescher technique on the gospels which has been so belittled lately on this
channel. And one of the belittlers, I believe, was you.
Regards,
Edward.
Edward Ruvinski
Where're you from?
Regards,
Yishay ben Michael
Barry O'Grady
:
:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <374b5bdd...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>"J.P.H." <boyi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
:>
:>:
:>:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <3747dc5c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
:>:>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
:>:>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
:>:>been.
:>:
:>:That low life scum as you call Him, did nothing but teach love, life and
:>:wholeness.
:>
:>You should read the Bible before you post nonsense like that.
:>
:>:He was beaten, kicked, whipped, spat on and nailed to a tree for
:>:you, whether you believe it or not.
:>
:>If that happened then he deserved it.
:
:You did.
I can only be what my creator made me to be. If that was God then
blame him.
:>:He maybe scum in your eyes, but He had more guts than you will ever
:>:have.
:>
:>I can't parse that sentence.
:>Did you mean;
:>
:>He maybe, scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
:>have.
:>
:>or
:>
:>He may be scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
:>have.
:>
:>or something else?
:>
:>A being that can feel no pain can not be brave, although the Bible
:>does tell us of occasions when Jesus wimped out.
:
:You really are silly.
That is beside the point. A god can't suffer and so can't be brave.
--------------------------------- John 8:59 --------------------------
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and
went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed
by.
:J.
Edward Ruvinski
> What are you talking about!
I am referring to the very simple fact that Matthew's proof for his claims
about Jesus rely on a "translation" of Isaiah that does not support his case.
Go back and read my original message to you to see why.
Regards,
Edward.
Able
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>Able wrote:
>
>> >(1) Isaiah is talking to Ahaz, as a straightforward reading of the passage in
>> >context that you quoted shows. King Ahaz reigned over Judah between the years
>> >3180 - 3200 (on the civil calendar, that would be 580 - 560 BCE). Your claim is
>> >that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years to see whether Judah would be
>> >saved fromt he threat of Rezin and Pekah.
>>
>> The prophecy has three levels.(IMHO)
>
>I am not interested in discussing unsopported opinions. If you can present a
>hypothesis backed by evidence and not simply rely on your own heresay, I'd be glad to
>consider it. Until then, there isn't much point.
As I said, I will not be casting pearls.
Not to...
alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.
christianlife,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian.
Too many scoffers .
>> >(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word
>> >Almah. Almah has only one meaning, that of "young woman." The Hebrew word for
>> >virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew (which I
>> >have right in front of me) says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually
>> >reads, "Behold, the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and
>> >she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
>> >definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant. That
>> >means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
>> >become pregnant...
>>
>> We have a thread running on aus.religion.christian which categorically
>> proves this satement is not correct. I can do it for you right here
>> and now..
>
>If the quality of evidence and proof that you have presented below is typical of the
>quality to be found on a.r.c then I do not find it at all surprising that you
>conclude the things that you do.
You have already been told by a Hebrew scholar you are wrong..don't
you listen?
>> The Hebrew word is bethulah, it exclusively means Virgin.
>
>You're wrong already. But don't take my word for it, take the word of "The New
>Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew-English Dictionary."
I don't communicate with dictionaries
If I did I would not be here.
>> Almah can mean either..
>
>You're wrong again. Goodness, it's quite ironic but you've actually attributed a
>singular meaning to a word with a plural meaning and vice versa...
No, I am afraid you are very clearly wrong.
Saying I am WRONG will not make it happen my friend.
>> if you look to Genesis, you will see that Rebekah was referred to as almah,
>> although she was clearly a virgin.
>
>As a favor, if you're going to quote passages from the TaNaCh, would you be so kind
>as to provide chapter and verses?
It should not be necesary to a scholar of these things should it?
At what level are you in this?
>Because you did not provide me with a reference to chapter and verse, I set it as a
>task on Shabbat to study that portion of B'resheet (Genesis) that deals with
>Rebeccah. I imagine that you may be referring to B'resheet 24:16, "Now the maiden
>was very fair to look upon; a virgin whom no man had known..."
Correct.
> "V'hana'arah tovat mareh m'od B'TULAH v'esh lo y'da'ah"
>
>What you're suggesting is that it could read, "Now the virgin was very fair to look
>upon; a virgin whom no man had known."
No I am not suggesting that at all.!!
I am simply suggesting she was a Virgin.
And that she is elsewhere referred to as almah..
quite elimentary me dear Edward.
Gen 24:16 And the damsel [05291] (na`arah) [was] very
[03966] (m@`od) fair [02896] (towb) to look upon
[04758], (mar'eh) a virgin [01330], (b@thuwlah)
neither had any man [0376] ('iysh) known [03045] (yada`)
(8804) her: and she went down [03381] (yarad) (8799) to the well
[05869], (`ayin) and filled [04390] (male') (8762)
her pitcher [03537], (kad) and came up [05927] (`alah)
(8799).
>However, as I stated above, since it's
>actually b'tulah which has two meanings and not almah as you claimed, I have no
>problem with that word being used there.
Substantiate please.
To be correct Deut and Joel are references you could make.
>A further problem with this verse for your argument is that the word for maiden is
>"hana'arah" which is neither B'tulah nor almah and which has only one meaning in
>Hebrew. And "virgin" ain't it. :)
Do not be absurd Edward.
If I said to you a girl is a virgin..is she a virgin or isn't she?
Are you bonkers?
>Perhaps you mean B'resheeet 24:43. "Behold, I am standing by the spring of water;
>let it be that the young woman who comes out to draw and to whom I shall say, "Please
>give me some water...""
>
>"Hinei anochi nitzav al-ein hamayim v'haya HA'ALMAH ha'yitseit..."
>
>I fail to see how this supports or detracts from either of our cases.
Because Rebekah was both referred to as bethulah and almah.
It really is as simple as that.
Are you saying that bethulah can mean either virgin or young girl,
and that almah can only mean young girl..
Is that what you are saying?
You are Robinson Carusoe Edward.
>But there's one thing that I have failed to find Able. That is, I have failed to see
>anywhere in the Hebrew text dealing with Rivkah the word "b'tulah." Only "almah" and
>"hana'arah."
>
>> Also if you look to Song of Solomon, the word is used to denote virgins on two
>occasions.
>
>Again, because you failed to provide references to any portion of the Song of Songs
>that you were actually referring to, I read the Song of Songs three times during
>Shabbat. Only once did I find the word "almah" in its plural form, "alamot" in SoS
>1:3. I did find many references to "Daughters of Israel" and "Daughters of Zion" but
>nothing that fits the supposed references to implicit virgins.
Look harder, consult moshe.:-)
>> The Jews translated it as virgin in the Septuagint..Parthenos in the
>> Greek.
>
>To begin with, your contention that parthenos means virgin is incorrect. The Greek
>word parthenos can mean either a young
>woman or a virgin.
As far as the Septuagint misinterpretations are concerned..perhaps so.
But not in the Greek of the New Testament.
>For this reason the Greek word parthenos canbe found in the
>Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4,
>Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers
>to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after
>Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX:
>parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos)." Clearly, Dinah was
>not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the
>very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.
Yes we know all this, but there are clearly many Greek words that
could have been used, why parthenos? I would not take too much notice
of the Septuagint. It was Alexandrian Greek..the most important
factor is that Matthew also used this word..parthenos.
>Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a
>Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish
>translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore
>did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we
>have it today, which includes theProphets and Writings as well, is a product of the
>church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old
>Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our
>Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known
>as the Apocrypha, which areuniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church,
As I said I do not get too excited about the Septuagint.
Except when it translates almah as parthenos..clearly a virgin in the
Greek...but not to the Alexandrian Greeks perhaps.
>arefound in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the
>Jewishness of the Septuagint.
>
>Christians such as Origin and Lucian (3rd and 4th century C.E.) hadan enormous impact
>on creating and shaping the Septuagint. In essence, the present Septuagint is
>largely a post-second century, Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by
>the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to
>defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.
>
>The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago
>was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is
>confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the
>earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint.
The "spurious" letter I think you mean.
>The Talmud also states this
>explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the
>Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities
>of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly
>be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the
>authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions [St.
>Jerome, Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
>Volume 6. Pg. 487. Hendrickson.]
>
>Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening
>sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, "The word "Septuagint," (from
>Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders
>translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to
>those five books." [The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Excerpt from "Septuagint," New York:
>Vol. 5, pg. 1093.]
And they translated almah as parthenos..correct.
>In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points
>out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint
>deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole TaNaCh. Bruce writes, "The Jews
>might have gone on at a later time to
>authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in
>the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the
>Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not
>Jewish, circles." "The Books and The Parchment," p. 150.
I do not disagree with anything you say.
Perhaps it is only a freak that translated almah as parthenos.
Or an act of God,
>> >(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of
>> >the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the
>> >person's name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>>
>> It means "God with us."
>
>I don't know how much simpler I can express this than in the first sentence of the
>preceeding paragraph... I will try again.
>
>It is true that Moses means "From the Reeds" and "Abraham" means "Father of Nations"
>and "Benjamin" means "Son of the Right" but this does not alter the fact that Moses'
>NAME was Moses, Abraham's NAME was Abraham and Benjamin's NAME was Benjamin.
>
>Similarly, the NAME Edward in English means "Guardian of the Wealth" but this does
>not mean that people go around calling me Jesse, because it has the same meaning in
>Hebrew. Why is that? Because my NAME is Edward. In this vein, since the NAME of
>the subject of Isaiah's prophecy would be Immanuel, this precludes anyone else with
>any other NAME, including Jesus.
>
>Capiche?
Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?
The birth of a baby?
>> You need to look a little deeper into this aspect perhaps.
>
>I have, based on the loose quotes that you have provided and I have deduced a number
>of things.
>Your proof-text is not a proof-text but an unfortunate translation forced to fit
>events a straight reading of the surrounding passages reveals that it cannot be made
>to fit. Furthermore, your ad hoc attempts at casting Isaiah's prophecy onto matters
>which it was obviously not referring to by creating IYHO a means to allow the
>prophecy to refer to what you want it to refer to, is as lame as B. Thierring's use
>of the Pescher technique on the gospels which has been so belittled lately on this
>channel. And one of the belittlers, I believe, was you.
I do not recall?
I have also offered no proof text..I think you are a little confused
and hot under the collar.
Regards
Able
>Regards,
> Edward.
>
>
J.P.H.
Barry O'Grady wrote in message <374fd06...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>"J.P.H." <boyi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>:
>:Barry O'Grady wrote in message <374b5bdd...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>:>"J.P.H." <boyi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>:>
>:>:
>:>:Barry O'Grady wrote in message
<3747dc5c...@genenews.acay.com.au>...
>:>:>mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>
>:>:>Thankfully, since Jesus was a low life scum, very few Christians try
>:>:>to follow him. Instead they try to follow what they wish Jesus had
>:>:>been.
>:>:
>:>:That low life scum as you call Him, did nothing but teach love, life and
>:>:wholeness.
>:>
>:>You should read the Bible before you post nonsense like that.
>:>
>:>:He was beaten, kicked, whipped, spat on and nailed to a tree for
>:>:you, whether you believe it or not.
>:>
>:>If that happened then he deserved it.
>:
>:You did.
>
>I can only be what my creator made me to be. If that was God then
>blame him.
God created man in His image. The blame lays at he "fall." Because it was
then Gods' divine order was distorted, the human personality warped and
marred, and the image of God dimmed and twisted. Death and punishment is the
result of sin....separation from God. This is the heritage Adam passed on to
humanity.
>
>:>:He maybe scum in your eyes, but He had more guts than you will ever
>:>:have.
>:>
>:>I can't parse that sentence.
>:>Did you mean;
>:>
>:>He maybe, scum in your eyes, but he had more guts than you will ever
>:>have.
>:>
>:>
That one will do.
>:>
>:>A being that can feel no pain can not be brave, although the Bible
>:>does tell us of occasions when Jesus wimped out.
>:
>:You really are silly.
>
>That is beside the point. A god can't suffer and so can't be brave.
Jesus was every bit a man.
Phil.2:6...Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God.
7...But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Simply stated, when Jesus
came into the world, He set aside the power and priveledges of Deity. He
suffered.
>
>--------------------------------- John 8:59 --------------------------
>59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and
>went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed
>by.
His time hadn't yet come. Do you honestly believe a stones would have
worried Him, compared to the cross?
J
J.P.H.
Edward Ruvinski wrote in message <374FD13A...@alphalink.com.au>...
Yes it does support it. Which is why you keep editing my posts.
J
>
>Regards,
> Edward.
>
Edward Ruvinski
> >As a favor, if you're going to quote passages from the TaNaCh, would you be so kind
> >as to provide chapter and verses?
>
> It should not be necesary to a scholar of these things should it?
Common courtesy, Able. To save each others' time.
> [b'tulah has two meanings and not almah]
> Substantiate please.
New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew English Dictionary. P. 27.
Instead of replying to every point that you raised individually, please indulge me as I
offer an overview response....
For Christians' use of Isaiah 7:14 as a cogent argument Christians would have to show that
the verse not only *could* be rendered "virgin" but *must* or *should* be so translated.
If you've only got something that *might* have been prophecied, then you can at best
establish that Christianity *might* be true. And if it *might* be true, it *might* be
false so that the use of the passage isn't really a proof in the formal sense insofar as
it is simply not a refutation.
Had Isaiah written, "behold ha-b'tulah shall give birth..." then I would concurr that it
COULD mean, "behold the virgin shall give birth" OR it could mean "behold the young woman
shall give birth..." and this particular point of the discussion would not be taking
place. But since the text actually says, "behold, ha-almah shall give birth..." then it
can only be correctly translated as "behold, the young woman shall give birth..."
> >To begin with, your contention that parthenos means virgin is incorrect. The Greek
> >word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin.
>
> As far as the Septuagint misinterpretations are concerned..perhaps so.
Thank you for agreeing that we don't have to discuss the Septuagent any more.
> > >(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of >>
> >the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the >> >person's
> name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
> >> It means "God with us."
> > I don't know how much simpler I can express this than in the first sentence of the
> >preceeding paragraph... I will try again.
> >
> >It is true that Moses means "From the Reeds" and "Abraham" means "Father of Nations"
> >and "Benjamin" means "Son of the Right" but this does not alter the fact that Moses'
> >NAME was Moses, Abraham's NAME was Abraham and Benjamin's NAME was Benjamin.
> >
> >Similarly, the NAME Edward in English means "Guardian of the Wealth" but this does
> >not mean that people go around calling me Jesse, because it has the same meaning in
> >Hebrew. Why is that? Because my NAME is Edward. In this vein, since the NAME of
> >the subject of Isaiah's prophecy would be Immanuel, this precludes anyone else with
> >any other NAME, including Jesus.
> Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?
> The birth of a baby?
This has nothing to do with the point I raised. Why don't you directly address the point
that The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus?
> I have also offered no proof text.
And therein lies a biiiiiiiiig problem.
Regards,
Edward.
Able
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>Able wrote:
>
>> >As a favor, if you're going to quote passages from the TaNaCh, would you be so kind
>> >as to provide chapter and verses?
>>
>> It should not be necesary to a scholar of these things should it?
>
>Common courtesy, Able. To save each others' time.
Sorry but these things you should know.
>> [b'tulah has two meanings and not almah]
>
>> Substantiate please.
>
>New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew English Dictionary. P. 27.
Despite all that has been said, despite Rebbekah, only you and this
dictionary think this..you quoted many scholars at your
convenience..none of them agree with you.
>Instead of replying to every point that you raised individually, please indulge me as I
>offer an overview response....
>
>For Christians' use of Isaiah 7:14 as a cogent argument Christians would have to show that
>the verse not only *could* be rendered "virgin" but *must* or *should* be so translated.
Not at all, as I said before it is a multilayer prophecy, almah is the
only word that would satisfy this.
>If you've only got something that *might* have been prophecied, then you can at best
>establish that Christianity *might* be true. And if it *might* be true, it *might* be
>false so that the use of the passage isn't really a proof in the formal sense insofar as
>it is simply not a refutation.
There will never be proof positive in any of this business Edward..it
requires a measure of faith..otherwise there would be no smart
atheists.
>Had Isaiah written, "behold ha-b'tulah shall give birth..." then I would concurr that it
>COULD mean, "behold the virgin shall give birth" OR it could mean "behold the young woman
>shall give birth..." and this particular point of the discussion would not be taking
>place. But since the text actually says, "behold, ha-almah shall give birth..." then it
>can only be correctly translated as "behold, the young woman shall give birth..."
But Rebbekah was a young woman who was a virgin and also an almah.
Let this have time to soak in please.
>> >To begin with, your contention that parthenos means virgin is incorrect. The Greek
>> >word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin.
>>
>> As far as the Septuagint misinterpretations are concerned..perhaps so.
>
>Thank you for agreeing that we don't have to discuss the Septuagent any more.
>
>> > >(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. True, you give the translation of >>
>> >the name Immanuel, but that does not alter the fact that it would be the >> >person's
>> name. Like mine is Edward and yours is J.P.H. :)
>
>> >> It means "God with us."
>
>> > I don't know how much simpler I can express this than in the first sentence of the
>> >preceeding paragraph... I will try again.
>> >
>> >It is true that Moses means "From the Reeds" and "Abraham" means "Father of Nations"
>> >and "Benjamin" means "Son of the Right" but this does not alter the fact that Moses'
>> >NAME was Moses, Abraham's NAME was Abraham and Benjamin's NAME was Benjamin.
>> >
>> >Similarly, the NAME Edward in English means "Guardian of the Wealth" but this does
>> >not mean that people go around calling me Jesse, because it has the same meaning in
>> >Hebrew. Why is that? Because my NAME is Edward. In this vein, since the NAME of
>> >the subject of Isaiah's prophecy would be Immanuel, this precludes anyone else with
>> >any other NAME, including Jesus.
>
>> Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?
>> The birth of a baby?
>
>This has nothing to do with the point I raised. Why don't you directly address the point
>that The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus?
It has everything to do with it.
It is the key issue.
So where is this Immanuel then?
I can see Ma'-her-shal'-al-hash'-baz..but no Immanuel.
When was the prophesy fulfilled?
>> I have also offered no proof text.
>
>And therein lies a biiiiiiiiig problem.
There never will be "proof" Edward.
Regards
Able.
>Regards,
> Edward.
>
Able
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
>--------------EFE12E82EBACA5A6843DF033
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Edward Ruvinski wrote:
>
>> > Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?
>
>> > The birth of a baby?
>
>"Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign..."
>
>Immanuel's birth
When did this happen? Isaiah 8?..his name was not Immanuel.
Better if they had named him Immanuel, and they easily could have to
make the prophecy fit...you may have a case then.
But they called him..Ma'-her-shal'-al-hash-baz..
Nothing like Immanuel to me Edward.
Able
>was a sign that Judah would be safe from the invasion of Rezin, King of Aram
>and Pekah son of Remaliah, King of Israel. The connection of the child with the deliverance?
>"For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom
>you fear [From the context, Rezin and Pekah - ER] will be abandoned" 7:16.
>
>Regards,
> Edward
>
>--------------EFE12E82EBACA5A6843DF033
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>Edward Ruvinski wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>> Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?</blockquote>
>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>> The birth of a baby?</blockquote>
>"Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a <b>sign</b>..."
><p>Immanuel's birth was a <b>sign</b> that Judah would be safe from the
>invasion of Rezin, King of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah, King of Israel.
>The connection of the child with the deliverance? "For before the
>child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings
>whom you fear [From the context, Rezin and Pekah - ER] will be abandoned"
>7:16.
><p>Regards,
><br>
>Edward</html>
>
>--------------EFE12E82EBACA5A6843DF033--
>
Cheryl E. Preston
Son of God and the only way top salvation, why can you not just say
no?Why is there the need to use profanity and call Him names, why is
there so much hate towards one whom you feel either did not exist or was
only a man. The fact that Atheists and other non believers have so much
filth coming out of them is evident that the love Christ is not in
them. Jesus is love. Calling Jesus names doesn't hurt Him or me, it
only assures you a place in the lake of fire which was prepared for the
devil and his angels, and from the words I am hearing you are showing
clearly whose you are. May God open your eyes to the truth, as it is
not His will that ay should perish.
Edward Ruvinski
Yes it does support it. Which is why you keep editing my posts.
Matt. 1:21-23...And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.
That assertion, in itself, is not the problem.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of by 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 beinginterpretated, God with us.
The problems are as follows:
(1) You contend that the subject of Isaiah's prophecy was Jesus. If this is true, then you claim that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years for a sign to see whether Judah would be saved from the threat of Rezin and Pekah.
(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the
Hebrew word Almah. Almah means "young woman." The Hebrew word
for virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew
says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually reads, "Behold, [ha-almah]
the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and she shall
name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the
definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant
(HA-almah). That means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally.
"THE young woman shall
become pregnant... as opposed to A young woman.....
(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. Whatever Immanuel means, it doesn't alter the fact that their names aren't the same.
As a consequence:
(A) Either Matthew's claim that Jesus' virgin birth fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 is wrong, or
(B) The baby that Isaiah refers to really was born from a virgin mother but because the child's name was Immanuel and lived some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, it again does not refer to Jesus.
As such, your claim that "Jesus is God" can be deduced from Matthew's supposedly quoting Isaiah 7:14 becomes dubious.
Regards,
Edward.
Edward Ruvinski
> As a consequence:
>
> (A) Either Matthew's claim that Jesus' virgin birth fulfilled Isaiah
> 7:14 is wrong, or
>
> (B) The baby that Isaiah refers to really was born from a virgin
> mother but because the child's name was Immanuel and lived some 700
> years before the birth of Jesus, it again does not refer to Jesus.
Sorry. That should read, "and lived some 500 years..."
Edward Ruvinski
> Edward ..what sort of miracle delivered Ahaz?
> The birth of a baby?
Immanuel's birth was a sign that Judah would be safe from the invasion of Rezin, King of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah, King of Israel. The connection of the child with the deliverance? "For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom you fear [From the context, Rezin and Pekah - ER] will be abandoned" 7:16.
Regards,
Edward
Edward Ruvinski
> If you would check more up-to-date translations,
Why should I use translations at all if I have the original?
Rowland Croucher
You have the originals of the Hebrew/Christian scriptures? You're the
only person in history to have them: would you like to do a deal for
them? We could both make a lot of money here :-)
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
JOHN MARK MINISTRIES - resources for pastors/leaders
(Bookroom, library, and worldwide F.W.BOREHAM Trading Post)
WEBSITE (2200+ articles, 1000+ links) - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm
LIST: email: clergy-...@pastornet.net.au (Subject-line: Subscribe)
J.P.H.
Edward Ruvinski wrote in message <374FF452...@alphalink.com.au>...
"J.P.H." wrote:Yes it does support it. Which is why you keep editing my posts.Watch this, then....Matt. 1:21-23...And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus,for He shall save His people from their sins.
That assertion, in itself, is not the problem.Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of by the Lord bythe prophet, saying... Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth ason, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which beinginterpretated, God with us.
The problems are as follows:
(1) You contend that the subject of Isaiah's prophecy was Jesus. If this is true, then you claim that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years for a sign to see whether Judah would be saved from the threat of Rezin and Pekah.
(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word Almah. Almah means "young woman." The Hebrew word for virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually reads, "Behold, [ha-almah] the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant (HA-almah). That means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
become pregnant... as opposed to A young woman.....
(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. Whatever Immanuel means, it doesn't alter the fact that their names aren't the same.
True, however the name Jesus means "saviour"... Only God can save. Immanuel...God with us.
As a consequence:
(A) Either Matthew's claim that Jesus' virgin birth fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 is wrong, or
(B) The baby that Isaiah refers to really was born from a virgin mother but because the child's name was Immanuel and lived some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, it again does not refer to Jesus.
Well, which one was it then, as you said, the consequence can only mean one of two things. If it was (B) then who was this prophesied child born of a virgin.
As such, your claim that "Jesus is God" can be deduced from Matthew's supposedly quoting Isaiah 7:14 becomes dubious.
Not at all.
J.
Regards,
Edward.
Edward Ruvinski
> Not at all, as I said before it is a multilayer prophecy,
You actually said that that's your opinion. You're welcome to it. But please don't be too
surprised if I don't pay it too much mind until you decide to cast, "pearl before swine to:
aus.bible, aus.bible.prophecy, etc.,"
> >Had Isaiah written, "behold ha-b'tulah shall give birth..." then I would concurr that it
> >COULD mean, "behold the virgin shall give birth" OR it could mean "behold the young woman
> >shall give birth..." and this particular point of the discussion would not be taking
> >place. But since the text actually says, "behold, ha-almah shall give birth..." then it
> >can only be correctly translated as "behold, the young woman shall give birth..."
>
> But Rebbekah was a young woman who was a virgin and also an almah.
> Let this have time to soak in please.
There's nothing to soak in, Able. I honestly don't know where you got the delusion that I was
saying they're mutually exclusive ideas. A sixteen year old prostitute isn't a virgin but she
sure as heck is still an almah.
Would you like some time for that to soak in yourself?
> >This has nothing to do with the point I raised. Why don't you directly address the point
> >that The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus?
>
> It has everything to do with it.
Rubbish. Why wasn't Jesus called Immanuel? It's an extremely simple question and you've
skirted around it three times now...
Regards,
Edward.
Edward Ruvinski
> You have the originals of the Hebrew/Christian scriptures?
No, not at all. I wouldn't waste my time with the Xian shmatta.
J.P.H.
J.P.H. wrote in message ...
Edward Ruvinski wrote in message <374FF452...@alphalink.com.au>..."J.P.H." wrote:Yes it does support it. Which is why you keep editing my posts.Watch this, then....Matt. 1:21-23...And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus,for He shall save His people from their sins.
That assertion, in itself, is not the problem.Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of by the Lord bythe prophet, saying... Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth ason, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which beinginterpretated, God with us.
The problems are as follows:
(1) You contend that the subject of Isaiah's prophecy was Jesus. If this is true, then you claim that King Ahaz had to wait approximately 490 years for a sign to see whether Judah would be saved from the threat of Rezin and Pekah.
(2) The word you write as "virgin" in your above passage is the Hebrew word Almah. Almah means "young woman." The Hebrew word for virgin is "Betulah." Since Isaiah's passage in the original Hebrew says Almah, and not Betulah, the passage actually reads, "Behold, [ha-almah] the young woman will become pregnant and give you a sign, and she shall name him Immanuel." Note also how my translation has attributed the definate article to the young woman who shall actually become pregnant (HA-almah). That means Ahaz knew whom Isaiah was talking about personally. "THE young woman shall
become pregnant... as opposed to A young woman.....
(3) The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus. Whatever Immanuel means, it doesn't alter the fact that their names aren't the same.
True, however the name Jesus means "saviour"... Only God can save. Immanuel...God with us.
Let me clarify that....
Isa. 53:5-6....But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Verse 12..Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He hath poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, an He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Too much of a coincidence, don't you think?
Supergirl
man. He hurt and feared just as we do. So I don't blame Him for getting
scared once or twice. The main thing is that He did what none of us would
have the guts to do. Would you have had the courage to do what He did?
Would you have died for ungrateful people the way He did? The least we can
do is be thankful that He cared enough to sacrifice Himself. And the least
you can do, if you don't choose to accept His gift, is not insult Him. But
it seems to be a pattern with you: to insult. You insulted JPH on his
writing, mocking him condescendingly on a grammar mistake. Please don't
allow your own insecurity to get in the way of accepting truth and goodness.
Supergirl
Supergirl
physical body. He felt pain just as we all do. So, yes, He was brave.
Supergirl
Supergirl
agree 100%. Thank you for being such a wonderful witness, and for defending
Christ and the gospel.
Your sister in the His Honor,
Sunny
Supergirl
Is this a derivative of Joshua? What is the Hebrew meaning? Does anyone
know?
Supergirl
J.P.H.
Supergirl wrote in message ...
I needed that. :)
J.
>
>
Able
<yis...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>Able wrote:
>
>> Not at all, as I said before it is a multilayer prophecy,
>
>You actually said that that's your opinion. You're welcome to it. But please don't be too
>surprised if I don't pay it too much mind until you decide to cast, "pearl before swine to:
>aus.bible, aus.bible.prophecy, etc.,"
>
>
>> >Had Isaiah written, "behold ha-b'tulah shall give birth..." then I would concurr that it
>> >COULD mean, "behold the virgin shall give birth" OR it could mean "behold the young woman
>> >shall give birth..." and this particular point of the discussion would not be taking
>> >place. But since the text actually says, "behold, ha-almah shall give birth..." then it
>> >can only be correctly translated as "behold, the young woman shall give birth..."
>>
>> But Rebbekah was a young woman who was a virgin and also an almah.
>> Let this have time to soak in please.
>
>There's nothing to soak in, Able. I honestly don't know where you got the delusion that I was
>saying they're mutually exclusive ideas. A sixteen year old prostitute isn't a virgin but she
>sure as heck is still an almah.
>Would you like some time for that to soak in yourself?
Edward, in two posts now you have said these words or words to this
effect..
SQ
But since the text actually says, "behold, ha-almah shall give
birth..." then it can only be correctly translated as "behold, the
young woman shall give birth..."
EQ
It "can only be translated as" = mutually exclusive.
You are saying that " almah " excludes the possiblity of "virgin"
Today you are saying not so.
What are you saying? you have me confused.
Almah can be either a virgin or a young woman..end of story.
>> >This has nothing to do with the point I raised. Why don't you directly address the point
>> >that The Name Immanuel is not The Name Jesus?
>>
>> It has everything to do with it.
>
>Rubbish. Why wasn't Jesus called Immanuel? It's an extremely simple question and you've
>skirted around it three times now...
Where is Immanuel?
Jesus was God Edward..God with us.
What's in a Name?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.
So where is this guy with the terribly long name?
The word for name is "shem"
Called is "qara"..exactly the same construct as in Isaiah 7..
So please find the guy called Immanuel, and then find the one called..
Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The everlasting Father The Prince
of Peace.
But Edward, listen "qara" also means proclaimed..his name shall be
proclaimed.
His name shall be proclaimed Immanuel..God with us.
It shall be announced that God { is} with us.
Regards,
Able
>
>
Edward Ruvinski
> Is this a derivative of Joshua? What is the Hebrew meaning?
The Hebrew meaning of Joshua is, "God Saves."