Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
trinity3n1

Mr. Matthew

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As I said, you will believe what you want to believe, and I am not convinced by what you have to say; there is little use in further discussion of this.

[DAY] It's time to swallow some humble pie and admit you're wrong :-)

As I said, you will believe what you want to believe, and I am not convinced by what you have to say; there is little use in further discussion of this.

[DAY] Warrior has shown your position to be completely untenable. It's time to swallow some humble pie and admit you're wrong :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking to you. I don't simply argue things for the sake of argument. If I thought there was something to what he was saying, I would agree with him, or acknowledge that there is something to what he is saying. But I don't see anything to what he is saying. His reading is incorrect both in terms of translating individual words, and in terms of reading the verse in its proper context in its chapter, and in the chapters that surround it.

Again, the tone of your post shows the general unspoken assumption underlying the discussions of most of the Christians posting here; that their point of view is the only possible perspective, that it is impossible for anyone to honestly think anything different, and that thus one needs to be in "denial" to disagree with them.

You, and he will believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I believe. This subject has been long since exhausted in terms of fresh, rational argument. Since this is getting nowhere, it's best to leave it. Our time on this earth is short, and it is a sort of sin to waste it in idle talk that accomplishes no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't talking to you. I don't simply argue things for the sake of argument. If I thought there was something to what he was saying, I would agree with him, or acknowledge that there is something to what he is saying. But I don't see anything to what he is saying. His reading is incorrect both in terms of translating individual words, and in terms of reading the verse in its proper context in its chapter, and in the chapters that surround it.

So my reading is incorrect ? I read in Isaiah 7 that the Lord gave a sign a virgin (not have sexual relations with any men) shall conceive and bear a child. so the correct is that the word means someone who is young thus making the SIGN that a young woman will have a child, even though that makes absolutely no sense. and let's not forget that in the Old Testament time after time the same word is used to specifically say a woman that has not had sexual relations with a man ?

Kadhim your hatred and anger towards christians have blinded you to seeing any other side, it is obvious it means a woman that had no sex.

Your own Muslim brethren believe that Jesus was born of a virgin I guess you also need to debate with them and try to convince them that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

Edited by WarriorofJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, as I told you, you are going to believe what you are going to believe, and I am not going to be convinced by you. There's no point in talking about this any longer; it serves no purpose.

Your own Muslim brethren believe that Jesus was born of a virgin I guess you also need to debate with them and try to convince them that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

No, I don't, because for the twelth time, it's not about Jesus (as). If you spent half the time you spent arguing with me reading your own scriptures, you wouldn't be in this state.

Enough! Khallas! I am finished discussing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen, as I told you, you are going to believe what you are going to believe, and I am not going to be convinced by you. There's no point in talking about this any longer; it serves no purpose.

QUOTE 

Your own Muslim brethren believe that Jesus was born of a virgin I guess you also need to debate with them and try to convince them that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

No, I don't, because for the twelth time, it's not about Jesus . If you spent half the time you spent arguing with me reading your own scriptures, you wouldn't be in this state.

Enough! Khallas! I am finished discussing this.

ok ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almah does not mean virgin. Almah means young woman.

Almah does not mean virgin. Almah means young woman.

Almah does not mean virgin. Almah means young woman.

Read the verse in question in context. photo-11389.gif

Read the verse in question in context. photo-11389.gif

Read the verse in question in context. photo-11389.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You, and he will believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I believe. This subject has been long since exhausted in terms of fresh, rational argument. Since this is getting nowhere, it's best to leave it. Our time on this earth is short, and it is a sort of sin to waste it in idle talk that accomplishes no purpose.

[Day] Ok, let's leave it. But I was looking for a repsonse to my question of 7-7-04, 3:34AM:

[Day] Are you saying that Immanuel (Isa. 7:14) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isa. 8:3) are the same child and that the virgin (7:14) and prophetess (8:3) are the same mother?

You, and he will believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I believe. This subject has been long since exhausted in terms of fresh, rational argument. Since this is getting nowhere, it's best to leave it. Our time on this earth is short, and it is a sort of sin to waste it in idle talk that accomplishes no purpose.

[Day] Ok, let's leave it. But I was looking for a repsonse to my question of 7-7-04, 3:34AM:

[Day] Are you saying that Immanuel (Isa. 7:14) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isa. 8:3) are the same child and that the virgin (7:14) and prophetess (8:3) are the same mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok now please explain why Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the child ? please connect the dots.

Does it say Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz's mother is a virgin ? Why is his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and not Immanuel when the verse mentions Immanuel it is not reffering to him.

Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. 2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. 5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, 6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 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.

Also after the verse talk about Mahershalalhashbaz it goes to a different subject when it mentions Immanuel. It says The Lord spake also unto me saying then it goes into the different subject and when the name Immanuel is mentioned is no where reffering to Mahershalalhashbaz it is giving praises also and saying O God is with us, also Mahershalalhashbaz's mother the Prophetess is not a virgin, no where in this verse does it say she is a virgin.

And the bible gives comfirmation that Immanuel is Jesus.

Can you argue with this ?

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Do you want more proof it's Jesus ? Now prove its Mahershalalhashbaz.

Ill look forward to your answer.

God Bless

Edited by WarriorofJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good. I answered you already; you may have missed it. It does indeed seem clear that these are the same.

[Day] One last thing about Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Immanuel means "God with us." Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means "quick to plunder, swift to the spoil." The Bible does not teach anywhere that Immanuel has a nature to "plunder," so there is a conflict of name meaning for the same person. The following verse (4) talks about the plunder of Samaria that would carried away by Assyria. There is no connection between the meaning of "Immanuel" and "Maher..." which further weakens the case for them being the same person.

It appears that "Maher" was one of Isaiah's sons, so the "prophetess" had to be his wife. His other son was Shear-Jashub (Isa. 7:3)I dug this up on the web.

Good. I answered you already; you may have missed it. It does indeed seem clear that these are the same.

[Day] One last thing about Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Immanuel means "God with us." Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means "quick to plunder, swift to the spoil." The Bible does not teach anywhere that Immanuel has a nature to "plunder," so there is a conflict of name meaning for the same person. The following verse (4) talks about the plunder of Samaria that would carried away by Assyria. There is no connection between the meaning of "Immanuel" and "Maher..." which further weakens the case for them being the same person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I said, you will believe what you want to, and I believe what I do. Isaiah chapter 8 seems pretty clear as far as I'm concerned; I've read the section from chapter 7-9 a number of times, and I don't see myself changing my mind. I see no way that this is a long term prophecy; to try to make it so totally ignores the general context of the chapters and distorts the meaning. The subject of all three of these chapters is near-term events, particularly the threat of the combined forces of the Syrians and Israel. Chapters 7-9 deal with this, and the delivery of Judea from this threat through the overtaking of the Syrians and Israelites by the Assyrians, who sweep on "up to the neck" of the Judeans like a flood. That is, they almost take Judea, but fail, because Hezekiah, a good king comes and leads the people rightly, and prays to intercede for his people.

Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the proper name of the child; the relevant prophecy merely says the child will be called Immanuel, not named such. It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is taking place in 8:8, i.e., the child is recognized as the sign, and is called this. If you look back to the context of the prophecy of 7:14, you see also that it is said that the sign is to be given to king Ahaz in the context of his worries about the Israelite-Syria threat; this is another sign that it is a near term prophecy; a child born 700 years later will not be witnessed as a sign by king Ahaz. We see confirmation of this in 8:8, and in the fact that Isaiah 8 tells of the birth of a child to the one to whom 7:14 was revealed, Isaiah, and in the fact that chapter 8 says that Judah will be saved from this threat. This confirmation is made solid by the words of Isaiah 8:9-10, warning the nations who come together against Judah at that time, summing it up at the close of Isaiah 8:10 - "it shall not stand: for God is with us."

If you remember "God is with us" is the meaning of Immanuel.

This is hopefully sufficient. I have written more than I had intended; kindly do not take this as an invitation to try to draw me back in to this; these are my final words, which you may take or leave at your prerogative. Again, no one is likely to convince the other in this, so spending more time discussing it would be a waste.

My parting advice is to be more careful in reading the Prophetic books, and to always read the larger context of the chapters surrounding and the history in which the chapters are set. I am making my way through a reading of the prophetic books this summer, and at the point I am at rigth now, about 25 chapters through Ezekiel, I have encountered only a small handful of what

seem naturally to be long-term prophecies. No, I don't remember exactly; a few in early Isaiah, a few in very late, a few in Jeremiah, maybe a few in Ezekiel. All the rest are clearly (to me) near-term prophecies that have long since been satisfied. The details of how for each verse is a question best left to a scholar, but based on the overall context, it seems quite clear. There are simply NOT the hundreds of "messianic" verse that the Christian missionaries claim; these people are, quite frankly, in my opinion, reading out of context to satisfy a pre-determined conclusion and warp the picture of the messiah to make it better fit the Gospel picture of Jesus (as).

That is all. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok now please explain why Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the child ? please connect the dots.

Does it say Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz's mother is a virgin ? Why is his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and not Immanuel when the verse mentions Immanuel it is not reffering to him.

Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. 2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. 5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, 6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 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.

Also after the verse talk about Mahershalalhashbaz it goes to a different subject when it mentions Immanuel. It says The Lord spake also unto me saying then it goes into the different subject and when the name Immanuel is mentioned is no where reffering to Mahershalalhashbaz it is giving praises also and saying O God is with us, also Mahershalalhashbaz's mother the Prophetess is not a virgin, no where in this verse does it say she is a virgin.

And the bible gives comfirmation that Immanuel is Jesus.

Can you argue with this ?

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Do you want more proof it's Jesus ? Now prove its Mahershalalhashbaz.

Ill look forward to your answer.

God Bless

No. I am not going to speak more of this. As I've said, you will believe what you want to, and there is no way you are going to convince me of your perspective. Let it go. It is useless to discuss this further.

One small point about your post. There is no change of subject in Isaiah 8:5; again, if you read the context in 2 Kings, this is clear. verse 4 speaks about Syria and Samaria, and how they will be captured by Assyria. Verse 6 speaks of Rezin and the son of Remaliah; these are the leaders of Syria and Samariah, respectively. Verse 7 talks more about how these leaders, and their lands will be overrun by Assyria. There is not a change in subject, but rather an addition eleborating on what came before.

Another connection you should note is that the prophecy of 7:14 was revealed in response to king Ahaz's worries about the Syria-Israel threat. It is said that the prophecy is directed to Ahaz, indicating that he will see this come to pass, and that the sign will indicate the end of this immediate problem.

Context, context, context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as I said, you will believe what you want to, and I believe what I do. Isaiah chapter 8 seems pretty clear as far as I'm concerned; I've read the section from chapter 7-9 a number of times, and I don't see myself changing my mind. I see no way that this is a long term prophecy; to try to make it so totally ignores the general context of the chapters and distorts the meaning. The subject of all three of these chapters is near-term events, particularly the threat of the combined forces of the Syrians and Israel.

Chapters 7-9 deal with this, and the delivery of Judea from this threat through the overtaking of the Syrians and Israelites by the Assyrians, who sweep on "up to the neck" of the Judeans like a flood. That is, they almost take Judea, but fail, because Hezekiah, a good king comes and leads the people rightly, and prays to intercede for his people.

Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the proper name of the child; the relevant prophecy merely says the child will be called Immanuel, not named such. It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is taking place in 8:8, i.e., the child is recognized as the sign, and is called this. If you look back to the context of the prophecy of 7:14, you see also that it is said that the sign is to be given to king Ahaz in the context of his worries about the Israelite-Syria threat; this is another sign that it is a near term prophecy; a child born 700 years later will not be witnessed as a sign by king Ahaz. We see confirmation of this in 8:8, and in the fact that Isaiah 8 tells of the birth of a child to the one to whom 7:14 was revealed, Isaiah, and in the fact that chapter 8 says that Judah will be saved from this threat. This confirmation is made solid by the words of Isaiah 8:9-10, warning the nations who come together against Judah at that time, summing it up at the close of Isaiah 8:10 - "it shall not stand: for God is with us."

If you remember "God is with us" is the meaning of Immanuel.

This is hopefully sufficient. I have written more than I had intended; kindly do not take this as an invitation to try to draw me back in to this; these are my final words, which you may take or leave at your prerogative. Again, no one is likely to convince the other in this, so spending more time discussing it would be a waste.

My parting advice is to be more careful in reading the Prophetic books, and to always read the larger context of the chapters surrounding and the history in which the chapters are set. I am making my way through a reading of the prophetic books this summer, and at the point I am at rigth now, about 25 chapters through Ezekiel, I have encountered only a small handful of what

seem naturally to be long-term prophecies. No, I don't remember exactly; a few in early Isaiah, a few in very late, a few in Jeremiah, maybe a few in Ezekiel. All the rest are clearly (to me) near-term prophecies that have long since been satisfied. The details of how for each verse is a question best left to a scholar, but based on the overall context, it seems quite clear. There are simply NOT the hundreds of "messianic" verse that the Christian missionaries claim; these people are, quite frankly, in my opinion, reading out of context to satisfy a pre-determined conclusion and warp the picture of the messiah to make it better fit the Gospel picture of Jesus (as).

That is all. Good day.

[Day] Well, almost all :-) While you make good points about context, that does not mean prophecy can't be woven through it, which is the case with Isa. 7:14. The proof is Matthew who identifies Mary's virgin birth as the fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. (Matt. 1:22,23). Opponents of this view have the formidable task of proving that Matthew erred, or that his text has been changed, corrupted or taken out of context. Can you do it?

Well, as I said, you will believe what you want to, and I believe what I do. Isaiah chapter 8 seems pretty clear as far as I'm concerned; I've read the section from chapter 7-9 a number of times, and I don't see myself changing my mind. I see no way that this is a long term prophecy; to try to make it so totally ignores the general context of the chapters and distorts the meaning. The subject of all three of these chapters is near-term events, particularly the threat of the combined forces of the Syrians and Israel.

Chapters 7-9 deal with this, and the delivery of Judea from this threat through the overtaking of the Syrians and Israelites by the Assyrians, who sweep on "up to the neck" of the Judeans like a flood. That is, they almost take Judea, but fail, because Hezekiah, a good king comes and leads the people rightly, and prays to intercede for his people.

Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the proper name of the child; the relevant prophecy merely says the child will be called Immanuel, not named such. It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is taking place in 8:8, i.e., the child is recognized as the sign, and is called this. If you look back to the context of the prophecy of 7:14, you see also that it is said that the sign is to be given to king Ahaz in the context of his worries about the Israelite-Syria threat; this is another sign that it is a near term prophecy; a child born 700 years later will not be witnessed as a sign by king Ahaz. We see confirmation of this in 8:8, and in the fact that Isaiah 8 tells of the birth of a child to the one to whom 7:14 was revealed, Isaiah, and in the fact that chapter 8 says that Judah will be saved from this threat. This confirmation is made solid by the words of Isaiah 8:9-10, warning the nations who come together against Judah at that time, summing it up at the close of Isaiah 8:10 - "it shall not stand: for God is with us."

If you remember "God is with us" is the meaning of Immanuel.

This is hopefully sufficient. I have written more than I had intended; kindly do not take this as an invitation to try to draw me back in to this; these are my final words, which you may take or leave at your prerogative. Again, no one is likely to convince the other in this, so spending more time discussing it would be a waste.

My parting advice is to be more careful in reading the Prophetic books, and to always read the larger context of the chapters surrounding and the history in which the chapters are set. I am making my way through a reading of the prophetic books this summer, and at the point I am at rigth now, about 25 chapters through Ezekiel, I have encountered only a small handful of what

seem naturally to be long-term prophecies. No, I don't remember exactly; a few in early Isaiah, a few in very late, a few in Jeremiah, maybe a few in Ezekiel. All the rest are clearly (to me) near-term prophecies that have long since been satisfied. The details of how for each verse is a question best left to a scholar, but based on the overall context, it seems quite clear. There are simply NOT the hundreds of "messianic" verse that the Christian missionaries claim; these people are, quite frankly, in my opinion, reading out of context to satisfy a pre-determined conclusion and warp the picture of the messiah to make it better fit the Gospel picture of Jesus (as).

That is all. Good day.

[Day] Well, almost all :-) While you make good points about context, that does not mean prophecy can't be woven through it, which is the case with Isa. 7:14. The proof is Matthew who identifies Mary's virgin birth as the fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. (Matt. 1:22,23). Opponents of this view have the formidable task of proving that Matthew erred, or that the text has been changed or in some other way corrupted. Can you do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Day] Well, almost all :-) While you make good points about context, that does not mean prophecy can't be woven through it, which is the case with Isa. 7:14. The proof is Matthew who identifies Mary's virgin birth as the fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. (Matt. 1:22,23). Opponents of this view have the formidable task of proving that Matthew erred, or that the text has been changed or in some other way corrupted. Can you do it?

Can I? Well, it seems to me I just did, didn't I? As I said, your interpretation of this verse simply doesn't make sense. My opinion on this is solid; if the Gospel attributed to Matthew disagrees, I have no problem saying that Gospel is wrong. The texts just don't work the way you seem to think they do. You don't have a chapter dealing entirely with near-term matters, and then it jumps to predict something 700 years hence, and then go back again. I'm sorry, but it's absurd.

Look at the text in the verses leading up to the prophecy. What is the context? The Syria-Israel threat. Who is the prophecy addressed to? King Ahaz. This prophecy is meant to be a sign for King Ahaz. This means it is something he is going to see. A child born 700 years later is no sign for king Ahaz as to his fortunes re: this immediate threat. A child being born period is not a sign; but a child born as a son to the prophet who made the prohecy, a child whose birth coincided with the solution of the problem that caused the prophecy to be revealed -- that IS a sign. Conceiving a child is not a science, not a predictable thing; if you are a parent, you know this. A child born coinciding with an important event, son of the prophet who predicted the birth; this is a significant matter.

Again I have said more than I intended. This time I mean it. This is all. We can go on forever about this, but I can tell you, you will not comvince me, and I'm pretty sure I won't convince you. Reason says to leave it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I am not going to speak more of this. As I've said, you will believe what you want to, and there is no way you are going to convince me of your perspective. Let it go. It is useless to discuss this further.

Then why do you keep talking ?

One small point about your post. There is no change of subject in Isaiah 8:5; again, if you read the context in 2 Kings, this is clear. verse 4 speaks about Syria and Samaria, and how they will be captured by Assyria. Verse 6 speaks of Rezin and the son of Remaliah; these are the leaders of Syria and Samariah, respectively. Verse 7 talks more about how these leaders, and their lands will be overrun by Assyria. There is not a change in subject, but rather an addition eleborating on what came before.

What I am talking about is Immanuel in Isaiah 8 is not referring to Maher, Isaiah 8 speaks about a child being born from a Prophetess (not a virgin) The Lord was referring to two different things

Isaiah 8:1 begins with Moreover the LORD said unto me

Isaiah 8:5 says 5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

So the conversation on Mahershalalhashbaz was finished and God went to a different subject, he did not continue with that child. Syria and Samaria is not what we are talking about, what we are talking about is Mahershalalhashbaz being the child spoken in Isaiah 7 and its obvious that God goes from talking about Mahershalalhashbaz to a different conversation.

From 8:1 to 8:5 it is talking about Mahershalalhashbaz then it is obvious it goes to a different subject.

Isaiah 8:5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, 6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 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.

No longer is it talking about Mahershalalhashbaz it is talking about people that refused water in Shilah and what God will do to them God will bring an army a strong army and powerful, then it says O Immanuel, Immanuel means God is with us, so like I said it was giving praise O God is with us, like this shows it has no relations to what it was saying before.

Another connection you should note is that the prophecy of 7:14 was revealed in response to king Ahaz's worries about the Syria-Israel threat. It is said that the prophecy is directed to Ahaz, indicating that he will see this come to pass, and that the sign will indicate the end of this immediate problem.

Who says a sign has to be given in that exact time ? A prophecy is talking about something that will happen, not when we choose when God chooses. the prophecy is as much for Ahaz as for his people to see, remember it is God speaking.

The sign was that a VIRGIN would give birth to a child, the prophetess is not a virgin, and that child would be called Immanuel the meaning of the name Immanuel is God is with us the meaning of the name Mahershalalhashbaz means to the spoil, hurry up the prey they are completely different names.

Matthew completely destroys your argument it gives comfirmation of the virgin birth and the child who would be born of her Immanuel (Jesus) God with us, sorry but your corrupted scripture garbage will not work here, unless you have proof its corrupted, muslims like to throw out our book is corrupted without proof, I hope you understand telling us our ook is corrupted without proof means nothing to us, its the same as mesaying your books are corrupted, I dont think you will agree with us, neither will any Christian with you.

God Bless

Edited by WarriorofJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prophecy is not "as much for Ahaz as anyone else;" it IS for Ahaz, period; this is what the text clearly says. A birth of someone 700 years from then is simply not a sign to Ahaz; he is then already long dead and cannot witness it.

If Matthew, or the book attributed to Matthew disagrees with this, then Matthew is wrong. Sorry, but that's all there is to it; your reading of Isaiah is not plausible. This is actually one of the proofs the book has been altered. Matthew only "destroys my argument" if you assume as a starting point that the Gospel of Matthew is 100% correct. I do not.

This is yet another example of why it is useless to discuss this any more. I could offer you hundreds of pages of the most logical arguments in the world, but in the end, you would still reject it, because it disagrees with a book you assume is 100% true. Similarly, you will never convince me Isaiah 7:14 is talking about an event 700 years later. We thus have a stalemate, rendering further discussion useless.

I suggest you take my invitation to leave this, as we're getting nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The prophecy is not "as much for Ahaz as anyone else;" it IS for Ahaz, period; this is what the text clearly says. A birth of someone 700 years from then is simply not a sign to Ahaz; he is then already long dead and cannot witness it.

I just showed you that the child could not be Immanuel so your argument is dead. and like I said it is as much for ahaz as to his people, it does not give a time for the sign, it is just your assumption that it is for a far away time and you have yet to prove mahez is the one talked about. like you like to say context context

If Matthew, or the book attributed to Matthew disagrees with this, then Matthew is wrong. Sorry, but that's all there is to it; your reading of Isaiah is not plausible. This is actually one of the proofs the book has been altered. Matthew only "destroys my argument" if you assume as a starting point that the Gospel of Matthew is 100% correct. I do not.

Actually the bible is 100 % perfect it is you who are mistake filled, because you misunderstand the bible does not make it a contradiction. I just destroyed your argument and showed you Immanuel cannot be Maher.

I looked up contradiction in the bible, nowhere does it say a contradiction is someone who contradicts Kadhims misunderstandings.

This is yet another example of why it is useless to discuss this any more. I could offer you hundreds of pages of the most logical arguments in the world, but in the end, you would still reject it, because it disagrees with a book you assume is 100% true. Similarly, you will never convince me Isaiah 7:14 is talking about an event 700 years later. We thus have a stalemate, rendering further discussion useless.

I just destroyed your case and showed you that the conversation went from Mahershalalhashbaz to a different subject and no where was it calling him Immanuel, and a Prophecy is for a future time, it is as much for his people as for him.

I suggest you take my invitation to leave this, as we're getting nowhere.

As long as you keep twisting and butchering our perfect bible to fit your ideals i will be here to prove you wrong time and time again.

God Bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However you want to see it. Thank you for illustrating again why it is useless to talk about this any longer and why it's best to leave it and move along.

ok, may I suggest that you look at the scriptures without your prejudiced to try and prove as wrong and ask God to reveal the bible for you, I see your purpose only to attack our religion, while I read the bible and God himself shows me what is said, it is God that has to open your understanding to the scriptures.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things

God Bless Kadhim I will keep you in prayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, man, whatever. Already read it with a wide open mind; the book has revealed itself to me, and not in your favor. Once again, a conversation descends to your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you about the Bible is in some sort of denial. This is the stumbling block that kills almost every discussion with you here. You are never going to accept any interpretation that contradicts the Gospel accounts you assume to be infallible, and I will never accept an interpretation that insults my intelligence. This is the impasse. Let us leave it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to leave you with one more thing, the Prophecy in Isaiah was not for Ahez it was for the House of David.

Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel

The sign was meant for the house of David.

:D God Bless

Edited by WarriorofJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir,

Now isnt it stated that people called Jesus.... Lord?

Isnt Lord also called to kings who ruled a land?

Arent the kings Gods?

There is no mention of the word Trinity in the Bible.... how can u claim that its true?

besides no one has answered this question yet

who was Jesus calling out to when he said "Eloi Eloi Sabachthani, "My God My God why have you deserted me"? (Mark 15:33)

There has to be a some logic put into this.... Jesus is God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit...if thats the case.... Jesus (God is calling out to God)

then at the same time... God and Jesus are different...

also you are saying your God was brought from a status that was high to a status to inferior humans like us isnt that so?

Cannot Jesus save himself? i mean he should die happilly on the cross if he was to save his people..

he shouldnt have called out My God My God... if he were to save his people

So excruciating pain shouldnt be a problem to your God...even if he was human....

And another verse contradicts that Jesus and God are two different beings....

Mark 16:19

"When Lord Jesus finished speaking to them, he was taken up to heaven. He sat down at the right hand of God."

So if Jesus is God, then he sat down at his own right hand?

Another verse also contradicts that Jesus and God were different (again)

Matthew 3:16-17

"As soon as Jesus was baptised, he came up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened. Jesus saw the spirit of God coming down on him like dove.

was Jesus God when he was young also? then what was the spirit that came down on him? and who is Jesus before the spirit came down??

verse 17

"A voice from heaven said, " This is my Son, and I love him. I am very pleased with him."

Now If Jesus was God... who's voice was it from heaven? if they are one.... a mysterious voice shouldnt be talking....

another one...

Matthew 6:6

"when you pray, go into your room. Close the door and pray to your Father, who cant be seen.

If Jesus was God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit..... why did he say "pray to your Father who can't be seen." why didnt he say "pray to me"?

there should be someone in heaven who should be worshipped isnt it?

so God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit are actually different in status too?

Can you tell me a verse where Jesus said.. "I am the Lord your God".... i want to see if he said it from his mouth....

Luke 2:28

"Simeon took Jesus in his arms and praised God"

Now was Jesus the God in Simeon's arm? if he was shouldnt Simeon be praising Jesus instead?

Many people stated in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God.... why didnt they ever state he was God? i mean why didnt they directly state that Jesus was God?

Luke 6:12

"On one of those days, Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray. He spend the night praying to God."

IF Jesus was God, who was he praying to? if you say God the father.. then you are saying Jesus the Son of God is inferior than God the father isnt that so?

is it necessary for God (Jesus) to pray to God (someone else)? isnt this showing how Jesus isnt God?

I realize that the Bible mentions Jesus (Son of God, God, Holy Spirit) in a small "he" not the big "He" why is that?

Why does it say in the Bible Jesus was the Son of Man...... doesnt that mix up with the category that he is God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit? surely trinity is no more what it sounds like.... it becomes 4 in one..... ??

Read Luke 18:18-19

"A certain ruler asked Jesus a question. "Good teacher," he said, what must i do to recieve eternal life?"

verse 19

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. No-one is good except God."

now tell me.... why did Jesus refuse to be called good if he was God? and who was the God Jesus was mentioning?

I have another one to ask....

John 7:28

"When Jesus was still teaching in the temple courts. He cried out,"Yes you know me, and you know where i am from. I am not here on my own."

now the phrase "i am not here on my own" what does this mean to you?

Doesnt it mean that Jesus (God, Son of God, Holy Spirit) did not send himself down to earth? someone must have sent him down? who was the one that sent him down? Look! Look! Jesus had stated many times in the Bible that there was the One who sent him.... but who is the One if you mention that Jesus was God, Son of God and Holy Spirit? was that God someone else?

John 8:25-26

"Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what i have been claiming all along," Jesus replied.

"I have alot to say that will judge you. But the One who has sent me can be trusted. And i tell the world what i have heard from him."

iF Jesus was God, who was he hearing from?

plz answer these questions....

regards

Mehdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×