Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrew Israelite questions
#31
(01-27-2013, 08:20 PM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: "Immanul is Isaiah[s] son? He never says my wife."
Read the text. In ch. 8 Isaiah was with his wife ("the proohetess") and G-D tells him to name the son Maher Shalal Chash Baz, and before this child can speak, the Assyrians will invade. There are some opinions that, indeed, the woman in question was Isaiah’s wife, but since that’s not in the text, it’s not important for us right now. But seriously, it seems, based on your questions, you are skimming the texts. Take a breather and read it though.

Isaiah never says Immanuel is his son either, so what does Isaiah's wife have to do with anything?

(01-27-2013, 08:20 PM)benyosef Wrote: There is no verse whatsoever obligating Jews to marry virgins. The only Jews who have such a rule are the males of the priestly class. Everyone else can marry non-virgins like widows, divorcees, etc.

You can marry a widow and divorcee in the New Testament. What is the point of this too?
#32
MessianicJew Wrote:there wasn't a son named Immanuel.

Taking that approach, it doesn’t say this child ever ate anything, let alone curds and honey. You can’t say this is Jesus, because the only people in the NT who ate honey were John the Baptist and Paul. The point of what the child eats and when was part of the sign directed to Ahaz, and we can see the prophecy was fulfilled because the siege ended during Ahaz’ lifetime and the Book of Kings records the assassination of the besieging kings. The whole point of mentioning the names of the kids in Isa 7 and 8 was as a sign (Isa 8:18) to the Kingdom of Judah that G-D is with them (Immanuel), Assyria will remove the spoils of the other kings (Maher Shalal), yet a remnant will remain (She’ar Yashuv). Outside of Isa 7 and 8, these kids make no other appearance in Torah because they are no longer relevant; the messages of consolation to the Southern Kingdom were delivered and the prophecies were completed.

MessianicJew Wrote:Matthew didn't say [Isa 7] ‘all’ speaks of [Jesus], only one portion.

What you’re telling me is that one can take a verse, sever it from its actual context, and declare it to be Messianic. If so, where does it stop? Would you accept this:
Krishna is the son of G-D, for Scripture says, “he is mine” (Ex 13:2)?
Obviously not. This is why context is crucial. Otherwise, people could make such claims, similar to the first gospel, and mislead many people into thinking their new interpretation is exactly what G-D meant.

MessianicJew Wrote:Take the time to print the edit you claim is there

7:14 reads “הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה.” The middle word has the prefix הָ, which tells us the subject, עַלְמָה, is known to them. Mat 1:23 reads “a virgin,” removing the “the” and thus making this woman a vague individual. Further, the word הָרָה means a woman who is already pregnant, as in Ex 21:22, when men are quarrelling and strike a pregnant woman (אִשָּׁה הָרָה) who then miscarries. Mat 1:23 translates 7:14 as “shall be with child,” changing הָרָה from past to future. Even ignoring the “virgin” thing, Matthew invents a Messianic prophecy where none existed.
#33
MessianicJew Wrote:you…say the young woman was previously met, however, ‘the’ doesn't always mean you've previously met someone.

On 17 Jan I said “Isaiah and Ahaz both knew her.” Since you’ve misunderstood my post to mean that “the” means “having met,” I’ve tried explaining that this is not how the word “the” works in either language. If I say “the President,” “the Speaker of the House,” “the Dallas Mavericks,” am I implying either of us have met them? No, but you know about whom I speak. So, too, with “the young woman” here. Did they meet once before? Maybe. It doesn’t say so inside. Were they aware of the existence of this woman? Yes, because it says “the young woman,” and not “a young woman.”

MessianicJew Wrote:Rashi…for Song of Solomon 1 says the word means virgin.

That’s not the only thing he said in his interpretation. He explains what that means, and concludes that this is speaking of the nations, not actual women.

MessianicJew Wrote:Isaiah never says Immanuel is his son either, so what does Isaiah's wife have to do with anything?

G-D tells Isaiah (8:18) that the kids He gave him were to be signs. Since Immanuel was a sign to the House of David, we can infer Immanuel was Isaiah’s son, even though the text doesn’t outright say so.

MessianicJew Wrote:You can marry a widow and divorcee in the NT. What is the point of this too?

I was permitted to marry whomever way before the NT was ever considered. The point of this is because on 23 Jan you said, “[Jews] have to marry virgins based on Deut 22:17 and Ex 22,” and I said these are specific situations, and that only the priestly class are commanded to marry virgins.
#34
(02-22-2013, 10:45 AM)benyosef Wrote: The whole point of mentioning the names of the kids in Isa 7 and 8 was as a sign (Isa 8:18) to the Kingdom of Judah that G-D is with them (Immanuel), Assyria will remove the spoils of the other kings (Maher Shalal), yet a remnant will remain (She’ar Yashuv). Outside of Isa 7 and 8, these kids make no other appearance in Torah because they are no longer relevant; the messages of consolation to the Southern Kingdom were delivered and the prophecies were completed.

So you spiritualize it. And kids aren't mentioned just one child named Immanuel.

(02-22-2013, 10:45 AM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: “Matthew didn't say [Isa 7] ‘all’ speaks of [Jesus], only one portion.”
What you’re telling me is that one can take a verse, sever it from its actual context, and declare it to be Messianic. If so, where does it stop? Would you accept this:
Krishna is the son of G-D, for Scripture says, “he is mine” (Ex 13:2)?
Obviously not. This is why context is crucial. Otherwise, people could make such claims, similar to the first gospel, and mislead many people into thinking their new interpretation is exactly what G-D meant.

It would stop wherever the subject changes. If Matthew, being an Apostle had understanding given to him by God, then what a Prophecy means only matters what the Prophecy means to God.

(02-22-2013, 10:45 AM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: “Take the time to print the edit you claim is there”
7:14 reads “הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה.” The middle word has the prefix הָ, which tells us the subject, עַלְמָה, is known to them. Mat 1:23 reads “a virgin,” removing the “the” and thus making this woman a vague individual. Further, the word הָרָה means a woman who is already pregnant, as in Ex 21:22, when men are quarrelling and strike a pregnant woman (אִשָּׁה הָרָה) who then miscarries. Mat 1:23 translates 7:14 as “shall be with child,” changing הָרָה from past to future. Even ignoring the “virgin” thing, Matthew invents a Messianic prophecy where none existed.

"the" doesn't make an individual anything more than vague. This word "the" matters to you way more than it matters even in the English language concerning individuals previously met.

If you believe Matthew invented, the that is what you believe. I don't believe a normal birth is in anyway a sign from God. Immanuel could have been the name of a lot of children born to Levites or Judah.
#35
There are two other kids mentioned in Isaiah 7 and 8:
"Then said the L-RD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shearjashub your son..." (7:3)
"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the L-RD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 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." (8:3-4)

I'm not "spiritualizing" anything. G-D says that the names of these children were to be signs to the Kingdom of Judah: "Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the L-RD of Hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion" (8:18). They were real children with real names who were to be signs to the people, much like Hosea's children in Hosea 1 and 2.

Why couldn't childbirth be a sign? It doesn't need to be miraculous to be a sign. Nevertheless, you are correct that the childbirth was not the sign; the real sign was the maturity of the child, "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (7:16). Why do you keep neglecting the rest of the prophecy?
#36
(02-28-2013, 03:25 PM)benyosef Wrote: There are two other kids mentioned in Isaiah 7 and 8:
"Then said the L-RD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shearjashub your son..." (7:3)
"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the L-RD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 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." (8:3-4)

I'm not "spiritualizing" anything. G-D says that the names of these children were to be signs to the Kingdom of Judah: "Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the L-RD of Hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion" (8:18). They were real children with real names who were to be signs to the people, much like Hosea's children in Hosea 1 and 2.

Why couldn't childbirth be a sign? It doesn't need to be miraculous to be a sign. Nevertheless, you are correct that the childbirth was not the sign; the real sign was the maturity of the child, "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (7:16). Why do you keep neglecting the rest of the prophecy?

Those two kids are not Immanuel though. Immanuel is not traced to any man.

A natural child birth is common in Hebrew culture and indeed throughout the world. That is why I don't believe it is a sign. I believe a child birth of supernatural origin is a sign, and that Immanuel would have to be born at sometime.

The claim is that Christ is this Immanuel. And Christ does not have a lineage to any man.
#37
Natural childbirths are common, but so are rainbows, and G-D says rainbows are valid signs (Genesis 9:12-16).

If I understand your approach: Jesus, who is never called Immanuel, is the child Isaiah was speaking of who was born 700 years before Jesus was born, and was the sign to Ahaz that he would outlive the siege of the two kings who died during Ahaz' reign?

Jesus' lack of relation to a human father does more to disqualify him from kingship than it does to prove his connection to the throne. Since tribal affiliation is via the father (Number 1:18), Jesus' lack of a real father gives him no tribe. Since kings can only come from Judah, Jesus is not eligible to be king.
#38
(03-04-2013, 10:12 AM)benyosef Wrote: Natural childbirths are common, but so are rainbows, and G-D says rainbows are valid signs (Genesis 9:12-16).

For perpetual generations though that is why they are common. This is not written for Immanuel.

(03-04-2013, 10:12 AM)benyosef Wrote: If I understand your approach: Jesus, who is never called Immanuel, is the child Isaiah was speaking of who was born 700 years before Jesus was born, and was the sign to Ahaz that he would outlive the siege of the two kings who died during Ahaz' reign?

Apostle Matthews approach, in which he says Jesus is Immanuel. Not mine. As far as your explanation for the approach I can't tell if Apostle Matthew would agree or disagree.

(03-04-2013, 10:12 AM)benyosef Wrote: Jesus' lack of relation to a human father does more to disqualify him from kingship than it does to prove his connection to the throne. Since tribal affiliation is via the father (Number 1:18), Jesus' lack of a real father gives him no tribe. Since kings can only come from Judah, Jesus is not eligible to be king.

So let me get this straight of what you're saying. Israeli law, and many Orthodox say you are a Jew if your Mother is a Jew. Yet of those with Jewish mothers do not have a Father for tribal affiliation either. So how then can they be a Jew?

In Jesus case, his Father is God. The only way David is King is because of the Father of Christ, and Ruth was a Moabite. God can place whom he wants on the throne. The law applies to those with a Dad not the Son of God.
#39
BY: “Natural childbirths are common, but so are
rainbows, and G-D says rainbows are valid signs”
MJ: “For perpetual generations though that is why
they are common. This is not written for Immanuel.”
The point here is not why something is or is not common, but rather what constitutes a sign. Although something may be common, if it is visible, it can be a sign. Contrary to the gospel, a “virgin birth” cannot be a sign since it is not visible.

BY: “If I understand your approach: Jesus...is never
called Immanuel...was born 700 years before Jesus...
and was the sign to Ahaz that he would outlive the
siege of the two kings who died during Ahaz' reign?”
MJ: “Matthews approach, in which he says Jesus is
Immanuel…I can't tell if Matthew would agree or disagree.”
Of course he would agree; I essentially summed up his thought process in 1:23. Isa 7 is clearly speaking of the then and there, yet Matthew edits a word or two, divorces a verse from the true setting, and declares a “messianic prophecy” that only Jesus fulfilled!

MJ: “Israeli law, and many Orthodox say you are a Jew
if your Mother is a Jew. Yet of those with Jewish mothers
do not have a Father for tribal affiliation either. So how
then can they be a Jew?...God can place whom he wants
on the throne.”
It’s not modern Jewish or Israeli law that says Jewishness is transferred via the mother, it is a rule alluded to in Torah:
“And Shechaniah…said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our G-D, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our G-D to put away all the wives, *and such as are born of them*, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our G-D; and let it be done according to the law.” (Ezra 10:2-3)
Why send away the children if they are really Jewish? As strange as it may seem, if a child is born to a Jewish woman and non-Jewish man, the child is Jewish but has no tribal connection. The term “Jewish” was born from the word “Judah,” but has come to include my brethren who are from other tribes, as we see in Esther 2:5: Mordechai is a “Yehudi” (“Jew”), though he came from Benjamin.
Yes, G-D can put whomever He wants on the throne, but He made guidelines: He chose the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), then singled out David (I Sam 16:11-13), and then made a covenant that from David’s son Solomon will the line of Davidic kings continue (II Sam 7:12-16), which is one reason the Torah always calls the future king in Israel “David.” Thus, without a paternal connection to David, Jesus can never sit on the throne.
#40
(03-13-2013, 03:24 PM)benyosef Wrote: The point here is not why something is or is not common, but rather what constitutes a sign. Although something may be common, if it is visible, it can be a sign. Contrary to the gospel, a “virgin birth” cannot be a sign since it is not visible.

The Sabbath is a sign and not visible. You actually can't see the seventh day as each day is alike.

(03-13-2013, 03:24 PM)benyosef Wrote: Isa 7 is clearly speaking of the then and there, yet Matthew edits a word or two, divorces a verse from the true setting, and declares a “messianic prophecy” that only Jesus fulfilled!

How can you claim Isaiah 7 is about then and there when Isaiah clearly doesn't say when nor where?

(03-13-2013, 03:24 PM)benyosef Wrote: As strange as it may seem, if a child is born to a Jewish woman and non-Jewish man, the child is Jewish but has no tribal connection. The term “Jewish” was born from the word “Judah,” but has come to include my brethren who are from other tribes, as we see in Esther 2:5: Mordechai is a “Yehudi” (“Jew”), though he came from Benjamin.

More like an oxymoron and overtly one sided approach. You say you can't be from the tribe of Judah without a Father and yet you can be a Jew with a Mother. That is a oxymoron, it makes absolute zero sense. The term Jewish being born from the word Judah who was a man born of Jacob would make the sons and daughters of Judah non-Jews seeing as Judah couldn't marry his sister Dinah who was born from Jacob. It doesn't say why Mordecai is described as Yehudi either.

Boaz married Ruth a Moabite, making any children between Boaz and Ruth not Jewish. And it is never written from God to a Prophet that if a Gentile converts they are now to be called a Jew either. Ruth is never referred to as a Jew. And Talmud is not from a Prophet.

(03-13-2013, 03:24 PM)benyosef Wrote: Yes, G-D can put whomever He wants on the throne, but He made guidelines: He chose the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), then singled out David (I Sam 16:11-13), and then made a covenant that from David’s son Solomon will the line of Davidic kings continue (II Sam 7:12-16), which is one reason the Torah always calls the future king in Israel “David.” Thus, without a paternal connection to David, Jesus can never sit on the throne.

If Joseph and Mary were in the same tribe then Jesus could have fit this lineage.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)