This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A question about messianic prophecy.

#1kozlo100Posted 6/9/2011 8:34:46 AM
A little background for the question: I heard an author doing an interview to promote a book on the radio yesterday, and it seemed largely centered on debunking Christianity. He raised one point that had entirely to do with verifying the bible against the bible, and that interested me. Still, authors promoting books will say damn near anything, so I though I'd relate the argument here as best I can and see if I can get a bit fuller and more fair picture of it.

It starts with Matt 1:22-23 referencing Isaiah 7:14 in that Jesus' birth is the fulfillment of that prophecy. The issue brought up is that Isaiah 7 has a time reference for the prophecy in the form of the child spoken of being a sign that two specific kings will fall. Those specific kings died long before Jesus was born, so it seems the prophecy cannot be referencing Jesus, hence Matt is in error, and Jesus' status is questioned.

So where did he go off the rails here?

Verses:
Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Matt 1:22-23:
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#2actarusPosted 6/9/2011 9:13:26 AM
1) Who is this unknown king and who is his son?
2) A virgin who get pregnant is a sign but a girl who pregnant is NOT a sign.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#3kozlo100(Topic Creator)Posted 6/9/2011 9:21:32 AM
1) Rezin and Pekah.

2) I'm not sure what you mean here.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#4actarusPosted 6/9/2011 9:45:28 AM(edited)
Another problem with "debunking Christianity" is that they admit that the messiah was already on earth before Jesus. They are all death and that he didn't fulfil any messianic prophecy.
There is no religion for another Immanuel.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#5kozlo100(Topic Creator)Posted 6/9/2011 9:48:17 AM
I think the gist of this argument is that the prophecy was simply wrong, and Matthew cherry picked it to support Jesus even though it didn't strictly fit. He didn't say anything about there being another Immanuel.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#6actarusPosted 6/9/2011 9:56:27 AM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
1) Rezin and Pekah.

2) I'm not sure what you mean here.


1 ) They are both not descendants of David.
The word Immanuel is only in:
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 8:8
Matthew 1:23

2) Virgin birth is supernatural.
A young woman who get pregnant happen all the time.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#7kts123Posted 6/9/2011 9:59:07 AM
While I was still Atheist, I gave up on using the Bible to debunk the Bible. My reasoning went like this: There are a lot of people way more interested in reading the Bible than me, and many of those people had their mitts on the Bible for hundreds of years and could have changed contradictory scriptures. Therefore, if something seems incongruent, we have a few possibilities: either I'm misunderstanding the scripture, or it managed to elude generations of pre-reformation scholars. Honestly, even if the Bible were man made it'd be surprising to find such glaring errors (namely, a major messianic prophecy.)
#8actarusPosted 6/9/2011 10:04:47 AM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
I think the gist of this argument is that the prophecy was simply wrong, and Matthew cherry picked it to support Jesus even though it didn't strictly fit. He didn't say anything about there being another Immanuel.

Immanuel(God with us) was not a name in Biblical times.
There was no king with the nickname "Immanuel" in the Old Testament.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#9kozlo100(Topic Creator)Posted 6/9/2011 10:07:30 AM(edited)
Therefore, if something seems incongruent, we have a few possibilities: either I'm misunderstanding the scripture, or it managed to elude generations of pre-reformation scholars.

That's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from here. This guy harped on pretty long about the whole "hardening Pharaoh's heart" thing without getting into any of the subtleties of that phrase, so I'm pretty sure he must have done the same here. I just want to know what it is this guy, and by extension myself, is missing.

actarus, I'm afraid I'm not seeing what you're driving at here. Could you elaborate more?

---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#10actarusPosted 6/9/2011 10:12:26 AM
You can't "debunking Christianity" by calling a Jewish kIng that NEVER existed.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark