Part 29 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

That's a really good analogy that I haven't heard before. (Though, unlike our gov't, the Trinity is actually united, but the theory is similar).

In the Great Commission, he lists the three members of the Trinity: "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." He made no distinction of power between the three.

Very perceptive. It is widely believed that Jesus mainly spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament mainly quotes him in Greek. There are a few instances of quoting him in Aramaic, but those are fairly rare.

I would again refer you to the Great Commission, but that's also very perceptive. Most sources tell us that Lucifer was an archangel in heaven, a position that is still lower than the Trinity. As to the right hand question, there is some speculation that when the Bible says God exalted Jesus "to his own right hand", it may be better transalted that he exalted him "with his own right hand", indicating a beckoning motion. I don't have all the answers, though.

 

The 2 lineages in Matthew and Luke are from Jewish lineage. However under Jewish laws they include several problems.

1. Jesus was not Josephs son.
2. Even if Josephs 'adopted' Jesus there is no recognition in Jewish law that an adopted son can pass on the tribal line. EG A priest may adopt a son, but that son cannot become a priest.
3. Joseph family could never produce a family that could sit on the Throne of David. That was God's instruction. He belonged to the family of Jeconiah which was banned. Jeremiah 22:30 and 36:30.

Lukes genealogy is that of Joseph.

1. There is no evidence that Mary descends from David.
2. Even if there was tribal affiliation goes only through the male line.
3. Even then the family line had to go through David's son - Solomon. Mary was from the family of David's son - Nathan.
4. Lukes genealogy includes 2 sons of Jeconiah who was banned, and all descendants with him.

The New Testament only shows him fulfilling prophecies because Christianity wants it so.

If you study the time when Jesus was around, and Roman laws etc. You will find there was no reason whatever for Joseph to travel with Mary to Bethlehem Ephratah. Would you travel 90 miles, 7 days walking, with a heavily 9 month pregnant woman?
Jesus was probably born in Bethlehem in Zebulon - close to Nazareth. 'Matthew' used the O.T. because he wanted to prove Jesus the Messiah. And it's around 60 years after Jesus death that someone wrote the Gospel attributed to Matthew.

The OT does not say 'virgin'. It says 'maid - young woman'. The nearest translation in Greek was 'virgin'. There are a lot of mistranslations, alternative words when one language does not have a word that the other has of the same meaning.

Dying on a cross? Several different so-called prophecies have been put together to make this situation. The Suffering Servant of the O.T. is referring to the nation of Israel. Israel is often referred to as the Suffering Servant in the OT. Isaiah is all about Israel the Suffering Servant. Isaiah 53 is the 4th of the 4 'Suffering Servant Songs'. The others are 42, 49 and 50. 9 times the Servant refers to Israel (starting with 41:8 Ye are my servant O Israel.) Why should Isaiah 53 suddenly change from Israel to someone else. None at all. It takes it out of context. There are other OT references to Israel - the Servant. Jeremiah - Psalms.
The use of the Singular pronoun in relation to Israel (one nation) is used often in the OT. Exodus 20. Deut. 32. Hosea 14:5-6.

Look it up. That's the way to learn. Many of us have gone that way for years. Stimulate those brain cells.

 

I didn't remember Jeconiah at all.. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeconiah

 

There is no reference to Lucifer in the Bible. He appears in the Latin Vulgate - mainly due to a misinterpretation or personal interpretation by an early church elder.

The reference in Isaiah 14 is to the King of Babylon, a belief shared more and more by Bible students who have studied the Book of Isaiah and History. Study the book of Isaiah against the background history of the time.

 

The Old Testament never mentions anything about a cross. As for the virgin thing, let’s allow for a moment that the word in the OT actually means “virgin”. I’ll leave that alone for now, because it doesn’t matter. Isaiah 7 isn’t even talking about the messiah, nor does it use that term once.

Let’s actually look at the chapter and the one that follows. Here are the events of the chapter:

1) Syria and Ephraim were aligning against Judah (verses 1-2).
2) God tells Isaiah to go to Ahaz, king of Judah, and prophecy that his enemies were aligning against him, but they would not prevail (verses 3-9).
3) God tells Ahaz he can ask for a sign that all of this stuff is true, but Ahaz refuses to ask (verses 10-1).
4) God says he is going to offer a sign anyway. Remember, this is specifically a sign for Ahaz that his enemies will not prevail against him. It has nothing to do with the messiah. The sign begins with the proclamation that that virgin (there is a direct article in the Hebrew, not the indirect “a virgin” used by Christians – they are referring to a specific virgin, likely in the room with them, that Ahaz knows) will conceive and bear a child. It never says that she will remain a virgin. All it says is that this specific woman, who is currently a virgin, will eventually have a kid. This kid will also be called Immanuel (verses 13-14).
5) This kid is going to eat butter and honey, and the reason he is a sign is that, before this kid knows the difference between good and evil (and the Hebrew words here are for pain and pleasure, not necessarily moral good and evil), God’s previous proclamation about Ahaz’s enemies is supposed to come true. The sign is a timestamp, not a miraculous birth (verses 15-20).
6) God goes on to talk about the agricultural events that will follow (verses 21-25).

What happens in the very next chapter?

1) The chapter is a letter that God has commanded Isaiah to write to someone named Mahershalalhashbaz. This is important. The person being addressed is Mahershalalhashbaz (verse 1).
2) Isaiah “went unto the prophetess” – presumably the virgin from the last chapter, who is no longer a virgin – and she has a kid named Mahershalalhashbaz, the person this chapter concerns (verses 2-3).
3) We are told that, before Mahershalalhashbaz is old enough to “have knowledge to cry” – gee, this sure sounds like the kid from the last chapter – Ahaz’s enemies will be destroyed – yeah, a whole lot like the kid from the last chapter (verses 4-7).
4) God addresses Mahershalalhashbaz by a new name . . . Immanuel (verse .

 

Tut, Tut. You're welcome

 

I've read Isaiah many times trying to see how it relates to Jesus some hundreds of years later.
I could never see any thing remotely hinting that Isaiah was talking about some future messiah. It is a great leap to reach that conclusion.

 

This thread has reached it's thread limit.

Please see the new one