89 chapter project: Matthew
- Thread starter paradox3
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
No. Someone who is just 100% is just 100% human, no matter how knowledgeable.
I believe we should still repent as a part of sanctification.
Matthew seems to continually emphasize how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and he uses the Old testament in particular to speak to the Jews to convince them. Yet he tends to leave out the OT prophecies that dont match up with Jesus' life and at times even "stretches" prophecy accounts from the OT to fit prophecy. And there is the need for Jesus to return to fulfil prophecy. (Second coming)
Jews will tell you that the OT prophecy says the Messiah will fulfill ALL prophecy when he comes. That includes world peace and a national revelation that includes everyone. No need for a second coming. I have to ask why Mathew doesnt address the Jews on these prophecies.
Jews will tell you that the OT prophecy says the Messiah will fulfill ALL prophecy when he comes. That includes world peace and a national revelation that includes everyone. No need for a second coming. I have to ask why Mathew doesnt address the Jews on these prophecies.
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I have been wondering to what extent the Sermon on the Mount parallels the Torah. I can see the influence of the Torah in several places but I am not familiar enough with the Old Testament (first 5 books) to fully understand this.
Jesus says he has come to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. What exactly did He mean by this? The fulfillment of prophecy from the Hebrew scriptures? Reinterpretation of the Law to be more compassionate and less legalistic?
Jesus is definitely calling for more righteous behavior than the Pharisees demonstrate in their piousness.
Jesus says he has come to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. What exactly did He mean by this? The fulfillment of prophecy from the Hebrew scriptures? Reinterpretation of the Law to be more compassionate and less legalistic?
Jesus is definitely calling for more righteous behavior than the Pharisees demonstrate in their piousness.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I think we have to be careful when we're talking about ancient Judaism not to use Christian theology/scripture as the lens through which we might be tempted to judge that religion.
I wonder was Jesus showing a prejudice when he points to the Pharisees.....were they all to be considered vipers? Were none doing anything right?
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Agreed. But I think it is clear that Jesus was calling for a higher standard of righteousness than the Pharisees were demonstrating. Maybe He thought the Pharisees were distorting ancient Judaism.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Interesting Read here below -------unsafe posting for information sake only -------
unsafe says ----We are to believe by Faith not by sight ------ there seems to be many Thomas's when it comes to the virgin birth ------OH ye of Little Faith ------
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?
By Wayne Jackson
“Does Isaiah 7:14 contain a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Some suggest that Isaiah’s statement refers to a ‘young woman’ (not necessarily a ‘virgin’) of his day, who would conceive and give birth to a child, and that this event would be a sign to Hezekiah. It is then further said that Matthew took that text and applied it to Jesus’ birth, though, allegedly, this was not the meaning of the passage originally. How do we respond to this assertion?”
This theory contains so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin in refuting it. It can be traced ultimately back to the second century A.D., when it was employed by those who repudiated the concept of predictive prophecy that pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
It has been filtered down, revised and refined over the years, so that some Christians now parrot the theory — though they haven’t a clue that the young woman notion was birthed from the womb of skepticism.
As briefly as we can, we note the following points.
The Background of the Prophecy
When the kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north, King Ahaz was terrified. God sent the prophet Isaiah to calm the king.
The prophet declared that the evil forces would not prevail. Ahaz was encouraged to “ask for a sign” documenting this word of consolation, but the stubborn king refused.
Isaiah then directed his attention to the “house of David.” He promised a much greater sign, namely “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son, whose name, Immanuel, would signify “God is with us.”
The time-frame that it would take for the Immanuel-child to reach the age of accountability was used as a chronological measurement. Before that time-span would expire, Judah’s current threat would dissipate (which reality came to pass).
More importantly, however, was the fact that a much greater deliverance was needed in Israel, and such would be provided by the actual arrival of Immanuel — who is Jesus Christ.
A “Sign” is Prophesied
This prophesied event is designated as a sign. The term “sign” is a point of controversy.
While the word itself does not demand a miracle on a strictly etymological basis, a word’s meaning is determined by more than etymology alone. General usage and context (both immediate and remote) must be factored in.
The immediate context does suggest a miracle. The king had been challenged to ask for a “sign,” either “in the depth, or in the height above” (Is. 7:11). This indicates something phenomenal.
Ahaz refused the proffered sign claiming that such would tempt Jehovah—again hinting of the supernatural.
Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23).
There is no evidence at all that there was a miraculous birth to a virgin in the days of Isaiah.
The Sign of a Virgin
The Hebrew word rendered “virgin” is almah. It is the only biblical word that truly signifies a virgin. Prof. William Beck, who researched this matter with great precision, declared:
I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin (1967, 6)
Robert Dick Wilson, the incomparable Hebrew scholar who was proficient in forty-five biblically-related languages, declared that almah “never meant ‘young married woman,’” and that the presumption of common law is that every almah is virtuous, unless she can be proved not to be (1926, 316).
Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, conceded that recent archaeological evidence confirms that almah means “virgin” (1953, 106).
The notion that almah merely signifies a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D (Justin Martyr, 67).
The Virgin Shall Conceive
Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.”
The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.
If this alluded to some contemporary of Isaiah, who was his mysterious lady? Were there two virgin births — one in Isaiah’s day and another involving Jesus? There is no credibility to this view.
Additionally, the virgin’s child was to be called “Immanuel,” which signifies “God is with us.” If this name applied to a child in Isaiah’s day, who was this illusive youngster? He seems to have vanished as soon as he was born!
Matthew mistaken?
The suggestion made by some—that Matthew took Isaiah’s text and gave it an application alien to the original meaning—is unworthy of a correct view of Bible inspiration.
Preachers today who take a text, extract it from its context, and make it a mere pretext for points they wish to establish are strongly chastised and their credibility is compromised.
Yet men, under the sway of modernism, do not hesitate to so charge God’s inspired apostle in the case of the virgin birth. This is a shameful circumstance.
Historical evidence
The church fathers were of one mind that Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 was appealed to as an Old Testament prophetic proof-text.
For example, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) wrote:
Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be “God with us”? (19.3)
Early scholarship, “rational” influence
The earlier scholars of Christendom (e.g., Calvin, Lowth, Gill, Henry, Clarke, Alexander, Hengstenberg, etc.,) argued that Isaiah 7:14 was exclusively messianic in its import.
In the mid-nineteenth century, however, as the influence of German rationalism made its presence felt both in Europe and in America, even writers who were generally considered conservative began to yield to the pressure.
They thus suggested that perhaps Matthew only applied Isaiah’s text to the circumstances, when, in reality, there was a primary application to a “young woman” of the prophet’s own day.
Edward J. Young’s masterful, three-volume set on the book of Isaiah (Eerdmans, 1965) was driven by a desire to refute this compromising drift — to which even some in the Lord’s family have fallen victim.
There is no reason for the Lord’s people to resort to such textual manipulations in dealing with the biblical evidence for the birth of the Savior.
For further study, see the author’s chapters in The Living Messages of the Books of the Old Testament (Isaiah), and The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament(Matthew), in the Spiritual Sword Lectureship books (1977 and 1976 respectively).
See also the small volume by Prof. Edward E. Hinson, Isaiah’s Immanuel (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1978). It is a valuable resource.
unsafe Posting ----just for Information sake -------read all for yourselves -----I just posted the first 2 sentences -----
Another interesting read -------
https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/virgin-virginity.html
Virgin, Virginity
(1) bethulah, from a root meaning "separated," is "a woman living apart," i.e. "in her father's house," and hence "a virgin." Bethulah seems to have been the technical term for "virgin," as appears from such a combination as na`arah bhethulah, "a damsel, a virgin,"
unsafe says ----We are to believe by Faith not by sight ------ there seems to be many Thomas's when it comes to the virgin birth ------OH ye of Little Faith ------
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?
By Wayne Jackson
“Does Isaiah 7:14 contain a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Some suggest that Isaiah’s statement refers to a ‘young woman’ (not necessarily a ‘virgin’) of his day, who would conceive and give birth to a child, and that this event would be a sign to Hezekiah. It is then further said that Matthew took that text and applied it to Jesus’ birth, though, allegedly, this was not the meaning of the passage originally. How do we respond to this assertion?”
This theory contains so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin in refuting it. It can be traced ultimately back to the second century A.D., when it was employed by those who repudiated the concept of predictive prophecy that pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
It has been filtered down, revised and refined over the years, so that some Christians now parrot the theory — though they haven’t a clue that the young woman notion was birthed from the womb of skepticism.
As briefly as we can, we note the following points.
The Background of the Prophecy
When the kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north, King Ahaz was terrified. God sent the prophet Isaiah to calm the king.
The prophet declared that the evil forces would not prevail. Ahaz was encouraged to “ask for a sign” documenting this word of consolation, but the stubborn king refused.
Isaiah then directed his attention to the “house of David.” He promised a much greater sign, namely “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son, whose name, Immanuel, would signify “God is with us.”
The time-frame that it would take for the Immanuel-child to reach the age of accountability was used as a chronological measurement. Before that time-span would expire, Judah’s current threat would dissipate (which reality came to pass).
More importantly, however, was the fact that a much greater deliverance was needed in Israel, and such would be provided by the actual arrival of Immanuel — who is Jesus Christ.
A “Sign” is Prophesied
This prophesied event is designated as a sign. The term “sign” is a point of controversy.
While the word itself does not demand a miracle on a strictly etymological basis, a word’s meaning is determined by more than etymology alone. General usage and context (both immediate and remote) must be factored in.
The immediate context does suggest a miracle. The king had been challenged to ask for a “sign,” either “in the depth, or in the height above” (Is. 7:11). This indicates something phenomenal.
Ahaz refused the proffered sign claiming that such would tempt Jehovah—again hinting of the supernatural.
Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23).
There is no evidence at all that there was a miraculous birth to a virgin in the days of Isaiah.
The Sign of a Virgin
The Hebrew word rendered “virgin” is almah. It is the only biblical word that truly signifies a virgin. Prof. William Beck, who researched this matter with great precision, declared:
I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin (1967, 6)
Robert Dick Wilson, the incomparable Hebrew scholar who was proficient in forty-five biblically-related languages, declared that almah “never meant ‘young married woman,’” and that the presumption of common law is that every almah is virtuous, unless she can be proved not to be (1926, 316).
Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, conceded that recent archaeological evidence confirms that almah means “virgin” (1953, 106).
The notion that almah merely signifies a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D (Justin Martyr, 67).
The Virgin Shall Conceive
Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.”
The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.
If this alluded to some contemporary of Isaiah, who was his mysterious lady? Were there two virgin births — one in Isaiah’s day and another involving Jesus? There is no credibility to this view.
Additionally, the virgin’s child was to be called “Immanuel,” which signifies “God is with us.” If this name applied to a child in Isaiah’s day, who was this illusive youngster? He seems to have vanished as soon as he was born!
Matthew mistaken?
The suggestion made by some—that Matthew took Isaiah’s text and gave it an application alien to the original meaning—is unworthy of a correct view of Bible inspiration.
Preachers today who take a text, extract it from its context, and make it a mere pretext for points they wish to establish are strongly chastised and their credibility is compromised.
Yet men, under the sway of modernism, do not hesitate to so charge God’s inspired apostle in the case of the virgin birth. This is a shameful circumstance.
Historical evidence
The church fathers were of one mind that Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 was appealed to as an Old Testament prophetic proof-text.
For example, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) wrote:
Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be “God with us”? (19.3)
Early scholarship, “rational” influence
The earlier scholars of Christendom (e.g., Calvin, Lowth, Gill, Henry, Clarke, Alexander, Hengstenberg, etc.,) argued that Isaiah 7:14 was exclusively messianic in its import.
In the mid-nineteenth century, however, as the influence of German rationalism made its presence felt both in Europe and in America, even writers who were generally considered conservative began to yield to the pressure.
They thus suggested that perhaps Matthew only applied Isaiah’s text to the circumstances, when, in reality, there was a primary application to a “young woman” of the prophet’s own day.
Edward J. Young’s masterful, three-volume set on the book of Isaiah (Eerdmans, 1965) was driven by a desire to refute this compromising drift — to which even some in the Lord’s family have fallen victim.
There is no reason for the Lord’s people to resort to such textual manipulations in dealing with the biblical evidence for the birth of the Savior.
For further study, see the author’s chapters in The Living Messages of the Books of the Old Testament (Isaiah), and The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament(Matthew), in the Spiritual Sword Lectureship books (1977 and 1976 respectively).
See also the small volume by Prof. Edward E. Hinson, Isaiah’s Immanuel (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1978). It is a valuable resource.
unsafe Posting ----just for Information sake -------read all for yourselves -----I just posted the first 2 sentences -----
Another interesting read -------
https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/virgin-virginity.html
Virgin, Virginity
(1) bethulah, from a root meaning "separated," is "a woman living apart," i.e. "in her father's house," and hence "a virgin." Bethulah seems to have been the technical term for "virgin," as appears from such a combination as na`arah bhethulah, "a damsel, a virgin,"
What is Jesus in the other gospels - Hindu?
Perhaps Hermes ... forerunner in the "fete of light"! Sometimes as a festival like X Mas ... an unknown instance?
Imagine a Shu supporting the unknown darkness (Nut) that is vast and out there as a metaphor ... the dame thing must be observed from outside ... as it is dark in'ere ... the sol gentleman! Instance of unknowing ... a rambling infinite darkness ... unseen? Does the infinite collective have a sense of humour to the stoic long faces? Wrong end of the hoer Cis!
Nothing sticks without a bit of composted myth ... ferment!
The Gospel is God's wisdom among Christians.
Other people may decry and condemn the Gospel as nonsense, but those whose hearts and minds the Spirit has prepared through faith are able to understand it.
The Gospel's wisdom has nothing in common with worldly philosophy. All the greatness of humanity's achievements will ultimately vanish, its wisdom and power will come to nothing.
God wants God's missionaries to speak God's wisdom in a mystery. God's message is a secret which only the Spirit of God can reveal, which remains hidden and incomprehensible for human reason until God opens up its glory and power.
It's this wisdom which God predetermined before the ages, before the world's foundation and time's beginning. God determined salvation's plan from eternity, and its aim and object, as put into execution by Christ, is the glory which will be revealed to Christians in God's Kingdom.
Of that glory Christians have now a foretaste and a guarantee in the Gospel's blessings.
Only Christians know the Gospel's wisdom. The worldly leaders of Jesus' time certainly didn't. If they had, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus. If the Jews' leaders and Pilate had had an iota of salvation as it was embodied in Christ; if they had grasped his goal, then they wouldn't have condemned him to die as a criminal.
No carnal human can comprehend the wonder which is contained in redemption as it's revealed to those who have received saving faith. It's blessing is magnificence, unimagined in former ages, unknown to all by nature, which comes all prepared to Christians.
Other people may decry and condemn the Gospel as nonsense, but those whose hearts and minds the Spirit has prepared through faith are able to understand it.
The Gospel's wisdom has nothing in common with worldly philosophy. All the greatness of humanity's achievements will ultimately vanish, its wisdom and power will come to nothing.
God wants God's missionaries to speak God's wisdom in a mystery. God's message is a secret which only the Spirit of God can reveal, which remains hidden and incomprehensible for human reason until God opens up its glory and power.
It's this wisdom which God predetermined before the ages, before the world's foundation and time's beginning. God determined salvation's plan from eternity, and its aim and object, as put into execution by Christ, is the glory which will be revealed to Christians in God's Kingdom.
Of that glory Christians have now a foretaste and a guarantee in the Gospel's blessings.
Only Christians know the Gospel's wisdom. The worldly leaders of Jesus' time certainly didn't. If they had, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus. If the Jews' leaders and Pilate had had an iota of salvation as it was embodied in Christ; if they had grasped his goal, then they wouldn't have condemned him to die as a criminal.
No carnal human can comprehend the wonder which is contained in redemption as it's revealed to those who have received saving faith. It's blessing is magnificence, unimagined in former ages, unknown to all by nature, which comes all prepared to Christians.
Yes you can be a maiden and be a virgin....the issue is whether it was God or another human who took her virginity and whether a mere mortal conceived by mortals can be considered divine.
This is unquestionable to the insecure as something determinate is required for determinate brut powers that can corrupt ... virgin idea R's from the gama ... that's dark, obscure , even occult to some determinate folk ... terrified on end determination as uncertain ...
Thus ethics of the means to ends ... some medium is required in the cycle ... unknowns to the straight-liners?
They just don;t have the proper bent as expressed by the sign or Uranus rising or going down ... resembles omega' d senses when scroo daed, Daedalus ... a flossy way to go ... slipping out smoothly without a whine ... only a squeek! Chariots of the Gods ... and Europia was carried of by a huge power of Bull ... for*Tae?
Another human did - but not until after Jesus was conceived.
Only bi incarnate idea*rs ... essence of intelligence that comes from beyond the state of emotional opinion ... tis a shadowy zone ... resembles conscience as hated by brute desires ... another piece of mind that when unraveled could bring patches of peace ... string theosis?
Jae ... you need to get out a bit ... as defined by ultimate (that's some distance) allows for stretch of sol ... some takers have no give ... once put down in the form of Adonis ... a darker myth than appears in the modernistic BS! Shadowy? Perhaps ... perhap snot as slimy souls what do we know of stuff beyond us? We cannot get a gripe ... then isolated instance (antonyms for generalizations) of mortal gods producing biblical virtues about unknowns ... a zone of vast expansiveness ... illustrating entropy ... weird mathematical explicit of S = Q/T ... and "T" is lucidly undefined as to its goings on ... tis verily complex out there ...
Not atoll like the simple spot we're in ... isolated? That's the Isle of Maan ... an escape rhode ... like already in Hebrew (ole rede)! That red-faced exposure ... demonstrative instance? You should know a bit before going there ...
Last edited:
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Waterfall ----your quote ---------Can you explain this santification process and why it is required after Jesus has died for our sins?
unsafe says ---very good question Waterfall -----as Sanctification is included in the Sozo Package -------as is redemption ----and Justification -----Anyone Saved is as Holy As they can be ------they are ready and accepted as Heaven Bound for eternal life -----God has Forgiven us our sins ----all past --present and future sins God remembers no more -------
True Christians will still sin and we are to acknowledge that we did sin buy confessing that we still do sin but God does not impute ---charge us with that sin anymore ------True Christians are Saints in God's eyes --------
People who are not Saved are today still under the Law and the curse and are Sinners in God's eyes ------
unsafe says ---very good question Waterfall -----as Sanctification is included in the Sozo Package -------as is redemption ----and Justification -----Anyone Saved is as Holy As they can be ------they are ready and accepted as Heaven Bound for eternal life -----God has Forgiven us our sins ----all past --present and future sins God remembers no more -------
True Christians will still sin and we are to acknowledge that we did sin buy confessing that we still do sin but God does not impute ---charge us with that sin anymore ------True Christians are Saints in God's eyes --------
People who are not Saved are today still under the Law and the curse and are Sinners in God's eyes ------
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Asking you the same question, unsafe. Do you get this from the book of Matthew or are you looking to other scriptures?