Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72025 | ||
Hi, EdB; "I simply can not/will not buy into this theory that there were two virgin births." It's not a theory; the Bible clearly states that there were two virgin births: Immanuel and Jesus. I simply reiterated what the Bible says, adding nothing of my own. The passages in Isaiah 7 are not ambiguous: "the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) Before the boy named Immanuel is old enough to know right from wrong, the kings opposing Ahaz will be defeated. This cannot possibly be Jesus. I'm not certain that Jesus ever had to reach an age where he could "reject the wrong and choose the right", but if he did, he did it long after the historical events that Isaiah said would precede it. The purpose of the sign is not ambiguous either: "Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son [Pekah] have plotted your ruin, saying, 'Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.' Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: '"It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all."' Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 'Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.'" (v.5-11) The purpose of the sign (the virgein birth) is to strengthen Ahaz to stand firm in his faith in that time and place. Finally, the context makes it clear that God is warning Judah about the invasion by Assyria that is soon to take place. The prophecies in these early chapters don't point to Jesus; they point to Assyria. Both the prophecy of the virgin birth and the stated purpose for it clearly indicate that the boy named Immanuel was born and lived during the reign of Ahaz. So why shouldn't we take Isaiah at his word? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
2 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 72048 | ||
Steve What your saying there was nothing unique about the virgin birth birth of Jesus, it had in fact happened in an earlier time? I can't imagine anyone gettng that from these scriptures but evidently at least you and apparently Aften1 has. Before I make any more statements on this let me research to see who else ever came up with that idea. Could you tell me where you first heard it? EdB |
||||||
3 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72058 | ||
Hi, EdB; Hmmm. I don't see how the Bible can be interpreted in any other way. As I said, there's nothing anbiguous in Isaiah's words. Matthew says that Jesus' birth "fulfills" Isaiah's prophecy. But "fulfill" is not limited to the idea of a prediction coming true; it also means to bring to completion or perfection. The basic idea of what Matthew meant by his reference to Isaiah came from Dr. Marion Soards, Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. Unlike many faculty there, Dr. Soards is solidly evangelical and committed to the authority, inspiration, and authenticity of Scripture. This topic came up in a short class he taught on the nativity narratives. Having gone over Isaiah's words and their context several times since that class, I don't understand how any other interpretation is possible. I would draw this analogy: The law was real, the tabernacle was real, the boy Immanuel was real. According to the writer of Hebrews, the law was "shadow of the good things that are coming" (10:1) and the tabernacle was a "shadow of what is in heaven." (8:5) With his reference to Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew implied that Immanuel and his extraordinary birth were a shadow of the Christ who had now come. Too bad this thread got bumped off the home page; I'd be interested in others' opinions. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||