NEED HELP on scripture issue

[DavidCasler]

Ok, my buddy was a King James Onlyiest and a Ruckman guy. He has now fallen out of anything and everything.

His biggest issue is in his VIEW is: Matthew misquoted and created the connection to Isaiah in the fortelling of the coming of Jesus (and so the virgin birth is a lie and Jesus must be a lie) because every culture BEFORE Jesus has a Virgin birth of SOME God.

Here is what he wrote:

Implied statement: NO PROHPECY OF JESUS WAS FORETOLD IN ISAIAH CHAPTER 7

The situation:
Judah was facing invasion from Syria and Israel and they were freaking out over the alliances building up around them.
1And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
2And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

Isaiah is supposedly told by God to tell Ahaz that Judah would withstand the attacks – he specifically tells him not to fear or be fainthearted because their push would never stand or come to pass. Why? Because their kings would be broken…
3Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field;
4And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
5Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
7Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
9And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

Now the Lord Speaks to Ahaz and tells him to seek a sign – Ahaz refuses claiming not to want to tempt God…
10Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

Ahaz begins speaking and tells of an impending sign to calm their fears. A sign specifically given to this situation.
13And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (young woman) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16For 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.
17The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Continuing In Context as the story is not finished “moreover”
Isaiah 8
1Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.
A son is born with a specific name and purpose:
2And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4For 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.

Here is what these 2 chapters contain.

A pending invasion
A king and a people worried about their future
To Isaiah: Word from God that the kingdoms attacking would fail
Word from God not to worry or be afraid
To Ahaz: A message to seek a sign

Ahaz to People: A prediction what the sign would be that God would give
Sign consisted of a young woman giving birth to a son
Statement about son:
Before the child “prophecied” about is a teenager (old enough to know right from wrong = Coming of Age) the nations forming the alliance would be broken apart and taken over by the Assyrians
Chapter 8
Lord gives specific name to a child to tie in prophecy from chpt 7 with
The birth in chapter 8
Isaiah has intercourse with a prophetess and a son is born
Isaiah names the son as directed
Story closed – no meaning outside of this local framework

Specific Issues:

Situation of prophecy – Impending invasion
Purpose of prophecy – Not thousands of years future – current to sit
Prophecy fulfilled with son born next chapter

Repercussions:
Matthew misquoted and created the connection to Isaiah

 

[Zenas]

In looking at this, one thing you need to remember is that the book of Isaiah doesn’t have perfect continuity. For example, as you read Chapter 6 it is apparent that this is the chronological beginning of Isaiah rather than Chapter 1. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that Chapters 7 and 8 may be relating slightly different events. In any event there are some problems with your friend’s interpretation.

1. In 7:14 we see that a virgin will give birth. Yet we see in 8:3 that the birth told of in Chapter 8 was the result of normal conjugal relations.
2. In 7:14 the child’s name was to be Immanuel (God with us). But the child born in 8:3 is named Mahershalalhashbaz.
3. Finally even if the child in 8:3 is the initial fulfillment of the prophecy in 7:14, there could be a second fulfillment. Prophesies often have multitpe levels of meanings, e.g., in Luke 10:21-36, Jesus foretells of both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age.

One final thought. Why is the Isaiah prophecy necessary to confirm the virgin birth. It is only one piece of the puzzle. There is plenty of other material to confirm this fact, e.g., Genesis 3:15, Luke 2 and Matthew 1.

 

[cathguy]

Here’s another tack…

The historical critical arguments for the historicity of the resurrection are really quite strong: (See NT Wright’s outstanding the Resurrection of the Son of God.)

My faith is based on the firm conviction that Jesus Christ literally and really rose from the dead. Everything I believe flows from that. Without the resurrection we have nothing. As Paul said: “If Christ is buried in the tomb, our faith is buried with Him…” or something like that…

So… your friend needs to drop the Bible alone thing and answer some questions:

1. If not Christianity, then why isn’t he a Jew? I long ago determined that if the Resurrection is proved false, my only recourse would be to seek the fullness of the faith in Judaism.
2. What about ALL the arguments for the historicity of the Resurrection. They really are quite strong.
3. WIthout the Resurrection, how does he explain the history of the early Church. Catholics (early Christians if he insists… same difference ) died in large numbers because they believed in the Resurrection. Who would die for a belief they simply made up? I don’t see how Christianity survives past 100 AD without the reality of the Resurrection.

Forget the Bible for a moment. The only reason I accept the Bible as the Word of God is because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Church He founded proclaimed these texts Sacred.

Maybe this is the tact to take?

It may be that you will not be able to reach your friend at all…

So here is the most important thing…

Arguments often fail. Faith is a supernatural gift. If he is validly baptized, then somewhere in his heart there is an opening… he has been claimed for Christ.

PRAY… PRAY… PRAY for him. Have Masses said even. Pray.

This is probably the best thing you could do.

Peace.

 

[DavidCasler]

Both of you, Thanks! I feel blessed to be a Catholic convert everytime an argument is put before the Church or “Christianity”. For the those who dont believe in God, there is no point trying to debate what “I” hold to be true. For other Christians, it is a matter of “YOU tell me where I am wrong, debate what the Chruch believes, NOT what someone else told you we believe.”

God Bless.

 

[Nan_S]

Ok, my buddy was a King James Onlyiest and a Ruckman guy. He has now fallen out of anything and everything.

His biggest issue is in his VIEW is: Matthew misquoted and created the connection to Isaiah in the fortelling of the coming of Jesus (and so the virgin birth is a lie and Jesus must be a lie) because every culture BEFORE Jesus has a Virgin birth of SOME God.

“The best defense is a good offense.” Seems to me I remember hearing a winning football coach say that.

My answer to your buddy: Oh really? Where exactly did you hear that “every culture before Jesus” has a virgin birth of a god? Please, friend of mine, tell me who these gods were, so that we can verify your claim.

I think you’ll find that, if pressed on the issue, he’ll probably come up with Mithras or Krishna, and that his source material is unreliable at best. What he probably doesn’t know is that even though worship of such gods pre-dated Christ, the Mystery Religion cults of those gods which claimed they had virgin births POST-dated Christ.

Check this out: Jesus and the Pagan Gods
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea2.asp

 

[Michelle_in_WV]

I can’t give you a scholarly answer to your problem, but I can tell you how I have reconciled the problem of virgin-birth and resurrection stories found in non-Christian religions.

For at least the first 1500 years or so of Christian history, Haggai 2:7 has been interpreted as a Messianic prophesy. In the King James version of the Bible, it reads:

“And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.”

The “desire of all nations” is considered to be Jesus Christ, and this is one of the titles which the Church gives Him.

If Jesus is the one who is desired by all, it is logical that everyone (or at least the majority) would have a story of a god-man who is born of a virgin, and who resurrects from the dead. Having such a story makes it possible for them to recognize the one for whom they have been looking when he appears.

I think that the story of the magi from St. Matthew’s gospel (2:1, ff.) supports my idea. No one knows what religion these men practiced, but they were not Jews. They were, however, waiting for a king to be born among the Jews, and they wanted to worship this king. (The Greek version of the text uses the word “proskuneo,” which means to prostrate oneself in homage or worship.) Whatever their religion, it is obvious (to me) that they were waiting for a god-man to arrive in the world, and they probably expected Him to solve many of the world’s problems; they expected Him to be a Savior.

I hope that what I have said is of some help to you.

Michelle

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Michelle,
Welcome to the forums.

I would like to re-affirm zenas’ original statement that “immanuel” is not the name the prophet gave to HIS child.

This is a problem that I have encountered before; and had several “interesting” discusssions on it. eg:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3231282

NAN S, thanks for the quote – it finishes the comment I made in the earlier thread quite nicely – and it boils down to THIS:

The Roman Mithras is “born” from a rock; he is called “the rock-born god.” He was commonly depicted as naked, wearing a cap and holding a torch and a dagger. In the Persian legends, he was born of a virgin mother, Anahita (once worshiped as a fertility goddess), who swam in Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan, where Zoroaster/Zarathustra had left sperm four hundred years earlier.

There was clearly knowledge about how a virgin might conceive without normal intercourse. In the sign proposed to Ahaz, the “young-woman” will conceive suggests a non miracle – in fact it would seem absolutely normal to 21st century ears. If this is so, Ahaz clearly would have laughed at the prophet for that sign – yet he doesn’t.

The word “young woman” comes from the Hebrew text – the Greek as I pointed out in the earlier thread of mine, says PARTHENOS – which means virgin.
This is not a translation error; though it appears to go beyond what the modern Hebrew versions say; It requires Ahaz who will not tempt God, to see God’s power in a particular way. This requires a cultural taboo, or protection to have been in effect so that natural intercourse is not the source of the child.

In a two pronged attack, I would point out that Joseph was in waiting for his marriage to Mary – and her pregnancy was a scandal to him. Should he expose her to the LAW – she would be executed once the ritual test for adultery was made. Why? She was a young girl and the assumption would be made that she had sexual relations to a man other than the one she is betrothed to – although, I repeat, parthenogenesis, and teratomas (modern medical terms which come from the Greeks who OBSERVED these medical problems.) were already known.

For Ahaz to accept the sign as proof, it had to be a scandal of some kind. For a young woman is not yet married according to the Hebrew use of the word. Again, Ahaz could not see the sign as miraculous unless it went beyond common scandal in some way, eg: if it were impossible that a man had access to this particular young woman within the three months before she was FIRST noted to be with child. Or, perhaps, if it were one of his daughters kept under guard by a eunuch.
Surprise.

What I would like to draw everyones attention to is that the “virgin birth” of Mary is said to go beyond what the Pagan religions (Greek mythology) conceived.
There was no lake for her to swim in, nor a husband to donate the seed.

I would also like to pick up on what Michelle said, and focus it in a different way.
It is clear that Pagan religions affected the writings of the scriptures – the trivial example is that the names of other god’s are recorded in the OT.
But Michelle, I think your good logic can be made into a much better argument if viewed from a different perspective – for your reasoning rests on unknowns; do the pagans desire Jesus throughout history? That is a very difficult thing to prove, let alone that they saw the truth (though twisted) in their deities. Cataloging all the Pagan beliefs is a challenge in itself…

But, Kudos, I think you have hit the mark regarding God’s response which is spelled out in the bible.

God is Jealous of the worship of FALSE gods. And these myths, as they are, depict powers which pagans would taunt the Israelites with that “Israel’s God was inferior ny not being capable of.” It is through jealousy, and proving other religions WRONG and showing God’s supremacy over these other “gods” that God first confuses the pagans, and then attracts the pagans to the worship of himself.

For example, the Magi followed a star. But in the OT – star worshipers were sentenced to death or exile from the Jewish/promised land by law as false worshipers. Yet it is THIS sign, a star, which is predicted to herald the coming of the Jewish messiah. God is more powerful than the stars and the fates. The arrival of the Magi is essentially their admission of defeat in belief in the sovereignity of the stars. Their gods bowed to Jesus – so must they.

It is also no surprise that many cultures worshiped the Sun in its might, or the moon (as Abraham’s ancestors appeared to have done – equating the crescent moon with animal horns…) etc. Turn to the book of Revelation, and it says there will be no sun in the new Jerusalem; that is equivalent to saying Jesus will not tolerate that which has been a troublesome Idol to continue to exist. Rather, HE HIMSELF, will give forth the light – thus becoming the Sun (son) which is to be worshiped.

It is not the influence of Pagan culture which is to be denied, rather it is the taking of Pagan gods and REDUCING THEM TO SHAME SUCCESSFULLY which is the earmark and Crux of the christian/Jewish religion. In proving each of the pagan God’s inferior by performing their miracles (as did Moses perform what Pharaoh’s magicians could performed – but always slightly better than them, and in the end far beyond them. ) the Lord taught the world the truth about himself amidst lies.

These pagan resonances in scripture are merely what one ought to expect when a True God enters dialog over all of man’s inventions. In whatever man sees a true glory – God assumes that glory to himself and demonstrates it, calling all people to recognize that he is yet MORE glorious.

He is even the God of life and death.

Amen.

 

[inkaneer]

Ok, my buddy was a King James Onlyiest and a Ruckman guy. He has now fallen out of anything and everything.

His biggest issue is in his VIEW is: Matthew misquoted and created the connection to Isaiah in the fortelling of the coming of Jesus (and so the virgin birth is a lie and Jesus must be a lie) because every culture BEFORE Jesus has a Virgin birth of SOME God.
. . .

I left off the rest of your post because it is not needed. The issue here is simple and can be summed up in one question that you can ask your friend. The question is this:

“Do you accept the gospel of Matthew as being inspired of God and therefore inerrant?”

If he answers yes tell him then Matthew contains no misquote for a misquote would be error. If he answers no, then tell him in that case it doesn’t matter what Matthew wrote. If he says that ‘others’ accept Matthew as inerrant tell him those ‘others’ accept Matthew as inerrant and do not accept his premise that Matthew misquoted Isaiah.