From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: RE: Birth of Yeshua part 1/5
>CQ> The prophecy begins in 7:11, there the L-rd via Isa, tells Ahaz to ask for a sign. Vs 12 Ahaz refuses. Vs 13, the L-rd is now speaking futuristically to the entire house of Israel and not to Ahaz, for Ahaz was king of Judah and not Israel...
No, Isaiah spoke and said, "Hear ye now, O house of David..." It was neither Ahaz alone, nor was it the entire house of Israel as you claimed, but it was to the house of David that the prophecy and sign of the virgin birth was given. Since Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, the LORD instead gave a sign for the house of David. A virgin of the house of David would have a son called Immanuel.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa.7:14 "you"[plural], house of David; not thee[singular], Ahaz.)
>CQ> It abruptly ends, with a return to Ahaz'e situation, not uncommon in prophecies of the Tanakh.
Verse 17 is directed toward Ahaz and his people. There is an additional application of Immanuel's "butter and honey" prophecy, in verse 22 to "every one" that is left in the land.
>CQ> In fact every place in the Tanakh, where Almah is used it is expressly used of a maiden who is a virgin, with the exception of one. That one is Dinah, who was raped and out of deference for being attacked was still considered an Almah, one who could still be married...
Dinah was an Almah(virgin) before she was raped, but the word almah is not used of her AFTER she was raped, and she was dwelling with Shechem as his "wife" when the city was attacked and her brethren killed Shechem and "took Dinah out of Shechem's house". She would have been about 6 or 7 years old when they left Padan-Aram, which is why she is called a "damsel" (girl) but not "almah" (virgin), after Shechem had his way with her.
Proverbs 30:18,19 is the only place where "almah" is used that can possibly be disputed by people who "know not" the way spoken of. Of course the Holy Spirit does not translate "almah" as virgin there but as "maid." The IGNORANCE of the four ways of Prov.30:19 is evident. We "know not" which way an eagle in the air went, nor which way a serpent went, nor which way a ship in the midst of the sea went, nor which WAY a man with a maid went, except that:
An eagle goes to and fro in the air! A serpent wiggles left and right! A ship moves up and down on the waves, and a man who has his way with a maid moves in and out. The air does not belong to the eagle, nor does the rock belong to the serpent, nor the sea to the ship, and the maid does not belong to the man. The eagle, serpent, ship and man leave no TRAIL. After the air is CLEAVED, any trace of the eagle's passage is WIPED out. The 5th "way", is the way of an adulterous woman, who uses her "mouth" in a certain "way", so any trace of what she did could be WIPED out, and she could then claim to be still "almah", (the seal of her virginity being unbroken.)
Continued messages by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Richard, glad to have you in the forum.
>CQ> Matt. 2:8... I think you have a slip of the finger here. (grin).
THANKS for the typo correction. (You're being too gracious; It was more like a slip of my brain-to-finger-interface. :)
>CORRECTION to my 02Feb95 00:45 msg: Not Matthew 2:8, but LUKE 2:8>
Continued messages by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: (CQ) Jesus' Birth
>>>>QU> Their are some minor details here I will double check but their could not be a Temple flock as priest were prohibilted from owning land property or anything.
>>>CQ> These were the flocks that were sold for the sacrifices. See The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by a MJ named Edersheim.
>>RC> The word of God only speaks of one "flock" in [*LUKE] 2:8, and says nothing about such being "for sacrifices"...
>CQ> As you will note i recommended Alfred Edersheim's book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, about the Temple sacrificial sheep in Bethleham.
And as you will note, I recommend the Lord's book, the Holy Bible:
LUKE 2:8-- "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."
LUKE 2:15-- "And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us."
>1> Only one flock indicated.
>2> They were not "in Bethlehem", but in the field in the country.
>3> No mention of so-called "Temple sacrificial sheep" there.
Bethlehem was not one of the 48 cities given to the Levites. It was in the "suburbs" of those cities that they were to keep their cattle and beasts. "And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about." (Num.35:4)
>CQ> I will give you what Edersheim states:
>CQ> The Belief that not only would the messiah be born in Bethleham, but that He would be revealed freom Migdal Eder, "The tower of the flock" (Ref: Targum Pseudo-Jon on Gen.35:21)
The "tower of Edar" is mentioned AFTER Beth-lehem in Genesis 35. In Micah, the "tower of the flock" (Mic.4:8p) is mentioned in the chapter BEFORE "Beth-lehem Ephratah" (Mic.5:2 :) It is evident that "the first dominion" (Mic.4:8p) has not yet come. (The KING of kings is the tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion.)
(Please see next message. Thanks. :)
>>>>QU> Jesus could not have been in Bethleham at the age of 1 year.
>>>CQ> According to King Herod and the Magi, they were in Bethleham two years.
>>RC> There is no such statement by either Herod or the wise men in the holy scriptures of truth. (Be not deceived.)
>CQ> Well I am sorry to disagree with you, but your statement is incorrect.
Your disagreement does not change the fact that there is no such statement by either Herod or the wise men claiming as you said, that "they were in Bethleham(sic) two years." (Be not deceived. :)
>CQ> In Matt 2:7 Herod inquires of the wise men as to when they first say the star.
And you were not told what their answer was. The upper limit that Herod set for killing of children was two years. That would not indicate he was two years old, but rather that he was "under" that age. And Luke indicates that after the 40 days of Mary's purification, and the presentation of Jesus at the temple, they returned into Galilee to their own city Nazareth. (ref. Luke 2:39)
>CQ> I don't believe I like this condescending attitude Richard. I certainly am not deceived at all.
A person speaking CONTRARY to the scriptures of truth is either DECEIVED or deliberately LYING. Remember that Jesus is the Lord and receive the love of the truth. (Be not deceived. :)
>>RC> Instead of following Herod's advice, the wise men followed the star, which led them, not to a manger in Bethlehem, but to "the house" where Jesus was.
>CQ> Wrong again. According to Matt 2:8, Herod sent them to Bethlehem. According to Matt 2:9, the heard the King and obeyed him and left for Bethlehem.
Be not deceived. The holy scriptures of truth do not say that they "left for Bethlehem" as you say; rather, they saw the star in the east, and the star led them, not to a manger in Bethlehem, but to "the house" where the "young child" was. (ref. Matt.2:9-11)
>CQ> It is verse 12, that states, that being warned of G-d in a dream did not go back to Jerusalem, but departed another way...
Not relevant to your argument, except to emphasize the fact that the wise men did not follow Herod's advice, but obeyed the LORD.
(Please see next message. Thanks. :)
>>>>QU> Luke II:39 they went to Nazareth.
>>>CQ> Yes it says that, but again no time table at all...
>>RC> In fact the exact time is indicated: "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." ([Lk.2:39] Author's Version)
>CQ> Sorry, no win, as you cannot take one of the Gospels as a stand alone.
By the grace of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, I take the word of God as being the TRUTH, and anything you say contrary is NOT TRUE. (Be not deceived.) The word of God clearly uses the word "when" in connection with the completion of the requirements of the law and their return to Galilee.
>CQ> You must take the 4 testimonies, and place them together...
Mark and John do not testify of Jesus' birth. (Be not deceived. :)
Remember that Jesus is the Lord and receive the love of the truth. Grace be to thine heart in love for Jesus' sake. Amen. --Richard
From another message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> (CQ) Jesus' Birth
>>RC> Grace be to you and yours with love for Jesus' sake. Amen.
>CQ> Richard, you are getting very condescending.
If by "condescending" you mean that in the sense of "gracious", then certainly we would agree. If you meant that in an evil sense, then, the Lord rebuke thee. (Knowest thou not that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? God be yet more gracious unto thee. :)
>CQ> You do not have a personal corner on truth.
By the grace of God I have the Lord Jesus Christ, and he is the truth, and it is written, We have the mind of Christ.
>CQ> Many of us on this forum are pastors and spiritual leaders of flocks, and we are studied in Biblical Greek and Hebrew.
Education without salvation is damnation. (Be not deceived. :)
>CQ> You would be wise not attempt to impart some sense upon us that somehow you are more spiritual? Which i doubt very much...
You would be wise to not attempt to speak evil against the Holy Ghost and the holy scriptures of truth given by inspiration of God. Remember that Jesus is the Lord and repent of your vain attacks and perverse disputings, and receive the truth for Jesus' sake. Grace be to them that love the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. --Richard
From another message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: "slew all the children"
>>>>RC> Herod died before the passover in 4BC. Jesus had to have been born before that in 5BC or earlier, so the resurrection year would have to be 30AD or earlier.
>>>QU> Is there any record outside scripture of Herod's massacre of the infant males?
>>RC> The record in the holy scriptures of truth says simply "children." Neither the greek nor the english text limits the slaughter to males.
>CQ> Sorry Richard, but you are wrong. It does not simply state children.
>CQ> the Greek is Tous Pias, which refers to male children, or male boys.
The greek is neither "Pias" nor Pais, but "paidas." ("children"! :)
>CQ> Hence the slaughter would not have made any sense, since no girls were heirs to the throne of David..
Most actions of Herod in his last days made very little sense, due to the "distemper" (vile disease) that afflicted him. He also "gave order that one out of every family should be slain". (Jos.xvii,vi,6) (Those appointed for death were released by Salome and Alexas.)
>CQ> In the Greek if the text makes an analogy, then it could in some extreme cases refer to girls. But there is no such analogy utilized here, and the primary reading is male boys.
The primary reading in the holy scriptures of truth is "children", as it is written. ANALOGY? Are not the "children of Benjamin" also Rachel's "children", as it is written in the scriptures of truth?
The ENTIRE house of Benjamin (except 600 males) was SLAUGHTERED in Judges chapter 20. All the cities of Benjamin were destroyed down to the ground and not so much as a beast was left alive. There was not so much as one female of the children of Benjamin left alive for the remnant of males that escaped to rock Rimmon four months. (Four hundred females of Jabesh-gilead and 200 from Shiloh were provided as wives to replenish the tribe of Benjamin, RACHEL's son.)
>CQ> It was Herod's sole intent to destroy the male child which could inherit his throne.
If such were his "sole intent", then why the senseless slaughter of OTHER "children"? Obviously Herod was not in his right mind.
Remember that Jesus is the Lord and be quick to receive the word of God "as it is in truth, the word of God, and not the word of men." Grace be to them that cherish the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. --Richard
| NEXT |
URL of this page: http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/b_yeshua.htm