If Mary was told to call her son "Immanuel," why did they end up naming him Jesus? Seems like this went against God's command. Now, let's hear it from all you xians out there who cover up the truth with lies to promote the myth!
What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I'm not expert on this, but I think Jesus's Hebrew name was actually Jeshua, or something similar. "Jesus" is a Latinisation.
The word "Christ" is more of a title than a name.
I'm not sure about "Immanuel", but I suspect it is also more of a description than a given name.
The word "Christ" is more of a title than a name.
I'm not sure about "Immanuel", but I suspect it is also more of a description than a given name.
The passage from which Matthew stole this concept is Isaiah 7:14, where Isaiah is trying to comfort King Ahaz (who feared that Judah would be destroyed by the ongoing attacks from Israel and Syria) by promising him a sign. The sign was a child who would be born to a young woman (the Hebrew word Isaiah used here was "almah," meaning "young woman," but was erroneously translated to "parthenos," meaning "virgin," in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint), and according to Isaiah, before this child was old enough to know right from wrong, Syria and Israel would be laid to waste. The child whose birth Isaiah foretold, was his own child by the "prophetess" (more than likely, his own wife), as revealed in Isaiah Chapter 8, particularly in verses 3, 4, 8, 10 and 18.
Jesus was nothing more than a stumblingblock to Jews who did not faithfully study and understand the scriptures (as every Jew was expected to do). Anyone who had any knowledge at all about what the OT scriptures actually said would not have fallen for this obvious lie, but many others shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken (see Isaiah 8:13-15).
By the way, Jesus wasn't born for another 700+ years after Isaiah's "prophesy," which would have been a very long time for King Ahaz to wait for his "sign."
Re: Re: What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?
Thanks for your excellent post. I recently read about King Ahaz and the alleged "prophecy" about the child being born. You are correct. By the way, what was going on between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT--about 700 years or so?
Thanks for your excellent post. I recently read about King Ahaz and the alleged "prophecy" about the child being born. You are correct. By the way, what was going on between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT--about 700 years or so?
This is what a Rabbi told me.
There are some known corruptions within the the massorite bible. The septuagint at least we know was accurate enough to have been used by Jesus' early followers. It was also reviewed by Origin who only found minor faults in it concluding that it was a good translation. Take Isaiah 63:9, for example; the translation of the Septuagint says <blockquote>I remembered the mercy of the Lord, the praises of the Lord in all things wherein he recompenses us. The Lord is a good judge to the house of Israel; he deals with us according to his mercy, and according to the abundance of his righteousness. 8 And he said, Is it not my people? the children surely will not be rebellious: and he became to them deliverance 9 out of all their affliction: not an ambassador, nor a messenger, but himself saved them, because he loved them and spared them: he himself redeemed them, and took them up, and lifted them up all the days of old. 10 But they disobeyed, and provoked his Holy Spirit: so he turned to be an enemy, he himself contended against them. 11 Then he remembered the ancient days, saying, Where is he that brought up from the sea the shepherd of the sheep? where is he that put his Holy Spirit in them? 12 who led Moses with his right hand, the arm of his glory? </blockquote> However, most bibles even english translation will use something like <blockquote>In all their distress he too was distressed and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifeted them up and carried them all the days of old. Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. The his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people--where is he who brought them through the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand(NIV).</blockquote>
As you can see, the meaning is different.
Nevertheless, Almah has probalby not been corrupted and we probably can find commentation on it before the Jewish council. However, this is not to say that virgin is flawed translation because almah means an unmaried women. This <a href="http://www.orthodoxanswers.com/orthbible-bnl.php">article</a> says that almah is a corruption of the original hebrew and it is quite strange for an unmarried women to give birth. Not naturally, of course, but if the birth was the result of a natural union, it would be a befitting sign to make the son a bastard. http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html
As you can see, the meaning is different.
Nevertheless, Almah has probalby not been corrupted and we probably can find commentation on it before the Jewish council. However, this is not to say that virgin is flawed translation because almah means an unmaried women. This <a href="http://www.orthodoxanswers.com/orthbible-bnl.php">article</a> says that almah is a corruption of the original hebrew and it is quite strange for an unmarried women to give birth. Not naturally, of course, but if the birth was the result of a natural union, it would be a befitting sign to make the son a bastard. http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html
I'm not quite sure what you are asking here, but the original Hebrew, from which the Septuagint translation was made, used the word, "almah", which you can see for yourself by clicking on the Concordance for Isaiah 7:14 at the Blue Letter Bible site. If you click on the Strong's number for almah [05959], you will see the following:
virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
++++
There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
However, if you look up the 7 instances of the word "almah" in the OT, you will find the following passage listed among them, where "almah" was translated to "maid":
Proverbs 30:18-20:
There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid. Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
The "maid" in this passage doesn't sound too virginal to me, unless perhaps that last sentence gives us a clue as to how she might technically still be a virgin. You think maybe the author was an ancestor of Bill Clinton?
You will also see that the root word for almah is "elem," which simply means "young man," and says nothing about his sexual experience.
The name Immanuel in this context, isn't a title but a characterization, like in Isaiah 9:6. This didn't mean that his name would be Wonderful Counselor; it would just be a description of his character. Indeed he was Immanuel, God with us.
Why bother creating a thread asking a question that you've already made up your mind as to the answer?
Re: Re: What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?
Nothing in Isaiah refers to Jesus.
Nothing in Isaiah refers to Jesus.
And you are sure of this because.....? Do you ignore passages like 9:1, 2; 53rd chapter; and the many more like it?
You'll probably say that Paul searched the scriptures and made up the story. Then why did ANYONE back then believe what he was teaching, that Christ was the savior of the World? If the stuff that happened to Jesus were a figment of Paul's imagination, then why didn't the Pharisees/Rome simply give proof that the stuff never happened(ex. show that they have no records of Jesus dying, his preaching, etc.)? His teachings obviously had some weight, some validity to it because these measures weren't taken. They would have killed off Paul's message pretty quickly, as well as the rest of the Apostles', and thus made their lives a little bit easier. And seemingly no one can explain why Paul would fabricate a story, and then die for it.
You'll probably say that Paul searched the scriptures and made up the story. Then why did ANYONE back then believe what he was teaching, that Christ was the savior of the World? If the stuff that happened to Jesus were a figment of Paul's imagination, then why didn't the Pharisees/Rome simply give proof that the stuff never happened(ex. show that they have no records of Jesus dying, his preaching, etc.)? His teachings obviously had some weight, some validity to it because these measures weren't taken. They would have killed off Paul's message pretty quickly, as well as the rest of the Apostles', and thus made their lives a little bit easier. And seemingly no one can explain why Paul would fabricate a story, and then die for it.
----------
M*W: "The problem with Christians reading the Jewish Bible, which they refer to as the "old testament", is the unknowledgable Christian knows nothing about the Jewish history. On the other hand, Christian Pastors know the truth. But they have to preach the "Christian
spin" which is, everything refers to Jesus.
When reading Isaiah 53:4 in the Hebrew language which is the SOURCE of the Holy Bible, the Hebrew word "nagua", which means stricken, refers to one who has been stricken with leprosy, as seen in 2 Kings 15:5. Was Jesus ever stricken with leprosy?
King Uzziah (2 Kings 15:1), although he was a good king towards his
people during his long reign of fifty-two years, failed in his first
duty under God by allowing the worship of strange gods within the
land. Added to his fault he ambitiously took upon himself to enter the temple and assuming the priestly office went on to burn the sacred incense before the God of Israel. For this intrusion into holy places and allowing Jews to worship idols, he was smitten by God with the dreaded disease of leprosy and so remained a leper isolated from his people unto the day of his death. Question: So how does this fit into the "suffering servant" in Isaiah?
The link is clear and plainly stated in Isaiah 1:1 where we read,
"the vision of Isaiah in the days of Uzziah. Isaiah was a contemporary of King Uzziah and lived through to the time of the king's death. Isaiah was well acquainted with Uzziah's experience (Isaiah 6:1). It seems the lesson Isaiah is putting before his people is, "Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under God's hand for you the back slidden servant nation of Israel" (Isaiah 53:6).
Let's read Isaiah 53 with this Jewish concept of King Uzziah, the way
Isaiah was writing it - not the way Christians see Jesus in every
line.
Verse 2 : "He shot up as a sapling" - Due to his father's death in
battle, Uzziah had to take the throne at the early age of sixteen
years.
Verse 3: "Despised and forsaken by men, a man of pains and accustomed
to illness and as one who hides his face from us; despised, and we
esteemed him not." This clearly tells the sad tale of a man with
leprosy. Was Jesus "accustomed to illness"?
Verse 6: "We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on
his own way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us." It seems the lesson Isaiah is putting before his people is, "Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under God's hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel.
Verse 8: "He was taken away" - Due to his affliction as a leper he was taken away from the royal palace, his court and people, to spend his life in a house of isolation unto the day of his death. "For he was cut off out of the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, was he stricken". The Jews under King Uzziah began to worship idols, Uzziah was stricken (nagua). It is obvious, the comparisons between the experiences of the historical King Uzziah are so numerous that one can conclude that Isaiah is here describing the king and not Jesus on a cross.
Israel is portrayed as a "suffering servant" because of its anointed
leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper is a
suffering servant of God.
Think about it - if Isaiah, 300 years before was prophesying about
Jesus, why did not one of Jesus' disciples recognize the comparisons
of Isaiah 53 and Jesus? If the disciples knew that Isaiah was talking
about Jesus, wouldn't they have said, "Hurray, prophecy is coming
true"? But they didn't.
Christian apologists say these disciples were not learned men - that
they did not know the Jewish Bible. Really? What about Matthew? If
Matthew did not know the Jewish Bible, how could he have said over and over; "as was written", or "as prophesied", or "as the prophets said"? Why didn't Matthew see the comparison and say something like, "praise God, prophecy is coming true as was told by the prophet"?
Too bad the Christian Pastors cannot tell the real truth of the story. Why is it so necessary for the so-called "Old Testament" to relate to Jesus? Can't Christianity stand on its own virtues without altering the Jewish Bible?
Ever hear the saying; "the truth shall set you free"? Well,
unfortunately for Christians, the truth is in the Jewish Bible when
you read it in its original Hebrew.
PS: Who does the Tanakh identify as the "Servant"? Isaiah says Israel
is six times. Psalms 136:22 says Israel and Jeremiah 30:10 also says
it is Israel. Nowhere is another entity mentioned."
Source: Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, by Shmuel Golding
Visit the Truth-of-Judaism Web Site
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
This analysis is seeing the similarities but disregarding the differences. Why isn't verse 5 included "For our transgressions he was wounded, for our iniquities he was wounded; the chastisement for our peace was born upon him(did Israel receive peace because of Uzziah's leprosy?) and by his stripes we are healed(was anybody healed b/c of his leprosy?) Did Uzziah intercede for his transgressors like it says at the end of verse 12?
What's so far-fetched about that?
It's a bit difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. They couldn't exactly go into their database of executed criminals who made messianic claims, and determine that there was never a Yeshua ben Yosuf (or perhaps, Yeshua ben Miriam?) among them, could they? On the other hand, where are the records of such a man? If they had ever existed, they surely would have been produced long before now.
I'm sure many people did consider Paul's claim to have met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus to be a figment of his imagination, but we are only hearing from him and from those who happened to believe his claims. The new religion wasn't spread by those who dismissed Paul's stories, after all. And you can't possibly believe that the opinions of those more rational beings would have actually been included in the bible, can you?
The teachings were nothing new, other than the packaging, perhaps. As for Paul dying for his fabricated story - what else is new? Ever heard of Jim Jones? David Koresh? Marshall Herff Applewhite? How was Paul any different from those nut-jobs?
Not the point. Had Jesus just been a fictional character, then the Jews in general would have said "stupid, he doesn't exist." From that, Christianity never gets off the ground.
Exactly. Surely records of this effect existed in some form. These would have been pulled out to prove that Jesus was just a hallucination of Paul. But they weren't.
The religion per se wasn't spread by unbelievers, but the fact that the cornerstone of the religion did indeed exist was spread by unbelievers. Guys like Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Talmud, etc. Also if Christianity been created by Paul, then what ancient author affirms this belief?
But no one was writing about him until after his alleged death. I imagine it was a lot harder at that time to prove that someone never existed than it is now. Even now that would be difficult to prove.
Now you're simply not making sense. What records would have proven Jesus didn't exist? If he didn't exist, then no records of him would have existed either. Nor would there have been a record that showed he didn't exist. Have you ever heard of a non-birth certificate? How about a non-death certificate? How about a Roman court record that shows a non-execution order?
None of those writers were contemporaries of Jesus, so whatever they wrote about him is 100% hearsay. Therefore none of their writings about him count as proof of his existence, any more than what I write about Jesus counts as proof of his existence. It would be kind of like having absolutely no record of Abraham Lincoln's birth, life or death, other than what was written 30 years or more after his death by people who never even knew him when he was alive. It's unthinkable that such a thing would happen with such an influential historical personage, wouldn't you agree?
Besides, most of what Josephus allegedly wrote is known to be Christian interpolation, and can probably be attributed to Eusebius, who "discovered" it around the beginning of the fourth century. You've got to wonder why Christians felt the need to invent such "proof" of Jesus' life.
If Jesus hadn't existed, then no one would have payed attention to Paul because they would have known that he[Jesus] didn't exist.
Then those against Paul and the apostles at that time would have made that evident.
Before the invention of the television and satellite radio, there would have been no way historians could have seen all that they recorded. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have much history at all. If you went by that, then there would be no history books at all.
To a lot of people, he was nothing more than a blasphemer and/or a threat to authority. Nothing more.
Besides, most of what Josephus allegedly wrote is known to be Christian interpolation, and can probably be attributed to Eusebius, who "discovered" it around the beginning of the fourth century. You've got to wonder why Christians felt the need to invent such "proof" of Jesus' life.
Ok so you doubt Josephus's stuff. Thats fine. But how do you account for the others?
Paul never met Jesus, so even Paul didn't know for sure if Jesus existed. He assumed. Most of Jesus's earlier followers hadn't met him in person but had visions of him. It's quite possible that Paul made the whole thing up. When Paul had an epileptic attack on the Road to Damascus and fell off his horse, he hit his head on a rock and saw stars and visions of messiahs.