The Torah tells us Jesus is not the Messiah it prophesies?

[soonsister]

1 hour ago, Zach said:

I reject a the belief that person has to believe in the virgin birth as prerequisite to salvation or a condition of continued salvation.

That isn't what is being discussed here at all. 

Your issue remains with her virgin status. What you appear not to grasp is , if she was not a virgin, she as a sinner if she was not wed to Joseph.

And that then is an issue with the entire conception story. Because it would necessarily make Jesus conceived in a fallen woman. Which would mean he was not born sinless.

[soonsister]

1 hour ago, Zach said:

I can make a case for either side. I believe it doesn't matter what is believed.

Why?

[Zach]

8 minutes ago, soonsister said:

Perhaps you can educate the arrogant bumbling Christians.

Please show the verse , or the proper term that I'm missing, so as to demonstrate the error in believing Mary was a single young woman who was not a virgin.

I read you making statements about the method of interpretation Matthew used to draw this meaning from Isaiah. However, I don't read an educated proof that publishes that method here.

 

I am not saying you error in believing Mary was a single young woman who was a virgin. I'm sayings to demand that this is the only meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is an error. 

Here, I borrowed this from another site. I think it will benefit you greatly as you dig though issues similar to the one you are currently embroiled in.

THE RULES OF PARDES INTERPRETATION *

The four level of interpretation are called: Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sod. The first letter of each word P-R-D-S is taken, and vowels are added for pronunciation, giving the word PARDES (meaning "garden" or "orchard"). Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.

P'shat  (pronounced peh-shaht' - meaning "simple")

The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:

Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.

Note that within the p'shat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical. The following generic guidelines can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its p'shat:

When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll.  And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits.  And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.
When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...
Remez  (pronounced reh-mez' - meaning "hint")

This is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling a deeper meaning. There may still be a p'shat meaning as well as another meaning as any verse can have multiple levels of meaning.

An example of implied "REMEZ" Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. The p'shat would be concerned with a merchant using the same scale to weigh goods for all of his customers. The remez implies that this goes beyond this into aspects of fairness and honesty in anyone's life.

D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")

This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.

There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:

A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat  meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.
Sod  (pronounced sawd or sood [like "wood"] - meaning "hidden")

This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. Some examples of this would be the "dragon," "whore of Babylon," and number "666," all from the book of Revelation. Others would include; Yeshua's command in John chapter 6:53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Or Paul's statement in Galatians 4:26, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

EXAMPLES OF PARDES FROM MATTHEW

Examples of the Remez, D'rash and Sod, can be found in Matthew as follows. (Of course the p'shat is throughout the text.) Without knowledge and application of the rules of PARDES, these verses would either not make sense or indicate an error on the part of the author:

Remez
Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 that Matthew is applying to Yeshua. If we were to insist on a literal exegesis only and researched the quote, we would have to accuse Matthew of improperly using Scripture, as Hosea is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel, and not the Messiah. Matthew however, is hinting (remez) at the relationship between Israel and the Messiah, in this and other verses he uses.
 
D'rash
Matthew 18:18 - "... Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" This is a verse that has been interpreted in numerous (incorrect) ways due to a lack of understanding that this a d'rash (teaching) concerning decisions one makes in their personal "walk with God" (called your "halakha" in Hebrew/Judaism).
 
Sod
Matthew 26:28 - "Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, This is my blood ..." Taken literally this verse verse would not only be a violation of the Torah commandment against consuming blood, but along with other verses about eating Yeshua's flesh (John 6:51-56), could be grounds for accusations of cannibalism. There is a far deeper, more mystical meaning here however (the sod), even one that those who heard Him did not understand (John 6:52).

 

 

[Zach]

16 minutes ago, soonsister said:

That isn't what is being discussed here at all. 

Your issue remains with her virgin status. What you appear not to grasp is , if she was not a virgin, she as a sinner if she was not wed to Joseph.

And that then is an issue with the entire conception story. Because it would necessarily make Jesus conceived in a fallen woman. Which would mean he was not born sinless.

No that wouldn't be the issue, you're not taking into consideration a possible Hellenistic redaction of a Jewish Gospel of Matthew, which is beyond the scope of your thread and has nothing to do with Mary.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Zach

[soonsister]

18 minutes ago, Zach said:

I am not saying you error in believing Mary was a single young woman who was a virgin. I'm sayings to demand that this is the only meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is an error. 

Here, I borrowed this from another site. I think it will benefit you greatly as you dig though issues similar to the one you are currently embroiled in.

THE RULES OF PARDES INTERPRETATION *

The four level of interpretation are called: Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sod. The first letter of each word P-R-D-S is taken, and vowels are added for pronunciation, giving the word PARDES (meaning "garden" or "orchard"). Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.

P'shat  (pronounced peh-shaht' - meaning "simple")

The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:

Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.

Note that within the p'shat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical. The following generic guidelines can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its p'shat:

When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll.  And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits.  And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.
When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...
Remez  (pronounced reh-mez' - meaning "hint")

This is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling a deeper meaning. There may still be a p'shat meaning as well as another meaning as any verse can have multiple levels of meaning.

An example of implied "REMEZ" Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. The p'shat would be concerned with a merchant using the same scale to weigh goods for all of his customers. The remez implies that this goes beyond this into aspects of fairness and honesty in anyone's life.

D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")

This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.

There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:

A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat  meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.
Sod  (pronounced sawd or sood [like "wood"] - meaning "hidden")

This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. Some examples of this would be the "dragon," "whore of Babylon," and number "666," all from the book of Revelation. Others would include; Yeshua's command in John chapter 6:53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Or Paul's statement in Galatians 4:26, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

EXAMPLES OF PARDES FROM MATTHEW

Examples of the Remez, D'rash and Sod, can be found in Matthew as follows. (Of course the p'shat is throughout the text.) Without knowledge and application of the rules of PARDES, these verses would either not make sense or indicate an error on the part of the author:

Remez
Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 that Matthew is applying to Yeshua. If we were to insist on a literal exegesis only and researched the quote, we would have to accuse Matthew of improperly using Scripture, as Hosea is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel, and not the Messiah. Matthew however, is hinting (remez) at the relationship between Israel and the Messiah, in this and other verses he uses.
 
D'rash
Matthew 18:18 - "... Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" This is a verse that has been interpreted in numerous (incorrect) ways due to a lack of understanding that this a d'rash (teaching) concerning decisions one makes in their personal "walk with God" (called your "halakha" in Hebrew/Judaism).
 
Sod
Matthew 26:28 - "Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, This is my blood ..." Taken literally this verse verse would not only be a violation of the Torah commandment against consuming blood, but along with other verses about eating Yeshua's flesh (John 6:51-56), could be grounds for accusations of cannibalism. There is a far deeper, more mystical meaning here however (the sod), even one that those who heard Him did not understand (John 6:52).

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Zach said:

No that wouldn't be the issue, you're not taking into consideration a possible Hellenistic redaction of a Jewish Gospel of Matthew, which is beyond the scope of your thread and has nothing to do with Mary.

Now I know where you're coming from. Thank you for your time.

[soonsister]

To continue my first post invitation for discussion here.

 

I've considered the input of all the kind hearts here who share their thoughts and far more vast understanding of the faith than this relative new member of it. And I also went browsing for some key points that were made.

With regard to the pagan influenced Helenized scriptures , which I found intriguing , I found those claims  have long been addressed by scholars. And refuted.

I will share a brief part of this article below to that effect: My source is: UK Apologetics / Was Early Christianity Corrupted by 'Hellenism'? Dr. Paul R. Eddy Assistant Professor of Theology, Bethel College, Sty. Paul, MN http://www.ukapologetics.net/hellenism.htm

When it comes to early Christianity, it is clear that the religious influences are Jewish rather than Hellenistic paganism. The essence of the Christian Gospel is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of all the Old Testament covenantal promises through the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. It is the climax of the history of Yahweh-God's dealings with the Jewish people through a series of covenants, culminating in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. It is a Jewish worldview that dominates the Gospel, not that of paganism. Gregory Dix's conclusions on the question of the Hellenization of the Gospel confirm this claim: the central core of the Gospel consists of "a Jewish Monotheism and a Jewish Messianism and a Jewish Eschatology; which is expressed in a particular pattern of worship and morality."

This conclusion does conflict with what used to be a popular view of Christian origins in the early twentieth-century. This view, held by a group, of critical scholars known as the 'History of Religions School,' claimed that many early Christian beliefs and practices were actually borrowed from Hellenistic pagan 'mystery cults.' In recent years, however, this view has largely been abandoned by the scholarly world. The evidence now demonstrates that early Christianity is best understood as arising from the Jewish thought world. In his book, Christianity and the Hellenistic World, philosopher Ronald Nash wrestles with the claims of the History of Religions School. His findings are worth noting:

 

I also sought more information in the book of Isaiah and found this table of comparisons. It looks at the prophecies in Isaiah concerning Messiah and parallels their fulfillment in the new testament scriptures.

Agape Bible Study: ISAIAH'S PROPHECIES OF THE MESSIAH FULFILLED IN JESUS OF NAZARETH http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Isaiah's Messianic Prophecies.htm

 

I'm quite pleased with the findings. If there are any others out there that may be concerned as I was in reading the article I posted , it is my hope that these resources will help with our understanding.

 

 

[Zach]

On January 1, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Abdicate said:

P.S. On my site, I have a calendar converter, and according to Google Analytics, a number of my visitors are from Israel, so I must have something correct. Plus it might be the only calendar online that is perpetual using the current calendar calculations.

Thanks! I checked it out and its awesome, took 10 years! And you have it right! You know of course this means the 6th millennium is just around the corner!

hey, maybe Trump is the anti Christ bringing world peace this year for 3.5 years then war 3.5 years then Messiah in 6000! Lol!

thanks again for the link to your site, my little iPad couldn't handle everything, but when I get back to work, I'll check it out on a real computer.

[Ezra]

10 hours ago, Zach said:

I can make a case for either side. I believe it doesn't matter what is believed.

Really? Then why do you bother? However, if it matters to God, it should matter to all men.

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Really? Then why do you bother? However, if it matters to God, it should matter to all men.

If the virgin birth mattered that much, then why doesn't Scripture make belief in it a prerequisite for salvation? 

It is telling that mainstream Christianity makes it a prerequisite and the result is division in the body of Christ.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Zach

[Guest shiloh357]

19 minutes ago, Zach said:

If the virgin birth mattered that much, then why doesn't Scripture make belief in it a prerequisite for salvation? 

It is telling that mainstream Christianity makes it a prerequisite and the result is division in the body of Christ.

 

Why does something have to be a prerequisite for salvation for it to be important?   The virgin birth proves Jesus' Deity and the Bible clearly states that Jesus was born of a virgin in both Old and New Testaments.   So why would a follower of Jesus diminish the importance of something the Bible feels is important enough to state more than once?