Many doubts about Christianity

[Guest Zayit]

Matthew 2:15

And was there until the death

of Herod: that it might be

fulfilled which was spoken of

the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Out of Egypt have I called my son.

we have a prophecy by matthew of jesus being called out of egypt, but we look at Hosea 11:1

11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

in the hebrew bible and taken in context this verse has nothing to do with Jesus, or God's son, this speaks of the nation of israel being called out of egypt, the Exodus.

How does the writer take a verse out of context and says its a prophecy, I have a problem with this because as christians, we dont allow people to take Jesus' words out of context, ex

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NIV)

they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (mark 16:18)

these are 2 examples, you will say read the verse in context, but hosea 11:1 in context also, it doesnt mention a messiah, jesus, or god.

Any objections would be gladly appreciated, if you want to spew about not liking me or this, save it. I only want objectins and factual responses.

If we take everything by faith and dnt analze the facts and go with the most credible facts, then why you do even defend the faith to anyone, I guarentee you will use verse upen verse to a mormonm and back it up with scripture.

If I may help clarify? Adding To Dr's post, I would say that you need to understand a few other verses and their meanings to understand that prophecy.

Let's go back to Genesis, the beginning. Abraham, 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

How would all the nations of the earth be blessed? because the Messiah promised to Israel, through Israel was for the whole world. Jesus was the blessing to come, for then could man be reconciled to G-d.

Now let's skip ahead to John, Jesus is teaching in the temple court and he tells them :The Pharasees had questions about Jesus too, but they had an agenda, they did not want him to be Messiah, else their many sins would be revealed to all. But this is what they said:

8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. And he answered: Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 'Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

They kept questioning him and then this was said:

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Do you understand what that means?

now you questioned this passage :

11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Isreal was a child in Egypt, barly four generations since Abraham to Moses, so as a nation she would be called still a child at that time. All Jacobs sons when down to Egypt, and none came out. But we also must consider it another way. Let's go to Hebrews 7.

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The promised seed in the garden came down through Shem to Abraham to Jacob, etc, but that seed of the Messiah to come was down in Egypt within Judah and then to Pharez and Esrom who were already born when Jacob took them all down into Egypt.

[Ovedya]

he doesnt have to, I will tell you they are schemed guesses, based on NOT GIVING JEWISHNESS OF THE FAITH a chance at explanation....

they are all WRONG.

the geneologies werent intended on being a complete family tree....

they are intended in relating Jesus as the Son of David---which in Jewish thought is MESSIAH.

only orthodoxy would use ECF faulty commentary such as these.

Jesus, the Jew.

So they are wrong simply because they are not "Jewish enough."

Come on. You can't be serious.

[Ovedya]

he doesnt have to, I will tell you they are schemed guesses, based on NOT GIVING JEWISHNESS OF THE FAITH a chance at explanation....

they are all WRONG.

the geneologies werent intended on being a complete family tree....

they are intended in relating Jesus as the Son of David---which in Jewish thought is MESSIAH.

only orthodoxy would use ECF faulty commentary such as these.

Jesus, the Jew.

So they are wrong simply because they are not "Jewish enough."

Come on. You can't be serious.

its not a point of being "jewish enough", they arent JEWISH AT ALL!!!!

THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS JEWISH.

Ah, I see....

So all commentaries that are not written by Messianics, or from the Messianic perspective, are automatically wrong. Is that what you're saying?

[Ovedya]

he doesnt have to, I will tell you they are schemed guesses, based on NOT GIVING JEWISHNESS OF THE FAITH a chance at explanation....

they are all WRONG.

the geneologies werent intended on being a complete family tree....

they are intended in relating Jesus as the Son of David---which in Jewish thought is MESSIAH.

only orthodoxy would use ECF faulty commentary such as these.

Jesus, the Jew.

So they are wrong simply because they are not "Jewish enough."

Come on. You can't be serious.

its not a point of being "jewish enough", they arent JEWISH AT ALL!!!!

THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS JEWISH.

Ah, I see....

So all commentaries that are not written by Messianics, or from the Messianic perspective, are automatically wrong. Is that what you're saying?

research todays orthodoxy.

its history is in direct juxta position to anything jewish.

not what God intended.

The history of Chrisian orthodoxy in gerneral has little to do with the value of specific commentaries. You don't simply discard anything from "orthodoxy" because it's not Jewish enough, or because a large portion of Chritendom has a history of being ignorant. Apparently Martin Luther was virulently anti-Semetic, but that doesn't make all of his work wrong.

[Ovedya]

I am a little behind on this thread, but for the geneology in Matthew.

yes, there are only 40 listed, if you count Jesus.

now, lets first look at the verse pertaining to the 14.

Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

does anyone notice, I hilited David. Its because he is included in 2 SETS, of the 14.

read it again....

from abraham to David(14)

from David to babylon(14)

from babylon to Jesus(14)

both David and the carrying away, are included in 2 sets of 14. the scripture is NOT WRONG.

there are 14 listed in between each list.

Now---pertaining to the number 14.

Davids name in Hebrew is "Daleth Vav Daleth", which are the numbered postions in the hebrew alphabet----Daleth is 4th, and Vav is 6th....

see your bible for psalm 119----it should give a breakdown of the hebrew alphabet.

4 + 6 + 4 = 14

this, isnt a game. this is one way of writing for jews from one to another.

Matthew Levi---a jewish tax collector----is writing to a JEWISH AUDIENCE, ON A VERY JEWISH THOUGHT---THE MESSIAH.

the whole letter, pertains to the Jewish Messiah---who is to come from the Davidic line.

anyone notice the very first verse, says Jesus, son of David?

why not, Jesus, Son of God?

why not, Jesus, Son of Abraham?

why not, Jesus, son of Adam?

why not, Jesus, son of Joseph?

BECAUSE THE GOSPLE PERTAINS TO THE KINGDOM.

THE DAVIDIC KINGDOM, PROMISED TO DAVID IN 2 SAMUEL 7.

Matthew, and his JEWISH AUDIENCE---KNEW EXACTLY, WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.

bump for ovedya.

not my opinion.

This is one interpretation. However, the former section does not addressed the 3 generations removed from the geneaology. Without the 3 generations, with this interpretation, we are still left with 3 fewer.

I agree with the later section, that the point is to show the line of succession from David.

[Ovedya]

and everything hitler did in his whole life wasnt wrong either.

No. In fact he was quite a good artist.

[Ovedya]

understanding scripture through prayer and the Holy Spirit, is the only thing needed in guiding to truth.

ECF and all other forms of Talmud are chaff.

and yes---DEAD MEN are irrelevant also.

All the apostles are dead men.

If "ECF" (I still don't know what that means) and all other forms of Talmud (I assume by "Talmud" you mean non-canonical texts in general.) are chaff, then why did you cite the above text? Where did you get it?

I don't consider commentaries on-par with Scriptural revelation, but they certainly are a great help. Anyone who says any different, in my opinion, is trying to sell something that they truly don't believe in. Every believer at one time or another has used an extra-Biblical help as a guide to undestanding the deeper issues in the Scriptures. These things don't just come through osmosis.

[Ovedya]

I am a little behind on this thread, but for the geneology in Matthew.

yes, there are only 40 listed, if you count Jesus.

now, lets first look at the verse pertaining to the 14.

Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

does anyone notice, I hilited David. Its because he is included in 2 SETS, of the 14.

read it again....

from abraham to David(14)

from David to babylon(14)

from babylon to Jesus(14)

both David and the carrying away, are included in 2 sets of 14. the scripture is NOT WRONG.

there are 14 listed in between each list.

Now---pertaining to the number 14.

Davids name in Hebrew is "Daleth Vav Daleth", which are the numbered postions in the hebrew alphabet----Daleth is 4th, and Vav is 6th....

see your bible for psalm 119----it should give a breakdown of the hebrew alphabet.

4 + 6 + 4 = 14

this, isnt a game. this is one way of writing for jews from one to another.

Matthew Levi---a jewish tax collector----is writing to a JEWISH AUDIENCE, ON A VERY JEWISH THOUGHT---THE MESSIAH.

the whole letter, pertains to the Jewish Messiah---who is to come from the Davidic line.

anyone notice the very first verse, says Jesus, son of David?

why not, Jesus, Son of God?

why not, Jesus, Son of Abraham?

why not, Jesus, son of Adam?

why not, Jesus, son of Joseph?

BECAUSE THE GOSPLE PERTAINS TO THE KINGDOM.

THE DAVIDIC KINGDOM, PROMISED TO DAVID IN 2 SAMUEL 7.

Matthew, and his JEWISH AUDIENCE---KNEW EXACTLY, WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.

bump for ovedya.

not my opinion.

This is one interpretation. However, the former section does not addressed the 3 generations removed from the geneaology. Without the 3 generations, with this interpretation, we are still left with 3 fewer.

I agree with the later section, that the point is to show the line of succession from David.

its wasnt intended to be a full family tree geneology---that wasnt the PURPOSE of the list.

orthodoxy has MADE IT A FAMILY TREE

I can agree with you there. Orthodoxy is responsible for a lot of misunderstandings. However, that doesn't invalidate those commenraties and studies which are true.

In short, we don't need to throw that baby out with the bath water.

[JesusismyLord]

Lets examine the next possible problem with matthew,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 2:15

And was there until the death

of Herod: that it might be

fulfilled which was spoken of

the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Out of Egypt have I called my son.

we have a prophecy by matthew of jesus being called out of egypt, but we look at Hosea 11:1

11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

in the hebrew bible and taken in context this verse has nothing to do with Jesus, or God's son, this speaks of the nation of israel being called out of egypt, the Exodus.

How does the writer take a verse out of context and says its a prophecy, I have a problem with this because as christians, we dont allow people to take Jesus' words out of context, ex

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NIV)

they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (mark 16:18)

these are 2 examples, you will say read the verse in context, but hosea 11:1 in context also, it doesnt mention a messiah, jesus, or god.

Any objections would be gladly appreciated, if you want to spew about not liking me or this, save it. I only want objectins and factual responses.

If we take everything by faith and dnt analze the facts and go with the most credible facts, then why you do even defend the faith to anyone, I guarentee you will use verse upen verse to a mormonm and back it up with scripture.

you have to take the verse for what it says and it doesnt say that...if you want to go that route then we can say that

Just as jesus was the first Adam,, then Mary is the first Eve..

In the Old Testament, when the ark of covenant was carried and built, It had to be perfect to be able to hold Gods word in it, so since Jesus was Gods word, then what carried Jesus, none other than Mary, so she must be perfect(sinless). We can go on and on about other faiths taking scripture and using for there doctrines, Mormons use Ezekiel 37, the parable of the 2 sticks to say that the one is the Bible, the other is the book of mormon. Once you open the door for accepting what you are saying is accepted

The calling of Israel the Nation out of Egypt was a type and Shadow of the Messiah.

The writer of Hebrews speaks of these things and actions in the Old Testament being shadows of the more perfect thing to come. Which indeed was the Christ.

then everything goes and we have many beliefs, do you agree that this kind of guessing, or misusing phrases are dangerous to any faith. Hosea 11:1 says one thing and you cant read it for more than it is.

[Guest shiloh357]

ok, next lets move to matthews prophecy of the virgin birth, the main word from isiaih 7/:14"almah" in the hebrew means young woman not virgin, even christian bibles clearly translate the word to young woman..check out

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm

this is a christian bible. plus the fact that the prophecie was fulfilled be either isiaih own child and the prophecie was fulfilled in that time. read verse 15, butter and honey shall he eat, that he may eknow to refuse evil and choose the good. Once again if jesus was prophecied, he would never be able to choose eveil, for gd can't choose evil, its impossible to his nature.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/2virgi93.htm

OK, let's first deal with the virgin birth.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(Isaiah 7:14)

Let's break this down a bit. "Therefore Adonai Himself shall give you a sign..." The word used for sign is "ot" in Hebrew. It is the same word used in Genesis 1 where God denotes that the luminaries would be for "signs" and seasons. As used here, it denotes a pledge. or a token from Adonai. So one must ask, if it is not a virgin that is being mentioned here, but simply a "young woman," then what kind of sign would it be???? Any young woman who comes of age, can have child. That in and of itself would be no sign at all. It would not distinguish her from any other young woman.

"Behold..." This is the word "Hinnei" (Hin-nay). When Isaiah uses this word, it is always to denote a future occurrence. This was not something that was going to happen the days of Ahaz. God had given Him a pledge, a promise, a sign of something to come, not of something that had already arrived. It cannot be a reference to Isaiah's own child since his wife could not be called "almah."

"a virgin shall conceive." The word used for virgin is "almah." This is derived from Chalam[i/] or alam. Almah is one who is strong and vigorous and approaching the time of her marriage. It would not applied to young woman already married. Such a girl would be called a kallah or, "bride." "Almah" in the light of context and word usage must apply to a young virgin.

As for v. 15 It says

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

(Isaiah 7:15)

The word for "butter" in Hebrew is something like curdled milk. The word for Honey refers to the syrup that remains after wine has been boiled down and all of the alcohol has been removed. What is important to realize is that this was, in ancient Israel, the food of infant children. It was economical to have in large quantities, and it was easy on a infant's digestive system. What this is, is a testament to Jesus' human nature.

It is better rendered, "butter and honey shall he eat UNTIL He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good." It is rendered in the Septuigent as "before he knows." It gives testimony to the innocence of infants who have not yet develop the mental or reasoning skills to deal with right and wrong. This tell us, that Jesus in his humanity grew up like any other child, having to learn the same things. He was fully human, yet fully God, as he was born of virgin by the Will of God. You need to understand that Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus had the capacity to be tempted and the Bible says was tempted in all ways like we are. There is nothing contradictory about Jesus being tempted.