When did Jesus become the son of God?

Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all silent about it, though,

apparently

deeming that fact not sufficiently important to mention.

Matthew
Mat 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth

a son,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted

is,God withus.

Mat 8:29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do

with thee,

Jesus, thou Son ofGod? art thou come hither to tormentus before the

time?

Mat 26:63-64 (KJV)
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said

unto him,

I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be

the

Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto

you,

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of

power, and

coming in the clouds of heaven.
Just a taste of the numerous references to Jesus as God.
Mark
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” (Mar

1:1,

KJV)
“And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with

thee, Jesus,

thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou

torment me

not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean

spirit.” (Mar

5:7-8, KJV)
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied

of you

hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their

lips, but

their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines

the

commandments of men.
Jesus speaking of himself, as Godm reported my Mark.
Luke
Luk 4:9-12 (KJV)
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the

temple,

and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to

keep

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time

thou dash thy

foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not

tempt the

Lord thy God.
Satan thought because Jesus had set aside his Glory in heaven, to

become a

man such as us, that he was therefore as weak as man who had a

sinful nature,

could then tempt Jesus in his weakened state. Jesus did not yield

in any

manner, and flat out told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord THY

God".

I see no reason to add more verses of these men recognizing that

Jesus was

God, as these are more than enough. And I would bet that you knew

of all of

these verses before you even posted this thread.
Mary never could do anything for you, or help you in any way. She

was not

authorized to do so.
Regarding the cross.
In the Old Testament there was a plague of snakes to kill thousands

Israelis, There as a stake lifted up with a brass snake upon it and

they were

told if they looked upon that snake, they would be healed.

Afterwards, they

kept the snake for remembrance sake, but it turned into an object

of worship,

an Idol which man worshipped. Yet it had no power, but the Jews did

not care.

Finally a wise king destroyed the artifact as it took the minds of

people off

God and the Idol became god to them.
Jesus referred to that object of deliverance, and said so shall the

son of

Man be lifted up,...
Joh 3:14-15 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so

must the Son

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have

eternal life.

Many churches have the cross with Jesus on it, who worship it in

the same

manner of idolatry. Yet it will not scare away zombies, Dracula,

the undead,

any more than that brass snake could. It, like the cross was a sign

for the

time of deliverance. Neither object has any power. Yet many lose

what little

faith in God they had, when they tightly hold the cross, gave the

sign of the

cross or prayed to it, only to see nothing
change for the better.

Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every insubstantial straw you could
think of. Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites, as he's citing one of
Isaiah's prophecies and claiming it predicts Jesus. My guess is that
you know the prophecy, but just in case you don't, here's what
happened:

Ahaz: "OMG, those fuckers in Israel and Aram are gonna gang up on my
ass! I need to ask the Assyrian emperor for help!"

Isaiah: "Nah, you don't need to ask him for nuthin. Listen, King, a
young woman (NOT virgin) is gonna birth a kid and before that little
fucker is outta diapers, you ain't gonna have shit to worry about
from those assholes in Israel and Aram."

And it came true. Not long after that, Assyria invaded Israel and
Aram without Ahaz even asking them for help.

And the kid was named Immanuel, which means "God is with us", not
"God with us" as the lying christers translated it. That is, God was
with the Judeans and rescued them from Israel and Aram.

And Luke 4?? You're stretching the crap out of it. Read the previous
two temptations. Jesus references God in his responses without giving
any indication he thought it was him. To claim that's what he meant
in his response to the third temptation is ludicrous.

And the other verses you cited call Jesus the son (capital not in
original) of God, not God. Yes, of course the synoptic authors "knew"
he was the son of God. And exactly when he became God's son is
another interesting story.

It went through an evolution, and we have scriptural references for
each stage. Initially, Jesus became God's son at his resurrection.
Then it was at his baptism. Then later it was his conception. Then
he'd existed as God's son before he was born. And finally, he became
God himself. The synoptics were written after the first step had
passed to the second, but the authors still reference the first in
some verses. Off the top of my head, I can think of one in Acts, but
there are others.

Dr. Who

2023-01-03 00:57:02 UTC

Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all silent about it, though,

apparently

deeming that fact not sufficiently important to mention.

Matthew
Mat 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth

a son,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted

is,God withus.

Mat 8:29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do

with thee,

Jesus, thou Son ofGod? art thou come hither to tormentus before the

time?

Mat 26:63-64 (KJV)
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said

unto him,

I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be

the

Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto

you,

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of

power, and

coming in the clouds of heaven.
Just a taste of the numerous references to Jesus as God.
Mark
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” (Mar

1:1,

KJV)
“And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with

thee, Jesus,

thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou

torment me

not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean

spirit.” (Mar

5:7-8, KJV)
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied

of you

hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their

lips, but

their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines

the

commandments of men.
Jesus speaking of himself, as Godm reported my Mark.
Luke
Luk 4:9-12 (KJV)
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the

temple,

and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to

keep

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time

thou dash thy

foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not

tempt the

Lord thy God.
Satan thought because Jesus had set aside his Glory in heaven, to

become a

man such as us, that he was therefore as weak as man who had a

sinful nature,

could then tempt Jesus in his weakened state. Jesus did not yield

in any

manner, and flat out told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord THY

God".

I see no reason to add more verses of these men recognizing that

Jesus was

God, as these are more than enough. And I would bet that you knew

of all of

these verses before you even posted this thread.
Mary never could do anything for you, or help you in any way. She

was not

authorized to do so.
Regarding the cross.
In the Old Testament there was a plague of snakes to kill thousands

Israelis, There as a stake lifted up with a brass snake upon it and

they were

told if they looked upon that snake, they would be healed.

Afterwards, they

kept the snake for remembrance sake, but it turned into an object

of worship,

an Idol which man worshipped. Yet it had no power, but the Jews did

not care.

Finally a wise king destroyed the artifact as it took the minds of

people off

God and the Idol became god to them.
Jesus referred to that object of deliverance, and said so shall the

son of

Man be lifted up,...
Joh 3:14-15 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so

must the Son

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have

eternal life.

Many churches have the cross with Jesus on it, who worship it in

the same

manner of idolatry. Yet it will not scare away zombies, Dracula,

the undead,

any more than that brass snake could. It, like the cross was a sign

for the

time of deliverance. Neither object has any power. Yet many lose

what little

faith in God they had, when they tightly hold the cross, gave the

sign of the

cross or prayed to it, only to see nothing
change for the better.

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with
us.” (Mat 1:23, KJV)

Notice that this was the actions recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.

Not some pipe dream.

Post by Ted
Ahaz: "OMG, those fuckers in Israel and Aram are gonna gang up on my
ass! I need to ask the Assyrian emperor for help!"
Isaiah: "Nah, you don't need to ask him for nuthin. Listen, King, a
young woman (NOT virgin) is gonna birth a kid and before that little
fucker is outta diapers, you ain't gonna have shit to worry about
from those assholes in Israel and Aram."
And it came true. Not long after that, Assyria invaded Israel and
Aram without Ahaz even asking them for help.
And the kid was named Immanuel, which means "God is with us", not
"God with us" as the lying christers translated it. That is, God was
with the Judeans and rescued them from Israel and Aram.
And Luke 4?? You're stretching the crap out of it. Read the previous
two temptations. Jesus references God in his responses without giving
any indication he thought it was him. To claim that's what he meant
in his response to the third temptation is ludicrous.

SATAN knew full well to whom he was speaking, that is why he tempted him in
the manner in whcch he did. The third reply simply reinforced who he was.
Your point was that in none of these books was Jesus mentioned as God.

Post by Ted
And the other verses you cited call Jesus the son (capital not in
original) of God, not God. Yes, of course the synoptic authors "knew"
he was the son of God. And exactly when he became God's son is
another interesting story.

In koine Greek there are no capital letters. Jesus was the First Begotten
Son. It was all set before the formation of the Earth. Time was for the sake
of men alone.

Post by Ted
It went through an evolution, and we have scriptural references for
each stage. Initially, Jesus became God's son at his resurrection.
Then it was at his baptism. Then later it was his conception. Then
he'd existed as God's son before he was born. And finally, he became
God himself. The synoptics were written after the first step had
passed to the second, but the authors still reference the first in
some verses. Off the top of my head, I can think of one in Acts, but
there are others.

You have it all wrong. The OT told the story before, well before the time of
Jesus on Earth.

Ted

2023-01-04 00:36:56 UTC

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every insubstantial straw you could
think of. Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites, as he's citing one of
Isaiah's prophecies and claiming it predicts Jesus. My guess is that
you know the prophecy, but just in case you don't, here's what

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call
his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23, KJV

No. I explained to you what the prophecy originally meant and you
ignored it.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions recorded
of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled, as I already explained.
Assyria invaded Israel and Aram.

Post by Ted
two temptations. Jesus references God in his responses without giving
any indication he thought it was him. To claim that's what he meant
in his response to the third temptation is ludicrous.

SATAN knew full well to whom he was
speaking, that is why he tempted him in
the manner in whcch he did. The third reply
simply reinforced who he was. Your point
was that in none of these books was Jesus
mentioned as God.

Yes, that was my point, and you failed to refute it.

In koine Greek there are no capital letters.
Jesus was the First Begotten Son. It was
all set before the formation of the Earth.
Time was for the sake of men alone.

That's nowhere in the text of the Synoptics.

You have it all wrong. The OT told the story
before, well before the time of Jesus on
Earth.

Nowhere does the OT mention Jesus.

Dr. Who

2023-01-04 01:34:45 UTC

Post by Ted
.

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every insubstantial straw you

could

Post by Ted
think of. Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites, as he's citing one

Post by Ted
Isaiah's prophecies and claiming it predicts Jesus. My guess is

that

Post by Ted
you know the prophecy, but just in case you don't, here's what

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call
his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23, KJV

No. I explained to you what the prophecy originally meant and you
ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not familiar with the language or the
culture and are severely mistaken in their understanding of it.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions recorded
of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled, as I already explained.
Assyria invaded Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above as being the fulfillment of the
prophecy of Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy you are speaking off has
no bearing with Matt 1:23

Post by Ted
Ahaz: "OMG, those fuckers in Israel and Aram are gonna gang up on

Post by Ted
ass! I need to ask the Assyrian emperor for help!"
Isaiah: "Nah, you don't need to ask him for nuthin. Listen, King,

Post by Ted
young woman (NOT virgin) is gonna birth a kid and before that

little

Post by Ted
fucker is outta diapers, you ain't gonna have shit to worry about
from those assholes in Israel and Aram."
And it came true. Not long after that, Assyria invaded Israel and
Aram without Ahaz even asking them for help.
And the kid was named Immanuel, which means "God is with us", not
"God with us" as the lying christers translated it. That is, God

was

Post by Ted
with the Judeans and rescued them from Israel and Aram.
And Luke 4?? You're stretching the crap out of it. Read the

Post by Ted
two temptations. Jesus references God in his responses without

giving

Post by Ted
any indication he thought it was him. To claim that's what he

meant

Post by Ted
in his response to the third temptation is ludicrous.

SATAN knew full well to whom he was
speaking, that is why he tempted him in
the manner in whcch he did. The third reply
simply reinforced who he was. Your point
was that in none of these books was Jesus
mentioned as God.

Yes, that was my point, and you failed to refute it.

Post by Ted
And the other verses you cited call Jesus the son (capital not in
original) of God, not God. Yes, of course the synoptic authors

"knew"

Post by Ted
he was the son of God. And exactly when he became God's son is
another interesting story.

In koine Greek there are no capital letters.
Jesus was the First Begotten Son. It was
all set before the formation of the Earth.
Time was for the sake of men alone.

That's nowhere in the text of the Synoptics.

This is in the Old Testament.

Ted, there is a lot of things you will never know, or grasp as an avowed
atheist, or despiser of God. That is spoken of in the NT, You cannot
understand the full picture because it is spiritually discerned, and revealed
only through God.

In the OT days there were nations of people who followed other gods and were
fully aware that their Gods were less powerful than the God of Isaac, yet
they still followed their god because that is what they wanted to do. They
even admitted this to Abraham.

Post by Ted
It went through an evolution, and we have scriptural references

for

Post by Ted
each stage. Initially, Jesus became God's son at his resurrection.
Then it was at his baptism. Then later it was his conception. Then
he'd existed as God's son before he was born. And finally, he

became

Post by Ted
God himself. The synoptics were written after the first step had
passed to the second, but the authors still reference the first in
some verses. Off the top of my head, I can think of one in Acts,

but

Post by Ted
there are others.

You have it all wrong. The OT told the story
before, well before the time of Jesus on
Earth.

Nowhere does the OT mention Jesus.

Correct, it was not written in Greek, but Hebrew and it speaks about him all
over the place but by different names. Even the Jews who hate him know it.

Ted

2023-01-04 03:18:21 UTC

Post by Ted
.

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah was
NOT referring to Jesus at all in the prophecy.

Post by Dr. Who
In koine Greek there are no capital
letters. Jesus was the First Begotten
Son. It was all set before the formation
of the Earth.
Time was for the sake of men alone.

That's nowhere in the text of the
Synoptics.

This is in the Old Testament.

Where in the OT?

Post by Ted
Nowhere does the OT mention Jesus.

Correct, it was not written in Greek, but
Hebrew and it speaks about him all
over the place but by different names.
Even the Jews who hate him know it.

No. They don't. They and I know that Jesus
isn't referenced by the OT in any manner.

Dr. Who

2023-01-04 04:13:27 UTC

Post by Ted
.

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be "Some imbeciles:
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

I figured that, since it was not birth related either.

This is.

“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,
KJV)

Post by Dr. Who
In koine Greek there are no capital
letters. Jesus was the First Begotten
Son. It was all set before the formation
of the Earth.
Time was for the sake of men alone.

That's nowhere in the text of the
Synoptics.

This is in the Old Testament.

Where in the OT?

Post by Ted
Nowhere does the OT mention Jesus.

Correct, it was not written in Greek, but
Hebrew and it speaks about him all
over the place but by different names.
Even the Jews who hate him know it.

No. They don't. They and I know that Jesus
isn't referenced by the OT in any manner.

Ted

2023-01-04 04:33:42 UTC

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman having a kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what Isaiah's
prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my explanation then
read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the Septuagint
as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word for
young woman as "virgin".

And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the christers
deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's own kids
and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies as a
continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

Dr. Who

2023-01-04 05:24:33 UTC

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be "Some
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman having a kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what Isaiah's
prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my explanation then
read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the Septuagint
as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word for
young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the christers
deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's own kids
and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies as a
continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]

Virgin Birth

Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or ever
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated "virgin" for
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and for
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young, unmarried virgin
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes with man for
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have no sexual
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14; Mat
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could mean a
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of the plain
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy Spirit, it only
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect plan of
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if we
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6-7; Mat
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:5-7; and
Heb 2:6-18.

The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen 24:16; Exo
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est 2:17, Est
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa 62:5; Jer
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:4, Lam
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo 8:13);
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Eze 9:6;
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa 148:12;
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of marriageable age
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an unmarried girl
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe 1:8).

The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a maiden; an
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in every
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7, Mat 25:11;
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the root word
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).

None of these original words are used in connection with a married woman.
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is not true;
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has
never known a man.
Finis Drake

Ted

2023-01-04 07:51:19 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be "Some
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman having a kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what Isaiah's
prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my explanation then
read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

Post by Ted
as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word for
young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the

christers

Post by Ted
deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's own kids
and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies as a
continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and for
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes with man for
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing timbrels
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have no sexual
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14; Mat
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could mean a
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of the plain
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect plan of
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if we
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:5-7; and
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen 24:16; Exo
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:4, Lam
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo 8:13);
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Eze 9:6;
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa 148:12;
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe 1:8).
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in every
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7, Mat 25:11;
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the root word
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a married woman.
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is not true;
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who has
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this case, it
boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word he used
means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are lying to
you.

Dr. Who

2023-01-04 08:40:23 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman having a

kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what Isaiah's
prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my explanation

then

Post by Ted
read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

Post by Ted
as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word for
young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the

christers

Post by Ted
deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's own

kids

Post by Ted
and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies as a
continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the flesh—if

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a married

woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this case, it
boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In regards to
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of times I knew he
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the same result
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse. Eventually I
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit and wait
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like listening to good
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far more perfect
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God knows
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says to do
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't understand
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard knocks His way,
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I stopped banging my head
against the wall.

Post by Ted
... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word he used
means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are lying to
you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before her.

Ted

2023-01-04 18:10:56 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman

having a

Post by Ted
kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what Isaiah's
prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

Post by Ted
then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word for
young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's own

kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies as a
continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa 7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view of

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Ted
we

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times (Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2; Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63; Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5; Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and, in

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat 25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a

married

Post by Ted
woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this case, it
boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of times I knew he
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the same result
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit and wait
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like listening to good
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far more perfect
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says to do
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't understand
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard knocks His way,
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was contemporary
with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever read
it?

Dr. Who

2023-01-04 19:08:13 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman

having a

Post by Ted
kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what

Isaiah's

prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

Post by Ted
then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word

for

young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of Isaiah's

own

Post by Ted
kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his prophecies

as a

continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass prophet.

Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever

was, or

Post by Ted
ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen 24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies

playing

Post by Ted
timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would

have

Post by Ted
no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa

7:14;

Post by Ted
Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view

Post by Ted
the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Ted
we

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16;

Heb

Post by Ted
1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times

(Gen

Post by Ted
24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer 46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2;

Amo

Post by Ted
8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam

5:11;

Post by Ted
Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63;

Psa

Post by Ted
148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5;

Joe

Post by Ted
1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27 means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and,

Post by Ted
every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat

25:7,

Post by Ted
Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is

the

Post by Ted
root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a

married

Post by Ted
woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is

not

Post by Ted
true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid

who

Post by Ted
has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this case, it
boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of times

I knew he

Post by Dr. Who
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the

same result

Post by Dr. Who
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit and

wait

Post by Dr. Who
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like listening to

good

Post by Dr. Who
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far more

perfect

Post by Dr. Who
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says to

Post by Dr. Who
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't

understand

Post by Dr. Who
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard knocks

His way,

Post by Dr. Who
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

Post by Ted
... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word he

used

Post by Ted
means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are lying

Post by Ted
you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was contemporary
with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever read
it?

Yes, and in fact every time you have asked this question I have reviewed it
again to see if I missed anything. While I have learned to understand, far
better, and deeper than before, there is still not one thing there that
supports any woman associated with either Ahaz, the King, or Isaiah.

The prophecy of verse 14 for the future Christ, was supported by the actual
fulfillment of prophecy in verse 16, and the following scripture.

Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa 7:16. “Before this child (so
it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he means not
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him
for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this child shall know how to refuse the evil
and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature and
forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), “before
this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these
confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity
to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both
Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if
they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for
within two or three years after this, [M. Henry]

Ted

2023-01-05 02:35:32 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:24:33 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman

having a

kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what

Isaiah's

prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew word

for

young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of

Isaiah's

Post by Ted
own

kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his

prophecies

Post by Ted
as a

continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass

prophet.

Post by Dr. Who
Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever

was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen

24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies

playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who would

have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah (Isa

7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959) could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In view

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14; Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16;

Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times

(Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu

22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3, Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer

46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo 5:2;

Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam

5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa 78:63;

Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa 62:5;

Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27

means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times and,

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat

25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This is

the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a

married

woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but this is

not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any maid

who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this case, it
boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of times

I knew he

Post by Dr. Who
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the

same result

Post by Dr. Who
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit and

wait

Post by Dr. Who
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like listening to

good

Post by Dr. Who
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far more

perfect

Post by Dr. Who
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says to

Post by Dr. Who
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't

understand

Post by Dr. Who
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard

knocks

Post by Ted
His way,

Post by Dr. Who
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word he

used

means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are lying
to you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before
her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was contemporary
with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever read
it?

Yes, and in fact every time you have asked this question I have reviewed it
again to see if I missed anything. While I have learned to

understand, far

Post by Dr. Who
better, and deeper than before, there is still not one thing there that
supports any woman associated with either Ahaz, the King, or Isaiah.
The prophecy of verse 14 for the future Christ, was supported by the actual
fulfillment of prophecy in verse 16, and the
following scripture.
Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa 7:16. “Before this child (so
it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he means not
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him
for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this child shall know how to refuse the evil
and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature and
forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), “before
this child be three or four years older, the land that thou

abhorrest, these

Post by Dr. Who
confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity
to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both
Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if
they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully

accomplished; for

Post by Dr. Who
within two or three years after this, [M.
Henry]

Oh. How appallingly dishonest.

We're not explicitly told why Shearjashub (Isaiah's eldest son)
accompanied him, but I recall reading a couple of suggestions that
perhaps make sense. As I'd earlier pointed out, Isaiah named his kids
for his prophecies so they'd serve as reminders, and maybe he wanted
to remind Ahaz of the relevant
prophecy which predicted that, although Judea will go through some
rough shit, there's light at the end of the tunnel. As I said,
though, if that were his intent, he didn't bother making it explicit.

But I don't recall ever before reading the egregious lie you cited
above. Further, it doesn't even make sense, for at least three
reasons. One, because Shearjashub was likely already old enough to
"refuse evil and choose good" (and Henry claims Isaiah is holding him
in his arms??) Two, because Shearjashub's (etymological) meaning is
not at all pertinent to the context. And three, because it interrupts
the flow of the narrative. The liar tries to do a last minute sleight
of hand swap of Shearjashub for Immanuel.

This is just another example of what I meant when I told you you're
swallowing tons of bullshit from the lying christers you choose to
read.

Dr. Who

2023-01-06 05:11:25 UTC

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:24:33 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was

to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman

having a

kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what

Isaiah's

prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the Hebrew

word

Post by Ted
for

young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how

the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of

Isaiah's

Post by Ted
own

kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his

prophecies

Post by Ted
as a

continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass

prophet.

Post by Dr. Who
Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever

was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen

24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who

goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies

playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who

would

Post by Ted
have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah

(Isa

Post by Ted
7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959)

could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In

view

Post by Ted
of

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the

perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14;

Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti

3:16;

Post by Ted
Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times

(Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu

22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3,

Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1;

Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer

46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo

5:2;

Post by Ted
Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam

5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa

78:63;

Post by Ted
Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa

62:5;

Post by Ted
Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27

means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times

and,

Post by Ted
in

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat

25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This

Post by Ted
the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a

married

woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but

this is

Post by Ted
not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled virgin—any

maid

Post by Ted
who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this

case, it

boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of

times

Post by Ted
I knew he

Post by Dr. Who
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the

same result

Post by Dr. Who
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit

and

Post by Ted
wait

Post by Dr. Who
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like listening

Post by Ted
good

Post by Dr. Who
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far

Post by Ted
perfect

Post by Dr. Who
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says

Post by Ted
do

Post by Dr. Who
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't

understand

Post by Dr. Who
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard

knocks

Post by Ted
His way,

Post by Dr. Who
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word

Post by Ted
used

means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are

lying

to you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before
her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was contemporary
with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever read
it?

Yes, and in fact every time you have asked this question I have

reviewed it

Post by Dr. Who
again to see if I missed anything. While I have learned to

understand, far

Post by Dr. Who
better, and deeper than before, there is still not one thing there

that

Post by Dr. Who
supports any woman associated with either Ahaz, the King, or Isaiah.
The prophecy of verse 14 for the future Christ, was supported by

the actual

Post by Dr. Who
fulfillment of prophecy in verse 16, and the
following scripture.
Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of

these potent

Post by Dr. Who
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa 7:16. “Before this

child (so

Post by Dr. Who
it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he

means not

Post by Dr. Who
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take

with him

Post by Dr. Who
for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this child shall know how to refuse

the evil

Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature

and

Post by Dr. Who
forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be),

“before

Post by Dr. Who
this child be three or four years older, the land that thou

abhorrest, these

Post by Dr. Who
confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such

an enmity

Post by Dr. Who
to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their

kings, both

Post by Dr. Who
Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed

as if

Post by Dr. Who
they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully

accomplished; for

Post by Dr. Who
within two or three years after this, [M.
Henry]

He held his son, in his arms as he spoke.

Isa 7:16. “Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I
have now in my arms” (he means not Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son,
whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this
child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (and those who
saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how
long that would be), “before this child be three or four years older, the
land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians,
which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be
forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close
an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom.
This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this,
[Henry]

Post by Ted
prophecy which predicted that, although Judea will go through some
rough shit, there's light at the end of the tunnel. As I said,
though, if that were his intent, he didn't bother making it explicit.
But I don't recall ever before reading the egregious lie you cited
above. Further, it doesn't even make sense, for at least three
reasons. One, because Shearjashub was likely already old enough to
"refuse evil and choose good" (and Henry claims Isaiah is holding him
in his arms??) Two, because Shearjashub's (etymological) meaning is
not at all pertinent to the context. And three, because it interrupts
the flow of the narrative. The liar tries to do a last minute sleight
of hand swap of Shearjashub for Immanuel.

Obviously he was not that old and what was prophesied was fulfilled in the
Book of the Kings.

Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2Ki 15:30), and, before that,
the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2Ki 16:9. Nay, there was a
present event, which happened immediately, and when this child carried the
prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future
event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless
points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin
had carried away,

It is far easier to call others liars than to do the research necessary to
prove or disprove what was said.

Post by Ted
This is just another example of what I meant when I told you you're
swallowing tons of bullshit from the lying christers you choose to
read.

This is why one should trust in the Word of God and the Heavenly Father over
the words of men, which is exactly what you are doing.

“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of
God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and
mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Rom 3:3-4, KJV)

And as regard to "Christers" being liars? There is evidence aplenty in these
NG's of that,....

“If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
hath not seen?” (1Jn 4:20, KJV)

Ted

2023-01-07 08:49:41 UTC

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:40:23 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:24:33 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what was

to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related
either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young woman

having a

kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained what

Isaiah's

prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the

Hebrew

Post by Ted
word

for

young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and how

the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of

Isaiah's

own

kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his

prophecies

as a

continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass

prophet.

Post by Dr. Who
Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who ever

was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is

translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen

24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one who

goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young ladies

playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who

would

have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah

(Isa

7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah (H5959)

could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture. In

view

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the

perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa 7:14;

Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti

3:16;

Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38 times

(Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu

22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est 2:2-3,

Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1;

Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer

46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8; Amo

5:2;

Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22; Lam

5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa

78:63;

Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa

62:5;

Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27

means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14 times

and,

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1, Mat

25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4). This

the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection with a

married

woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but

this is

not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled

virgin—any

Post by Ted
maid

who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this

case, it

boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you. In

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot of

times

I knew he

Post by Dr. Who
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach the

same result

Post by Dr. Who
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to sit

and

wait

Post by Dr. Who
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like

listening

Post by Ted
to

good

Post by Dr. Who
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is far

perfect

Post by Dr. Who
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word says

Post by Dr. Who
something a certain way, it always works better even if I don't

understand

Post by Dr. Who
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard

knocks

His way,

Post by Dr. Who
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I

stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a virgin
because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the word

used

means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read are

lying

to you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before
her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was

contemporary

with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever read
it?

Yes, and in fact every time you have asked this question I have

reviewed it

Post by Dr. Who
again to see if I missed anything. While I have learned to

understand, far

Post by Dr. Who
better, and deeper than before, there is still not one thing there

that

Post by Dr. Who
supports any woman associated with either Ahaz, the King, or Isaiah.
The prophecy of verse 14 for the future Christ, was supported by

the actual

Post by Dr. Who
fulfillment of prophecy in verse 16, and the
following scripture.
Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of

these potent

Post by Dr. Who
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa 7:16. “Before this

child (so

Post by Dr. Who
it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he

means not

Post by Dr. Who
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take

with him

Post by Dr. Who
for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this child shall know how to refuse

the evil

Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature

and

Post by Dr. Who
forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be),

“before

Post by Dr. Who
this child be three or four years older, the land that thou

abhorrest, these

Post by Dr. Who
confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such

an enmity

Post by Dr. Who
to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their

kings, both

Post by Dr. Who
Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed

as if

Post by Dr. Who
they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully

accomplished; for

Post by Dr. Who
within two or three years after this, [M.
Henry]

He held his son, in his arms as he spoke.

The kid was 15 and likely over 100 lb.

Post by Dr. Who
Isa 7:16. “Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I
have now in my arms” (he means not
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son,

Can you not see that this interpretation interrupts the flow of the
prophecy that clearly refers to Immanuel?

Post by Dr. Who
whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this
child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (and those who
saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily

conjecture how

Post by Dr. Who
long that would be), “before this child be three or four years older, the
land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians,
which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be
forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close
an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom.
This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this,
[Henry]

Henry the liar.

explicit.

Post by Ted
But I don't recall ever before reading the egregious lie you cited
above. Further, it doesn't even make sense, for at least three
reasons. One, because Shearjashub was likely already old enough to
"refuse evil and choose good" (and Henry claims Isaiah is holding him
in his arms??) Two, because Shearjashub's (etymological) meaning is
not at all pertinent to the context. And three, because it

interrupts

Post by Ted
the flow of the narrative. The liar tries to do a last minute sleight
of hand swap of Shearjashub for Immanuel.

Obviously he was not that old and what was prophesied was fulfilled in the
Book of the Kings.

He was about 15.

Post by Dr. Who
Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2Ki 15:30), and,

before that,

Post by Dr. Who
the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2Ki 16:9. Nay, there was a
present event, which happened immediately, and when this child

carried the

Post by Dr. Who
prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future
event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which

doubtless

Post by Dr. Who
points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin
had carried away,

Yes, "return", not "survive" as I'd mistakenly written in the other
thread. Thank you.

Post by Dr. Who
It is far easier to call others liars than to do the research

necessary to

Post by Dr. Who
prove or disprove what was said.

But easier still to call a spade a spade.

Post by Ted
This is just another example of what I meant when I told you

you're

Post by Ted
swallowing tons of bullshit from the lying christers you choose to
read.

This is why one should trust in the Word of God and the Heavenly Father over
the words of men, which is exactly what you are doing.
“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of
God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and
mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Rom 3:3-4, KJV)
And as regard to "Christers" being liars? There is evidence aplenty in these
NG's of that,....
“If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
hath not seen?” (1Jn 4:20, KJV)

Yes, quite true.

Dr. Who

2023-01-08 05:00:02 UTC

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:40:23 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:24:33 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:13:27 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:34:45 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:57:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every
insubstantial straw you could thinkof.
Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites,
as he's citing one of Isaiah's
prophecies and claiming it predicts
Jesus. My guess is that you know the
prophecy, but just in case you don't,

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.” (Mat 1:23,

No. I explained to you what the prophecy
originally meant and you ignored it.

Nope, you quoted so imbeciles who are not
familiar with the language or the culture
and are severely mistaken in their
understanding of it.

I paraphrased it to make it easy for anybody
to understand.

Sorry, somehow the "me" is missing from from what

was

Post by Ted
to be

"Some

Post by Dr. Who
above.

Post by Dr. Who
Notice that this was the actions
recorded of a prophecy being fulfilled.
Not some pipe dream.

That's correct, the prophecy was fulfilled
as I already explained. Assyria invaded
Israel and Aram.

I was speaking of the verse quoted above
as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Jesus/God being born. Whatever prophecy
you are speaking off has no bearing with
Matt 1:23

"Whatever prophecy" I was speaking of is
precisely the one mentioned by Matthew in
verse 1:23. That's why I paraphrased it to
make it easily understandable. Isaiah
was NOT referring to Jesus at all in the
prophecy.

I figured that, since it was not birth related either.

Indeed it was. Isaiah's prophecy concerned a young

woman

having a

kid.

Post by Dr. Who
This is.
“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, KJV)

We already covered this three steps ago. I explained

what

Isaiah's

prophecy was about. If you choose not to believe my

explanation

then

read it for yourself. Btw, we know that Matthew used

the

Septuagint

as his OT reference because it mistranslates the

Hebrew

Post by Ted
word

for

young woman as "virgin".
And I explained why they named the kid Immanuel and

how

Post by Ted
the

christers

deceivingly mistranslated it. Btw, this was one of

Isaiah's

own

kids

and his policy was to name his progeny after his

prophecies

as a

continual reminder to folks that he was one kickass

prophet.

Post by Dr. Who
Isaiah 7:14 a[a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son]
Virgin Birth
Hebrew: ha-‛almah (H5959), the virgin—the only one who

ever

was, or

ever

Post by Dr. Who
will, be a mother in this way. ‛Almah (H5959) is

translated

"virgin" for

Post by Dr. Who
Rebekah, meaning a pure, unmarried, young woman (Gen

24:43), and

for

Post by Dr. Who
unwedded, young women (Son 1:3; Son 6:8); maid of the

young,

unmarried virgin

Post by Dr. Who
sister of Moses who was about 14 (Exo 2:8), and of one

who

Post by Ted
goes

with man for

Post by Dr. Who
the first time (Pro 30:19); damsels as used of young

ladies

playing

timbrels

Post by Dr. Who
(Psa 68:25-26). Here it refers to the virgin mother who

would

have

no sexual

Post by Dr. Who
relations until after she had given birth to the Messiah

(Isa

7:14;

Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; note, Luk 8:19). The argument that ‛almah

(H5959)

Post by Ted
could

mean a

Post by Dr. Who
young married woman is not supported in any scripture.

Post by Ted
view

the plain

Post by Dr. Who
record of Mary being a pure virgin who conceived by the

Holy

Spirit, it only

Post by Dr. Who
shows unbelief and rebellion against God’s Word and the

perfect

plan of

Post by Dr. Who
redemption through a virgin-born Man—God manifest in the

flesh—if

Post by Dr. Who
accept anything but what is plainly declared in Isa

7:14;

Post by Ted
Isa

9:6-7; Mat

Post by Dr. Who
1:18-25; Luk 1:30-38; Joh 1:1-14; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Ti

3:16;

Heb

1:5-7; and

Post by Dr. Who
Heb 2:6-18.
The Hebrew: bethuwlah (H1330), is translated virgin 38

times

(Gen

24:16; Exo

Post by Dr. Who
22:17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu

22:28; Deu

32:25; Jdg

Post by Dr. Who
21:12; 2Sa 13:2, 2Sa 13:18; 1Ki 1:2; 2Ki 19:21; Est

2:2-3,

Post by Ted
Est

2:17, Est

Post by Dr. Who
2:19; Psa 45:14; Isa 23:4, Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa

47:1;

Post by Ted
Isa

62:5; Jer

Post by Dr. Who
14:17; Jer 18:13; Jer 31:4, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:21; Jer

46:11; Lam

1:4, Lam

Post by Dr. Who
1:15, Lam 1:18; Lam 2:10, Lam 2:13, Lam 2:21; Joe 1:8;

Amo

Post by Ted
5:2;

Amo

8:13);

Post by Dr. Who
maid 7 times (Exo 22:16; Job 31:1; Jer 2:32; Jer 51:22;

Lam

5:11;

Eze 9:6;

Post by Dr. Who
Zec 9:17); and maiden 5 times (Jdg 19:24; 2Ch 36:17; Psa

78:63;

Psa

148:12;

Post by Dr. Who
Eze 44:22). ‛Almah (H5959) denotes an unmarried girl of

marriageable age

Post by Dr. Who
and therefore a true virgin. Bethuwlah (H1330) refers

to an

unmarried girl

Post by Dr. Who
and expresses virginity of a bride or one betrothed (Isa

62:5;

Joe

1:8).

Post by Dr. Who
The Greek, parthenos (G3933), in Mat 1:23 and Luk 1:27

means a

maiden; an

Post by Dr. Who
unmarried daughter; a virgin. Translated "virgin" 14

times

Post by Ted
and,

every

Post by Dr. Who
case, it means an unmarried maiden (Mat 1:23; Mat 25:1,

Mat

25:7,

Mat 25:11;

Post by Dr. Who
Luk 1:27; Act 21:9; 1Co 7:25-37; 2Co 11:2; Rev 14:4).

This

Post by Ted
is

the

root word

Post by Dr. Who
of parthenia (G3932), meaning "virginity" (Luk 2:36).
None of these original words are used in connection

with a

married

woman.

Post by Dr. Who
Some contend that they simply mean any young woman, but

this is

not

true;

Post by Dr. Who
they mean only one who is a pure and undefiled

virgin—any

Post by Ted
maid

who

has

Post by Dr. Who
never known a man.
Finis Drake

I'm not a linguist, all I know is what I read. So in this

case, it

boils down to which expert are you gonna trust ...

I study to learn but I have to be open and honest with you.

regards to

Post by Dr. Who
God, in the beginning of our relationship there were a lot

Post by Ted
times

I knew he

Post by Dr. Who
wanted my to do things his way, but I thought I could reach

the

same result

Post by Dr. Who
and do it my way. I learned that my way made things worse.

Eventually I

Post by Dr. Who
learned that when he said to do things a certain way, or to

sit

Post by Ted
and

wait

Post by Dr. Who
patiently that everything worked to my good. Its like

listening

Post by Ted
to

good

Post by Dr. Who
parents and realizing that their way is better. But it is

far

Post by Ted
more

perfect

Post by Dr. Who
with God. So I kid you not, I am still of the mindset that

God

knows

Post by Dr. Who
perfectly well what is best for me, and that when His word

says

Post by Ted
to

Post by Dr. Who
something a certain way, it always works better even if I

don't

understand

Post by Dr. Who
all about it. Odd thing is, once you go through a few hard

knocks

His way,

Post by Dr. Who
you learn and see that His way is indeed better. So I

stopped

banging my head

Post by Dr. Who
against the wall.

... wait, no it doesn't. Isaiah knew the chick wasn't a

virgin

because he's the one who knocked her up. So we know the

word

Post by Ted
he

used

means young woman, not virgin. Those christers you read

are

Post by Ted
lying

to you.

Isaiah was around a 1k years before
her.

Isaiah was almost 800 years before Jesus. But he was

contemporary

with the woman he mentioned in the prophecy. Haven't you ever

read

it?

Yes, and in fact every time you have asked this question I have

reviewed it

Post by Dr. Who
again to see if I missed anything. While I have learned to

understand, far

Post by Dr. Who
better, and deeper than before, there is still not one thing

there

Post by Ted
that

Post by Dr. Who
supports any woman associated with either Ahaz, the King, or

Isaiah.

Post by Dr. Who
The prophecy of verse 14 for the future Christ, was supported by

the actual

Post by Dr. Who
fulfillment of prophecy in verse 16, and the
following scripture.
Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of

these potent

Post by Dr. Who
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa 7:16. “Before this

child (so

Post by Dr. Who
it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he

means not

Post by Dr. Who
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to

take

Post by Ted
with him

Post by Dr. Who
for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before this child shall know how to

refuse

Post by Ted
the evil

Post by Dr. Who
and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature

and

Post by Dr. Who
forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would

be),

Post by Ted
“before

Post by Dr. Who
this child be three or four years older, the land that thou

abhorrest, these

Post by Dr. Who
confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast

such

Post by Ted
an enmity

Post by Dr. Who
to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both

their

Post by Ted
kings, both

Post by Dr. Who
Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they

seemed

Post by Ted
as if

Post by Dr. Who
they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully

accomplished; for

Post by Dr. Who
within two or three years after this, [M.
Henry]

kids

Post by Ted
for his prophecies so they'd serve as reminders, and maybe he

wanted

Post by Ted
to remind Ahaz of the relevant

He held his son, in his arms as he spoke.

The kid was 15 and likely over 100 lb.

Post by Dr. Who
Isa 7:16. “Before this child (so it should be read), this child

which I

Post by Dr. Who
have now in my arms” (he means not
Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son,

Can you not see that this interpretation interrupts the flow of the
prophecy that clearly refers to Immanuel?

Post by Dr. Who
whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, Isa 7:3), “before

this

Post by Dr. Who
child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (and

those who

Post by Dr. Who
saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily

conjecture how

Post by Dr. Who
long that would be), “before this child be three or four years

older, the

Post by Dr. Who
land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites

and Syrians,

Post by Dr. Who
which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of,

shall be

Post by Dr. Who
forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so

Post by Dr. Who
an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one

kingdom.

Post by Dr. Who
This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after

this,

Post by Dr. Who
[Henry]

Henry the liar.

That should be easy enough to prove, so how about it/

explicit.

him

Post by Ted
in his arms??) Two, because Shearjashub's (etymological) meaning

Post by Ted
not at all pertinent to the context. And three, because it

interrupts

Post by Ted
the flow of the narrative. The liar tries to do a last minute

sleight

Post by Ted
of hand swap of Shearjashub for Immanuel.

Obviously he was not that old and what was prophesied was fulfilled

in the

Post by Dr. Who
Book of the Kings.

He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Post by Dr. Who
Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2Ki 15:30), and,

before that,

Post by Dr. Who
the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2Ki 16:9. Nay,

there was a

Post by Dr. Who
present event, which happened immediately, and when this child

carried the

Post by Dr. Who
prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this

future

Post by Dr. Who
event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which

doubtless

Post by Dr. Who
points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah

and Rezin

Post by Dr. Who
had carried away,

Yes, "return", not "survive" as I'd mistakenly written in the other
thread. Thank you.

Post by Dr. Who
It is far easier to call others liars than to do the research

necessary to

Post by Dr. Who
prove or disprove what was said.

But easier still to call a spade a spade.

Not really, I seem to recall a construction site next to a RC Church where a
priest had enough of the cursing and boisterous speech, so he entered the job
site to speak to the foreman and make his complaint known, to which the
foreman responded, "Well they call a spade, a spade" to which the priest
replied, "No, they don't, they call it a F---ing Shovel"

Post by Ted
This is just another example of what I meant when I told you

you're

Post by Ted
swallowing tons of bullshit from the lying christers you choose to
read.

This is why one should trust in the Word of God and the Heavenly

Father over

Post by Dr. Who
the words of men, which is exactly what you are doing.
“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the

faith of

Post by Dr. Who
God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man

a liar;

Post by Dr. Who
as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings,

and

Post by Dr. Who
mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Rom 3:3-4, KJV)
And as regard to "Christers" being liars? There is evidence aplenty

in these

Post by Dr. Who
NG's of that,....

for he

Post by Dr. Who
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God

whom he

Post by Dr. Who
hath not seen?” (1Jn 4:20, KJV)

Yes, quite true.

Ted

2023-01-08 14:12:03 UTC

Post by Ted
Henry the liar.

That should be easy enough to prove, so
how about it/

Yes, I already did. But even if, IF Shearjashub were still a little
baby, the whole prophecy is clearly referring to Immanuel. It was
intended to reassure Ahaz. Isaiah wouldn't have prophesied Jesus
right then and immediately afterward prophesied elimination of the
current threat. It doesn't make sense. Another even if, IF Isaiah did
want to prophesy Jesus, he certainly wouldn't choose to do so just
then so that everybody from that time on (everybody except you and
Henry) would incorrectly believe it was connected with another
prophecy immediately following it.

How can you possibly not see that I'm right and that your teacher
Henry is a lying piece of shit?

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE. The Shearjashub prophecy was
prior to that. Immanuel was prophesied around 735 BCE.

Post by Ted
But easier still to call a spade a spade.

Not really, I seem to recall a construction site next to a RC

Church where a

Post by Dr. Who
priest had enough of the cursing and boisterous speech, so he

entered the job

Post by Dr. Who
site to speak to the foreman and make his complaint known, to which the
foreman responded, "Well they call a spade, a spade" to which the priest
replied, "No, they don't, they call it a F---ing
Shovel"

Haha.

Dr. Who

2023-01-08 22:54:37 UTC

Post by Ted
Henry the liar.

That should be easy enough to prove, so
how about it/

Yes, I already did. But even if, IF Shearjashub were still a little
baby, the whole prophecy is clearly referring to Immanuel. It was
intended to reassure Ahaz. Isaiah wouldn't have prophesied Jesus
right then and immediately afterward prophesied elimination of the
current threat. It doesn't make sense. Another even if, IF Isaiah did
want to prophesy Jesus, he certainly wouldn't choose to do so just
then so that everybody from that time on (everybody except you and
Henry) would incorrectly believe it was connected with another
prophecy immediately following it.
How can you possibly not see that I'm right and that your teacher
Henry is a lying piece of shit?

He is not my teacher, it is from one of his writings.

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE. The Shearjashub prophecy was
prior to that. Immanuel was prophesied around 735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when Isaiah 6 was written.

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a
throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” (Isa 6:1,
KJV)

The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC

The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,...730BC

“The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

Post by Ted
But easier still to call a spade a spade.

Not really, I seem to recall a construction site next to a RC

Church where a

Post by Dr. Who
priest had enough of the cursing and boisterous speech, so he

entered the job

Post by Dr. Who
site to speak to the foreman and make his complaint known, to which

the

Post by Dr. Who
foreman responded, "Well they call a spade, a spade" to which the

priest

Post by Dr. Who
replied, "No, they don't, they call it a F---ing
Shovel"

Haha.

Ted

2023-01-09 01:11:44 UTC

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

But Wikipedia lists Albright's estimate as the
latest in a range, the earliest being Thiele's,
750 BCE. I'd said 748 BCE and I apologize
for not remembering my source, but it's
within Wikipedia's range. (740-739 is not.)

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Yes, it is tempting to think Isaiah 10
was the occasion for Shearjashub's name,
but actually, it was Isaiah 6. The name
means "a remnant will return", but their word
for "return" is synonymous with their word for
"escape", and it refers to God's preservation
of a remnant, a tenth in verse 13. And if it weren't Shearjashub,
then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree happened in 735 BCE.)

Dr. Who

2023-01-09 04:38:07 UTC

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

Post by Ted
But Wikipedia lists Albright's estimate as the
latest in a range, the earliest being Thiele's,
750 BCE. I'd said 748 BCE and I apologize
for not remembering my source, but it's
within Wikipedia's range. (740-739 is not.)

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I usually mention it
because of its errors.

Post by Ted
But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Post by Ted
Yes, it is tempting to think Isaiah 10
was the occasion for Shearjashub's name,
but actually, it was Isaiah 6. The name
means "a remnant will return", but their word
for "return" is synonymous with their word for
"escape", and it refers to God's preservation
of a remnant, a tenth in verse 13. And if it weren't Shearjashub,
then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was named for another
prophecy, when was that one given?

Post by Ted
Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year was given for
him.

I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not for the son
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Ted

2023-01-09 08:19:56 UTC

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

Post by Ted
But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was named for another
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13, "the
Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant Shearjashub's name
references.

Post by Ted
Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year was given for
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not for the son
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a prophecy
that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much more sense
that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous with the
kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

Dr. Who

2023-01-09 18:50:46 UTC

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

Post by Ted
But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13, "the
Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant Shearjashub's name
references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Post by Ted
Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

I make no claims, that is what is written.

Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the prophecy?

Ted

2023-01-10 00:28:08 UTC

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

But Wikipedia lists Albright's estimate as the
latest in a range, the earliest being Thiele's,
750 BCE. I'd said 748 BCE and I apologize
for not remembering my source, but it's
within Wikipedia's range. (740-739 is not.)

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Yes, it is tempting to think Isaiah 10
was the occasion for Shearjashub's name,
but actually, it was Isaiah 6. The name
means "a remnant will return", but their word
for "return" is synonymous with their word for
"escape", and it refers to God's preservation
of a remnant, a tenth in verse 13. And if it weren't

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13, "the
Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant Shearjashub's name
references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?

You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen until at
least 5 years after he was born.

Dr. Who

2023-01-10 01:32:26 UTC

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was

named

Post by Dr. Who
for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13, "the
Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant Shearjashub's

name

Post by Dr. Who
references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year

was

Post by Dr. Who
given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a prophecy
that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much more

sense

Post by Dr. Who
that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous with

the

Post by Dr. Who
kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen until at
least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.

However, you are using information not verified by the Bible like the
supposed age of a child of whom no birth date was ever given that I know of.

Ted

2023-01-10 03:32:38 UTC

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:38:07 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I

usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was

named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13, "the
Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant

Shearjashub's

Post by Ted
name

references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth year

was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in 730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a

prophecy

that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much more

sense

that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous with

the

kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen until at
least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.
However, you are using information not verified by the Bible like the
supposed age of a child of whom no birth
date was ever given that I know of.

Which information am I using that isn't verified by the Bible?

Dr. Who

2023-01-10 04:57:16 UTC

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:38:07 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I

usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was

named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13,

"the

Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant

Shearjashub's

Post by Ted
name

references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth

year

Post by Ted
was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in

730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a

prophecy

that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much more

sense

that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous

with

Post by Ted
the

kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen until at
least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.
However, you are using information not verified by the Bible like

the

Post by Dr. Who
supposed age of a child of whom no birth
date was ever given that I know of.

Which information am I using that isn't verified by the Bible?

The age of the child.

Ted

2023-01-11 00:46:19 UTC

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 10:50:46 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:38:07 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I

usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid was

named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses 6:9-13,

"the

Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant

Shearjashub's

name

references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no birth

year

was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in

730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a

prophecy

that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much more

sense

that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous

with

the

kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen until at
least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.
However, you are using information not verified by the Bible like

the

Post by Dr. Who
supposed age of a child of whom no birth
date was ever given that I know of.

Which information am I using that isn't
verified by the Bible?

The age of the child.

You can use the Bible's information to figure out approximately how
old he was. Therefore, his age is indeed information verified by the
Bible.

Dr. Who

2023-01-11 01:09:21 UTC

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 10:50:46 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:38:07 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I

usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6 prophecy?

No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid

was

named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses

6:9-13,

Post by Dr. Who
"the

Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant

Shearjashub's

name

references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa 10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no

birth

Post by Dr. Who
year

was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in

730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a

prophecy

that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much

sense

that the prophecy was immediately prior to or simultaneous

with

the

kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen

until at

least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.
However, you are using information not verified by the Bible

Post by Dr. Who
the

Post by Dr. Who
supposed age of a child of whom no birth
date was ever given that I know of.

Which information am I using that isn't
verified by the Bible?

The age of the child.

You can use the Bible's information to figure out approximately how
old he was. Therefore, his age is indeed information verified by the
Bible.

Where? I have looked.

Ted

2023-01-15 00:54:32 UTC

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 17:32:26 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 10:50:46 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 20:38:07 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 14:54:37 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:00:02 -0800, Dr.

Post by Dr. Who
(in

Post by Ted
He was about 15.

You have nothing to verify that.

Of course I do. Uzziah died in 748 BCE.
The Shearjashub prophecy was prior to
that. Immanuel was prophesied around
735 BCE.

Uzziah died about 740 or 739BC when
Isaiah 6 was written.
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.” (Isa 6:1, KJV)
The prophecy of Immanuel was 735BC
The prophecy of Shearjashub was in,..
730BC
“The remnant shall return, even the
remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty
God.” (Isa 10:21, KJV)

You'd stated earlier that Uzziah died in 742
BCE and iirc you even told us your source
(Albright). And now you're adding a year or
two?

Does not the qualifier "about" mean anything?

I was not using WIKI as it is unreliable, when I do I

usually

mention it

Post by Dr. Who
because of its errors.

But even if we accept the late date of 742
BCE, Shearjashub would still be too old for
Isaiah to hold in his arms. (Henry is lying.)

Look at when the two kings were removed.

weren't

Shearjashub,

then which kid was named for the chapter 6

prophecy?

Post by Dr. Who
No, chapter six was not about the return. His other kid

was

named

for another

Post by Dr. Who
prophecy, when was that one given?

Even your lying buddy Matthew Henry says about verses

6:9-13,

"the

Lord would preserve a remnant". That's the remnant

Shearjashub's

name

references.

But the name meant, "the remnant shall return" Isa

10:20 on.

Also, stop and think, Robert. It would be
impossible for Shearjashub to have been
born in 730 if Isaiah takes him along with
him in chapter 7 (which we both agree
happened in 735 BCE.)

Who said he was born in 730? Not me. As I recall no

birth

year

was

given for

Post by Dr. Who
him.
I said the prophecy for the return of the remnant was in

730 not

for the son

Post by Dr. Who
by the same name.
If you reread what I wrote, I said, The
prophecy of Shearjashub was in 730

Then you're claiming that Isaiah named Shearjashub for a

prophecy

that he'd make over 5 years later. When it makes so much

sense

that the prophecy was immediately prior to or

simultaneous

with

the

kid's arrival, i.e., chapter 6.

I make no claims, that is what is written.
Read Isa 8:1-4, where is the roll of the
prophecy?

How is it that you can't see that 730 is impossible?
You're saying the prophecy he was named for didn't happen

until at

least 5 years after he was born.

I gave you another example to compare it with.
However, you are using information not verified by the Bible

the

Post by Dr. Who
supposed age of a child of whom no birth
date was ever given that I know of.

Which information am I using that isn't
verified by the Bible?

The age of the child.

You can use the Bible's information to figure out approximately how
old he was. Therefore, his age is indeed information verified by the
Bible.

Where? I have looked.

I've read that he was older than 15, closer to 20. I'm assuming they
had a date for when Uzziah died.

David Dalton

2023-01-04 06:58:23 UTC

I thought that, like me, he was the song of odd. :-)

--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"I gave my love a golden feather/I gave my love a heart of stone/and when you
find a golden feather/it means you'll never lose your way back home." (R.R.)

Ted

2023-01-04 07:52:20 UTC

Post by David Dalton
I thought that, like me, he was the song of
odd. :-)

Cute, I like it.

tesla sTinker

2023-01-07 18:44:45 UTC

Im•man•u•el
(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
rights reserved

Which spelling do you want? and why? The german language, the
french, ??? or greek???? The changes they post in their versions
of their own Bibles, are just bunch of crap. The have numerous other
names for the same God. As I said, which one? As in your mentality
of when did he become the son of God? That is a very dumb question, for
truth says, God is with us. Iheova. That by itself of this
particular name, tells you he was this before being in the womb of Mary.
As in similar, that would be Moses, Abraham, Do you want me to go
on as to who is the son of God? That is very foolish idea, because
none of you honor the truth as I do in the Bible. Moses also is Son
of God.

If you use the machine, put in the search engine of vulsearch, Son of
God, you get 239 places in the true Holy Douay Rheims Bible that it is
shown of.

example, this one is important, because of what it says...
Wisdom 2 old testament

13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself
the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is
grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's,
and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers,
and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth
the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his
father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what
shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if
he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from
the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and
tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us
condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had
unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived:
for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of
God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy
souls. 23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own
likeness he made him.

Wisdom 3
1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of
death shall not touch them.
2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was
taken for misery:

Well then, did Jesus really die? i have to think not. As most men are
unwise and have no wisdom. But in honor of truth, I have to declare he
did because the new testament uses this word in description of what took
place.

As far as to when, that is a stupid question. Jesus is God. Son of
God also. But then again, others were and are also called the Sons of God.

The whole of the evil of man, stems from the devil, it does not stem
from God. Pride wants proof. It is sinful.

239 times comes up. Why, because its not just Jesus. And, the book of
Wisdom set the stage for what the jews did. for they do the torture to
find the religious, Son of God, it was demanded.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law: 5 That he might redeem them who were under
the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because you
are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying:
Abba, Father. 7 Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a
son, an heir also through God.

This verse in Galatians declares, you are sons. As long as you are
under the true law.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all silent about it, though,

apparently

deeming that fact not sufficiently important to mention.

Matthew
Mat 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth

a son,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted

is,God withus.

Mat 8:29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do

with thee,

Jesus, thou Son ofGod? art thou come hither to tormentus before the

time?

Mat 26:63-64 (KJV)
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said

unto him,

I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be

the

Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto

you,

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of

power, and

coming in the clouds of heaven.
Just a taste of the numerous references to Jesus as God.
Mark
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” (Mar

1:1,

KJV)
“And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with

thee, Jesus,

thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou

torment me

not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean

spirit.” (Mar

5:7-8, KJV)
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied

of you

hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their

lips, but

their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines

the

commandments of men.
Jesus speaking of himself, as Godm reported my Mark.
Luke
Luk 4:9-12 (KJV)
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the

temple,

and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to

keep

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time

thou dash thy

foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not

tempt the

Lord thy God.
Satan thought because Jesus had set aside his Glory in heaven, to

become a

man such as us, that he was therefore as weak as man who had a

sinful nature,

could then tempt Jesus in his weakened state. Jesus did not yield

in any

manner, and flat out told him, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord THY

God".

I see no reason to add more verses of these men recognizing that

Jesus was

God, as these are more than enough. And I would bet that you knew

of all of

these verses before you even posted this thread.
Mary never could do anything for you, or help you in any way. She

was not

authorized to do so.
Regarding the cross.
In the Old Testament there was a plague of snakes to kill thousands

Israelis, There as a stake lifted up with a brass snake upon it and

they were

told if they looked upon that snake, they would be healed.

Afterwards, they

kept the snake for remembrance sake, but it turned into an object

of worship,

an Idol which man worshipped. Yet it had no power, but the Jews did

not care.

Finally a wise king destroyed the artifact as it took the minds of

people off

God and the Idol became god to them.
Jesus referred to that object of deliverance, and said so shall the

son of

Man be lifted up,...
Joh 3:14-15 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so

must the Son

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have

eternal life.

Many churches have the cross with Jesus on it, who worship it in

the same

manner of idolatry. Yet it will not scare away zombies, Dracula,

the undead,

any more than that brass snake could. It, like the cross was a sign

for the

time of deliverance. Neither object has any power. Yet many lose

what little

faith in God they had, when they tightly hold the cross, gave the

sign of the

cross or prayed to it, only to see nothing
change for the better.

Beautiful, Robert. You've thrown every insubstantial straw you could
think of. Matthew 1:23 is one of my favorites, as he's citing one of
Isaiah's prophecies and claiming it predicts Jesus. My guess is that you
Ahaz: "OMG, those fuckers in Israel and Aram are gonna gang up on my
ass! I need to ask the Assyrian emperor for help!"
Isaiah: "Nah, you don't need to ask him for nuthin. Listen, King, a
young woman (NOT virgin) is gonna birth a kid and before that little
fucker is outta diapers, you ain't gonna have shit to worry about from
those assholes in Israel and Aram."
And it came true. Not long after that, Assyria invaded Israel and Aram
without Ahaz even asking them for help.
And the kid was named Immanuel, which means "God is with us", not "God
with us" as the lying christers translated it. That is, God was with the
Judeans and rescued them from Israel and Aram.
And Luke 4?? You're stretching the crap out of it. Read the previous two
temptations. Jesus references God in his responses without giving any
indication he thought it was him. To claim that's what he meant in his
response to the third temptation is ludicrous.
And the other verses you cited call Jesus the son (capital not in
original) of God, not God. Yes, of course the synoptic authors "knew" he
was the son of God. And exactly when he became God's son is another
interesting story.
It went through an evolution, and we have scriptural references for each
stage. Initially, Jesus became God's son at his resurrection. Then it
was at his baptism. Then later it was his conception. Then he'd existed
as God's son before he was born. And finally, he became God himself. The
synoptics were written after the first step had passed to the second,
but the authors still reference the first in some verses. Off the top of
my head, I can think of one in Acts, but there are others.

Ted

2023-01-07 19:38:47 UTC

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 10:44:45 -0800, tesla sTinker

Post by tesla sTinker
Im•man•u•el
(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

All

Post by tesla sTinker
rights reserved
Which spelling do you want? and why? The german language, the
french, ??? or greek???? The changes they post in their

versions

Post by tesla sTinker
of their own Bibles, are just bunch of crap. The have numerous other
names for the same God. As I said, which one? As in your

mentality

Post by tesla sTinker
of when did he become the son of God? That is a very dumb

question, for

Post by tesla sTinker
truth says, God is with us. Iheova. That by itself of this
particular name, tells you he was this before being in the womb of Mary.
As in similar, that would be Moses, Abraham, Do you want me to go
on as to who is the son of God? That is very foolish idea,

because

Post by tesla sTinker
none of you honor the truth as I do in the Bible. Moses also is

Son

Post by tesla sTinker
of God.

Several men in the OT are called son of God. The first christers
certainly didn't mean by it that Jesus was God himself. That's just
bullshit invented later.
.

tesla sTinker

2023-01-12 02:03:36 UTC