Relationship with god?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I have read Isaiah . Not only 7:14.It seems to be a series of threatening promises of vengeance by one warring blood thirsty tribe against another. The verse regarding the young woman bearing a child seems seems to of an event to occur in the life time of the writers. Why any sane person in the 21st century would be picking through this savage drivel looking for beauty and truth is beyond me. There are far better books out there. The world would be a better place without the books of the "Peoples of Books".
I thought that would be where you got it from...
Which is all fine and dandy ........... BUT......
Isaiah didn't actually say anything about a virgin at all .......
“Matthew” maintains that 'Isaiah' had prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin:
"Behold, a virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel," – Matthew 1.23.
Matthew's source is the Septuagint (Isaiah 7.14).
But the Greek-speaking translators of this version of Hebrew scripture (prepared in 3rd century BC Alexandria) had slipped up and had translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin).
Honestly translated, the verse reads:
'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.'
The slip did not matter at the time, for in context, Isaiah’s prophecy (set in the 8th century BC but probably written in the 5th century BC) had been given as reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah that his royal line would survive, despite the ongoing siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians.
And it did. In other words, the prophecy had nothing to do with events in Judaea eight hundred years into the future!
Yet upon this doctored verse from Isaiah the deceitful scribe who wrote Matthew was to concoct the infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text had presaged the miraculous birth of Jesus.
Now I hope you won't just take my word for it........so here is a link to an on-line copy of the original Hebrew texts.....
(Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.)
See that......."the young woman"........YOUNG WOMAN......... NO mention of a virgin.
The word used doesn't necessarily mean that the woman had sexual relations yet. It means a young woman of marriageable age. Ahaz was an ancestor of Jesus, so..."The young woman of marriageable age has conceived-and bears a son, and calls Him Immanuel." It's is not specified anywhere in Isaiah (or anywhere else) how Ahaz received the sign, so it is impossible to say how he received it. If he received the sign in a vision, then he saw the Messiah's birth take place before He was born. If Isaiah meant a child of Ahaz, why is it that Hezekiah succeeded him? There is no record of any son of Ahaz called Immanuel (except for Christ) further in history (to my knowledge) or in the Bible. The name Immanuel means "God with us" yes? Christ is "God with us", for "He is with us, even to the end of the age." He also fulfilled many of Isaiah's other prophecies, as well as "being born of a young woman of marriageable age."
But let's say Immanuel WAS the son of Ahaz. Why was the son of Ahaz named Hezekiah then? It would be probably because he continued the line of Ahaz, fine, that's fair. If that's true, then Matthew made a mistake (he was only human, remember that) and thought that the VIRGIN birth of Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel. A mistranslation made him think that it was a prophecy about Christ. But, he only would have made that mistake if there WAS a virgin birth, and there was, otherwise he wouldn't have thought that the prophecy of Immanuel was being fulfilled.
But then, did Hezekiah (or another son of Ahaz) bear all our sins? Did either fulfill the Messianic prophecies? Were the children in question born of a virgin? Did either have a Galilean ministry? Did they "have their way prepared?" Where their appearances disfigured beyond that of a human? Were they widely rejected? Did they bear the sorrows of men, and their iniquities? Did they become our substitute regarding punishment for sin, voluntarily taking the punishment upon Himself? There are to many Messianic roles that Hezekiah or another son of Ahaz did not fulfil, and I didn't put all the Messianic prophecies up there.
So Hawk Flint......
Are we are agreed then....... ?
There was no prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah.....??
Your seeming obsession with names is mere disembling.....
I have to point out your line...." But let's say Immanuel WAS the son of Ahaz."
NO...lets not...lets stick to the point.....
Matthew says ,"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.
and we know now that there was no such prophecy in Isaiah....
Ahaz ,Hezekiah and their possible sons are pure red herrings. Plus your definition of "the word used" (Almah) is somewhat
disingenuous ........... here is a more perceptive rendering from an old testament expert that reflects the true situation.....
"For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses."
"In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word almah only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)"
Your position that ,"then Matthew made a mistake (he was only human, remember that) and thought that the VIRGIN birth of Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel." could possibly be worthy of consideration if it wasn't for two points....
1/ there is no evidence for a virgin birth....... ever.....anywhere.......to be sure there are stories and myths a-plenty......but evidence....none.....
there is only one way to conceive and although it may seem to be miraculous it does not involve the arch angel Gabriel...
2/ Matthew or (more correctly) the dishonest scribe who compiled what we have come to view as the Gospel of Matthew may well have been constructing a fabricated story of false prophecies for the consumption of those disaffected Jews from whom the early church drew it first recruits.
It might have been more palatable had Matthew not been caught out fabricating other "prophecies"
Right. "Disingenuous." You know, I'm almost in agreeance with you.
Unfortunately, the woman in question, because of the words used and how they were used, WAS a virgin.
Hawk Flint ...
Im sorry.......you are going to have to help me out here.....
"the woman in question, because of the words used and how they were used, WAS a virgin".....
Can you walk me through this..... the word used "almah" means young woman....(possibly a stranger)....
the word ,not used "bethulah" means virgin....by what linguistic contortions do you come to her being a virgin.......
it is plain...the Isaiah "prophecy" does not ,indeed cannot reference a virgin birth.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary.....
Read this article.
No ...I think not.....
Why would I want the outdated opinions of the peculiar baptist churches of the new world.....
Who use the unreliable King James bible and Masoretic texts to justify what is patently a partisan and dubious reading of the hebrew language.
Witness, "The King James can be used to correct the original languages."
Such arrogance ......such hubris .....such pomposity
No...I think on the whole I'll stick with the interpretations of the good Jewish Rabbi (who can actually read ,speak and understand hebrew )as opposed to those of a biased, anonymous baptist apologist.....
its sort of a "trustworthiness" issue ........ I'm sure you'll understand....
Now...would you like to try a different messianic prophecy....or are we done here ....?
If you start a new thread we can continue with other Messianic prophecies. I actually enjoy this.
Gabriel: (2) We know there exists a greater light, the sun, and the lesser light, the moon, which gives us our source of light, the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:14-18)
But a Zen koan proves that the moon is the greater, since it shines at night when we most need the light.
(8) We know that anything built must have been built by someone greater than it; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 3:2-4).
Have you ever seen a termite mound, bee/wasp nest, beaver dam? In fact, a big thing is more likely to be the incremental result of numerous small changes caused by very small things. Our planet resulted from the accretion of countless smaller rocks during the formation of the Solar System. Just a few atoms placed differently in our DNA molecules are what separate us from chimpanzees. Is there room for god in there? Because these things are very important to us, we want to think that they are the result of momentous decisions by some intelligent designer. But that's just our vanity.
Obviously, Hawk Flint and Gabriel will only misquote the great book of myths. They aren't interested in anything but reading and hearing their own voice. It's not that can't be moved by logic, reason, or even provocation. It's the fact that only hear themselves. They keep requesting for US to disprove their own myth.
So I proclaim that are nothing but trolls committing disruption by not conversing in an honest way. It has become clear to me that this forum has become their target for diruption, and not for the purpose that it is intende.
We have at least ONE theist that converses, that being Deidre. So here we go again with endless post of these two apologist engaging in just making claims and refusing to back them up, or even engaging in meaningful conversation. Now I AM provacotive...purposely, because I attempted to at least get a volume of proposed facts. No that wasn't the result. Instead just more bible quotes and a failure for meaningful discourse. It is not that I or any reasonable person (member) of this board want to actually change anyone's mind. It's that we want to teach and learn, to engage in stimulating conversation. Hawk Flint, and Gabreil are inacapable of either. Indeed we could teach them far more about their bible that they even know. Thus I conclude that they are indeed brainwashed and in need of deprogramming. Several of us have presented valid facts that they have ignored. We have offered logic that they have ignored. We have request valid information that have ignored. I request reluctantly that they be cut loose and banned from this forum.
I am in agreement with myk.
I will give one more piece of proof then, a different relative of mine has seen visions that turned his life entirely around. He felt an indescribable feeling of warmth and heard angelic voices. Many times I have doubted this, but he keeps on quoting the Bible even though he never reads it. That's the last thing I can give. And I'm not trolling, I'm DEBATING, which is why I came to this website. Now, I have not dismissed your claims, I said I can't prove His existence. What more do you want? Do you want me to leave my religion? Give me an arguable case.
I would ask a question that has more or less been asked a few times in this thread: How do you explain that other people have similar stories, supporting different contradictory religions? Are they lying? Are they being deceived? Whatever you decide is going wrong with them; how do you know that isn't happening to yourself? And why should we accept your claim and not theirs?
I have no reason beyond the fact that he abhors the Bible, yet keeps on quoting it. And before I'm banned from this forum, I would like to apologize if I caused offense to anyone. I don't mean to offend, sometimes I really do disregard the opinions of others, or it seems like I am. I'm not trying to anger anyone, I'm new to this whole Internet talking thing. And I like arguing or debating, I inherited that from my mother. Again, I apologize if I caused offense.
Hawk Flint, I see no evidence to date, of behavior for which you should be banned.
I see none either.
If anyone knows how to delete comments please let me know, I pressed the save button three times and three of the same message came up.
Note to self, don't press save more than once. Be patient.
Hawk Flint - "I have no reason beyond the fact that he abhors the Bible, yet keeps on quoting it."
What are you talking about? Who is "he"?
You aren't debating. You just keep giving these hearsay stories. You can't prove that those stories are true. You can't prove that your god exist. So YOU ARE trolling. I don't believe your relative story, and I can't because it is hearsay. You haven't proved your relative heard voices, angelic or otherwise. You haven't proved that he quotes the bible. You haven't even proved that he has never read the bible. Hell, you haven't even proved that you even have a relative. You demand by inference that we assume all these things.
So your post is a troll post. It isn't proof. It's just more of the same.
I cannot prove it for their protection. Nevertheless, to walk in obedience with God is to have a relationship with Him. Now I'm not returning, and I could care less if you think I'm trolling or if you don't accept my apology. And I'll put up a website to explain what a troller is.
*Switches to Narrator tone*
And so he left, proclaiming "Now I'm not returning, and I could care less if you think I'm trolling or if you don't accept my apology. And I'll put up a website to explain what a troller is."
One link that only proved myks point later, and the last of the 65,225th Theistic Plague(which excluded Deidre) passed from Atheist Republic, with all of its members in good conscience. But, this would not be the last Atheist Republic would see of religious people........
F.Y.I, I got 65,225 out of a random number generator.
Another cop out. You brought up your relatives, not us. I could say anything.
Hey, Hawk Flint, I met the most powerful force in the universe just moments ago. And he told me that you are a fraud.
I know it is true because I have an old grocery sack that has printing on it. The printing is the truth and the way. It has to be true because the bag is way old and besides, an old homeless man gave it to me. The man told me he had special powers and that the force was his dad.
That is a personal experience. Besides my dog saw the old man, and my dog never lies. Oh and I can't prove I have a dog because it's for his protection. So you prove it isn't true.
Sound familiar Hawk? Now don't you realize just how ridiculous everything you been posting is?
I understand that what I say is hardly believable, but that doesn't make it trolling. Just because I credit things to God that I believe are God's doing and telling others doesn't make it trolling. And yes I returned after saying I'm not returning. I changed my mind, so what?
But if even you realize it's hardly believable, why do you expect us to take it as proof? And, if you "cannot" give anything else, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE? No one is going to take you seriously. You may as well go talk to a wall!
I realize that it's hard for OTHERS to believe it. And the question was something about a RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. I simply told what I believe was God's work, nothing more.
"And the question was something about a RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD"
Yes, indeed. Here it is, strait from the original post:
"I challenge any and all to actually prove they have a relationship with a god. I hear it all the time: "God speaks to me", " I walk with god", so on and so forth. There isn't ANY evidence of this being true.
Just like all the nutcases at insane asylums that thought that they were Napoleon, they truly believe that they are Napoleon but it sin't true."
That was the "question".
Okay then, I'll play. If you understand it isn't up to atheist to disprove a god.
I started this thread a long time ago. When I began it, I requested to anyone that they prove that they have a REAL relationship with a god. To do so, they would have to provide proof of a god, AND prove that that god actually interacted with them. That is a tall order, but it is the very minimum of proof required to believe that you or anyone else actually has a relationship with a god.
That doesn't mean that you can describe "feels" or personal experiences. That means providing empirical prove substantiated by independent verification. It is what science requires of its self.
So either you can prove it or not. It's that simple. You say that it is impossible, then you ramble on about what the bible teaches. The bible doesn't teach anything. People use the bible to teach what THEY want to impose on others. The bible isn't a textbook. It's a book of allegoric fairy tales, collected from many different cultures. You may not know this but the book you call the bible today isn't even close to the original. For example, the whole resurrection story in YOUR bible, the modern bible is false. There is nothing original in the bible. They are stories from myths of other cultures, that have been adopted by christianity. Especially the story of jesus or the new testament.
Attis 1200 BCE.
Just to name a few. Every biblical story, old and new testament was taken from other myths.
Also, you should never assume that the people here don't know the bible. Some people here are biblical experts. Most if not all have read the bible many times. Most of us have had formal christian training.
So prove your god.