messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#164 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is when I pointed out to you that I googled Isaiah 53 and picked the first result that came up and copied and pasted the part I wanted into the thread. But hey why take my word for it? Google it (Isaiah 53) and go the the first result and see if it says Offspring or seed. Nonetheless the fact remains that Jesus had no seed/offspring. To assume that its talking of herbal seeds or metaphorical seeds is just guessing at best. The fact it says prolonged days afterwards tells us that it meant LITERAL offspring/seed. Which can mean the same as you know and I do.
<quoted text>
I said you attacked me cuz you called me a muslim (though Im obviously not one) and said I changed scripture to say offspring when it said seed (again when I obviously didnt change anything of )
The offering is metaphorical not literal. Which is why it says AFTER he has suffered he will see the light of life. Well how can that be if he is dead after he was made an offering?
Where did I claim the heading of the gospel of matthew was wrong? WHat I did say is that he claimed prophecies that were not prophecies at all along with other places in the NT.
.
<quoted text>
And this is when I pointed out to you that I googled Isaiah 53 and picked the first result that came up and copied and pasted the part I wanted into the thread.
.
Then maybe it should be a good idea for you to read and understand what you post. In either case you wrote it and then claimed you didn't.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#165 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Make a definitve statement. Is the seed of the serpent physical seed or not?
As I said it could be either. What I do know is that the sons of God (not humans) had wives and children so that could easily be the seed of bright one in Genesis. But I will not claim to say that its literal or not because it could be either.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#166 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
No not correctly. Bethulah = virgin. The word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah which is better translated as YOUNG WOMAN. Even if we take it to mean virgin, it still doesnt excuse Matthew for turning it into a messianic prophecy when it isnt one. Among other verses the NT twists into prophecies
.
1. you don't have the qualifications to tell us it means "young woman".
2. were young women in Israel non-virgins?
3. the Aramaic version of this text uses the form of betulah.
4. Can you find anywhere in the TNK is used of a non-virgin?
5. ELS sequences are found in this passage, one of which the tav in betulah is found in the word for sign, telling us the sign is the virgin.
6. In the word Emmanuel are found three sequences:
a. Miriam - his mother
b. offering - his purpose for being born
c. my son - his Father
.
Did Matthew put those sequences there?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#167 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said it could be either. What I do know is that the sons of God (not humans) had wives and children so that could easily be the seed of bright one in Genesis. But I will not claim to say that its literal or not because it could be either.
.
If you can't make a definitive statement here why should I trust you can make a definitive statement as to Is 53:10?
.
It seems to me the only difference is that if non-physical seed is the meaning of Is 53:10 you have a problem.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#168 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know Hebrew doesnt translate to english 100% right? So there are times when words need to be inserted and taken out so it makes sense in our language? That sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE. And shows you do not know Hebrew. He will see seed? Really?
<quoted text>
You do not know Hebrew bro. You just went to biblecc and thought that you understood what it means. I dont need to go to bible college to understand the bible. They can be biased and will teach people based on the particular college's beliefs. Which is why you're telling me that the suffering servant is one man and why you (or someone else) tried to assert that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus
<quoted text>
I dont want to sit here and here you talk of someone seeing seed as if that makes sense lol. This is not what the thread is about. Because as we see it cannot apply to Jesus anyways. Since Jesus did not live a prolonged life nor did he see "seed" lol. He died early and childless according to scripture. And nowhere did he mention those that believe him or as he does becoming his seed. So either way its wrong to give that to Jesus =/
<quoted text>
Or they would think that Israel was chosen to be a servant to God Almighty but did not always fulfill that purpose the way they were supposed to. They wouldnt transform the servant from being a nation to ONE PERSON with NOTHING from scripture to point to this change. Besides you were supposed to show where the messiah would die for everyone's sins were you not?
<quoted text>
Yes it does. Because it said that the servant would see HIS (Oh yea the Hebrews didnt mean it to be HIS seed but just seed as if that makes sense lol) seed. So if the HIS aint there what is it saying? He will see seed and prolonged days? That makes no sense
I've already asked you where Jesus said that those that believe in him are his seed/offspring? Better yet can you show me where God Almighty said that people of the faith are children of Abraham and that the promise made to Abraham wasnt to his PHYSICAL descendants?
.
<quoted text> He died early and childless according to scripture.
.
What scripture tells us that he was childless?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#169 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not physical. The seed could easily refer to the sons of God in genesis 6 that had children with human women.
This is getting ridiculous. Why are you trying to tell me that the seed in Isaiah 53 can be non physical because in another place (that is not even in Hebrew scripture) is not physical? Also trying to use Genesis 1 (herb bearing seed) to show me the same? It makes no sense and just shows you grasping for straws.
<quoted text>
Sorry God Almighty said not to put my trust in men. But if Jesus is god according to you he would state this right?
<quoted text>
So sons of God is not referring to angels but spiritual seed? Why would God consider it evil that the sons of God took women for wives if they were men? You make absolutely no sense.
<quoted text>
Where is there body? Is it there in the tomb? Is Moses body anywhere to be found? How do you know Peter and Paul are buried in Rome?
.
<quoted text>
Sorry God Almighty said not to put my trust in men. But if Jesus is god according to you he would state this right?
.
He did tell us he was G-d:
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
.
His disciples tell us he is G-d:
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
.
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
.
He told us he would raise himself from the dead:
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#170 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not physical. The seed could easily refer to the sons of God in genesis 6 that had children with human women.
This is getting ridiculous. Why are you trying to tell me that the seed in Isaiah 53 can be non physical because in another place (that is not even in Hebrew scripture) is not physical? Also trying to use Genesis 1 (herb bearing seed) to show me the same? It makes no sense and just shows you grasping for straws.
<quoted text>
Sorry God Almighty said not to put my trust in men. But if Jesus is god according to you he would state this right?
<quoted text>
So sons of God is not referring to angels but spiritual seed? Why would God consider it evil that the sons of God took women for wives if they were men? You make absolutely no sense.
<quoted text>
Where is there body? Is it there in the tomb? Is Moses body anywhere to be found? How do you know Peter and Paul are buried in Rome?
.
<quoted text>
So sons of God is not referring to angels but spiritual seed? Why would God consider it evil that the sons of God took women for wives if they were men? You make absolutely no sense.
.
The angels are the spiritual seed as they are not physical seed.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#171 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is when I pointed out to you that I googled Isaiah 53 and picked the first result that came up and copied and pasted the part I wanted into the thread. But hey why take my word for it? Google it (Isaiah 53) and go the the first result and see if it says Offspring or seed. Nonetheless the fact remains that Jesus had no seed/offspring. To assume that its talking of herbal seeds or metaphorical seeds is just guessing at best. The fact it says prolonged days afterwards tells us that it meant LITERAL offspring/seed. Which can mean the same as you know and I do.
<quoted text>
I said you attacked me cuz you called me a muslim (though Im obviously not one) and said I changed scripture to say offspring when it said seed (again when I obviously didnt change anything of )
The offering is metaphorical not literal. Which is why it says AFTER he has suffered he will see the light of life. Well how can that be if he is dead after he was made an offering?
Where did I claim the heading of the gospel of matthew was wrong? WHat I did say is that he claimed prophecies that were not prophecies at all along with other places in the NT.
.
<quoted text> I said you attacked me cuz you called me a muslim.
.
What's wrong with being a muslim? Are you saying calling you a muslim is an evil thing?
LGK

Oswestry, UK

#172 Feb 16, 2013
Troth for Leogere wrote:
Good gawd NO!
There are 7,432 different gods..
Wrong, there are more. Many, many more gods but there's only one God. The trick is to separate the "g's" from the G. Be careful with this, eternity is a very, very long time - you want to spend with the right company.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#173 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not physical. The seed could easily refer to the sons of God in genesis 6 that had children with human women.
This is getting ridiculous. Why are you trying to tell me that the seed in Isaiah 53 can be non physical because in another place (that is not even in Hebrew scripture) is not physical? Also trying to use Genesis 1 (herb bearing seed) to show me the same? It makes no sense and just shows you grasping for straws.
<quoted text>
Sorry God Almighty said not to put my trust in men. But if Jesus is god according to you he would state this right?
<quoted text>
So sons of God is not referring to angels but spiritual seed? Why would God consider it evil that the sons of God took women for wives if they were men? You make absolutely no sense.
<quoted text>
Where is there body? Is it there in the tomb? Is Moses body anywhere to be found? How do you know Peter and Paul are buried in Rome?
.
<quoted text> How do you know Peter and Paul are buried in Rome?
.
Let's see because they call it Peter's tomb, they call it David's tomb. Here's a question for you. Who is buried in Grant's tomb?
.
Your point was because there is no grave of Yeshua it doesn't mean he isn't buried elsewhere. Then you asked where certain people are buried and I answered you.
.
What evidence do you submit that Yeshua wasn't assumed in his resurrected body into heaven, that will overturn the testimony of the witnesses?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#174 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
1. you don't have the qualifications to tell us it means "young woman".
2. were young women in Israel non-virgins?
3. the Aramaic version of this text uses the form of betulah.
4. Can you find anywhere in the TNK is used of a non-virgin?
5. ELS sequences are found in this passage, one of which the tav in betulah is found in the word for sign, telling us the sign is the virgin.
6. In the word Emmanuel are found three sequences:
a. Miriam - his mother
b. offering - his purpose for being born
c. my son - his Father
.
Did Matthew put those sequences there?
1. Qualifications is talk of men. Only men look at qualifications to see if what someone says is true or not.
2. Yes. Not all young women did what they were supposed to.
3. So does the Hebrew
4. What I can do is show you where virgin is used without a doubt. And the word is bethulah not almah
5. Even if it is for a virgin (its not), it is a sign for King Ahaz. Not the messiah. How do you get around that?
6. Not a sign for the messiah
a. Not a sign for the messiah
b. Not a sign for the messiah
c. Not a sign for the messiah
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#175 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If you can't make a definitive statement here why should I trust you can make a definitive statement as to Is 53:10?
.
It seems to me the only difference is that if non-physical seed is the meaning of Is 53:10 you have a problem.
I dont have any problem. You're just apply private interpretation to scripture. How could one get the idea that its non-physical from the passage? Especially since it says after that that he would have prolonged days?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#176 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text> He died early and childless according to scripture.
.
What scripture tells us that he was childless?
If "scripture" (and I use this word loosely) doesnt say he had children or a wife what other conclusion could one come to? Guess and say he may of had children?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#177 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Sorry God Almighty said not to put my trust in men. But if Jesus is god according to you he would state this right?

He did tell us he was G-d:
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Why didnt YOUR god state that people that believe in him are of his seed? Or the seed of Abraham?

And that doesnt make sense. Before Abraham lived, I am? What is Jesus claiming here? Because hopefully you know the word used in exodus wasnt just simply "I am"?
messianic114 wrote:
His disciples tell us he is G-d:
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Just because a man tells you he is god that means he is?
He did tell us he would die for our sins:
messianic114 wrote:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
.
It matters what God Almighty said FIRST and FOREMOST

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#179 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
So sons of God is not referring to angels but spiritual seed? Why would God consider it evil that the sons of God took women for wives if they were men? You make absolutely no sense.
.
The angels are the spiritual seed as they are not physical seed.
My understanding for what it's worth is that the "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. The female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#180 Feb 16, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible, per say, is not a part of the Hebrew faith.
The Bible is christian in origin and contains the books of The Hebrew Tanakh and we call that the Old Testament.
The Torah is the books of The Tanakh that contain the five books called the Pentateuch and The Law.
Thre are some differences in content between The KJV, The Catholic Bible and The Tanakh.
Check out the table of contents of The Catholic Bible and The Tanakh in these links below and compare them to your KJV.
http://usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/B...
Thanks for the links
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#181 Feb 16, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding for what it's worth is that the "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. The female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men."
Very observant of you.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God.
Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.).
In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

The title "the Son of God" is frequently applied to Jesus Christ in the Gospels and Epistles.
In the latter it is everywhere employed as a short formula for expressing His Divinity; and this usage throws light on the meaning to be attached to it in many passages of the Gospels.
The angel announced: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High... the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:32, 35).

Nathan, at his first meeting, called Him the Son of God (John 1:49).
The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messiah, at least. But much more is implied in the confession of St. Peter, the testimony of the Father, and the words of Jesus Christ.

Read in Matthew 16:15-16:
"Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven."
The parallel passages have: "Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29), "The Christ of God" (Luke 9:20).
There can be no doubt that St. Matthew gives the original form of the expression, and that St. Mark and St. Luke in giving "the Christ" (the Messiah), used it in the sense in which they understood it as equivalent to "the incarnate Son of God".

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#182 Feb 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said it could be either. What I do know is that the sons of God (not humans) had wives and children so that could easily be the seed of bright one in Genesis. But I will not claim to say that its literal or not because it could be either.
Are you referring to the angels? Angels do not marry. Jesus tells us this clearly: "For in the resurrection they [humans] neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30; see Mark 12:25).

Angels cannot cohabit nor reproduce with women. Angels are spirit beings. Women are human beings. Angels and women, then, are two different kinds of being. Kind reproduces after kind, and different species cannot breed.
Cisco Kid

Modesto, CA

#183 Feb 16, 2013
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the links
You're welcome. I hope they help.
If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#184 Feb 16, 2013
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What religion do you think he passed on to his children? Why does G-d say that he affirms the covenant with Isaac and Jacob?
A montheistic religion, were as before the people worshiped many gods

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
You are NOT a real believer in Jesus Christ! 12 min Passing thru 8
More Science To Support The Facts of Evolution ... 48 min blacklagoon 72
Christianity has 2.6billion (40%of the world) f... 58 min bobby 155
Malichi's Word Just As True Today as In His Time 1 hr tiger 5
Fornication from my past life 1 hr jiffy 6
Does God Exist? 1 hr Fisher of Men 62
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 1 hr Huntington Guy 19,576
Before The Big Bang 2 hr Big Al 81
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 2 hr purplelady1040 3,191
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 9 hr janeebee 2,618
More from around the web