Christ and OT prophecy (page 4)

rem

Hooberus,

Kindly point out where Jesus is called Imannuel in the scriptures.

Thanks,

rem

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."

Edited by - hooberus on 22 January 2003 14:58:38

hooberus

rem said:

"Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture."

rem

Hooberus,

"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."

Who is 'they'?

rem

hooberus

rem, it is pointless for us to have anymore discussions as you are blinded to even simple statements. Therefore I do not wish to waste the time that the Lord Jesus Christ has given me on this earth. I no longer will be dialoguing with you.

I would also suggest to any other followers of the Lord Jesus to consider that they may be spoiling (in continuing to rebuke a one such as rem) some of their time which could otherwise be used profitably in the service of the Lord Jesus.

Realist

seedy,

exactly what i meant!

SwedishChef,

One example of an account which speaks of Christ was written by Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120),

with other words its worthless as evidence since it was written something like 50 years after jesus alleged death.

rem

Hooberus,

I just asked a simple question.

The writer of Matthew did not directly call Jesus Immanuel. He juxtaposed the alleged prophecy against the account of Jesus' birth and let the reader make the inference, as you are clearly doing.

The problem is that even if the writer of Matthew did directly call Jesus Immanuel, it is immaterial because he provides absolutely no evidence that his contemporaries did (the 'they' in the scriptures). Remember, Matthew was written well after Jesus' death, so even if the writer of this book called Jesus Immanuel, it means nothing.

Hope I didn't get your panties in a bunch.

rem

Satanus

Hoob

Matthew is using future tense; 'will be called'. Hence in the present tense, he was not calling jesus immanuel. Can you see, now?

SS

seedy3

The writings of Tacitus that this refrence is made was written in or about 115 ad, so it really was about 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Now the interesting thing is the misspelling of Christus as Chrestus. Did anyone ever think that it is spelled correctly?? This is not the first time in writings that the NAME Chrestus has come up as it is a Greek name. It is highly likely that the Chrestus may have been an actual person, and in fact if you read the portions of his (Tacitus) writngs it is almost as though he is refering to a single person and not a group, and surly Jesus was not living in the days of Tacitus, so he would not have been sturring up problems in Rome.

Also, evenif this is a misspelling of Christus, it still does not give confirmation to Jesus, it only relates the movement of the day. Now on the subject of Tactius mentioning Pilate and him putting Jesus to death, it should be noted that Jesus was nothing more then a Itenerant carpenter and why would any records concerning him have ever been sent to Rome? It is highly likely that Tacitus used Christian myth as his source for this writing, if he wrote it at all. ion the book "Tactius" by FRD Goodyear it is said of Tactius

One feature very damaging to Tacitus's credit is the manner in which he employs rumores. Of course, a historian may properly report the state of public opinion at particular times, or use the views of contemporaries on major historical figures as a form of 'indirect characterisation' of them. But Tacitus often goes far beyond this.
He implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect can be damning and distorting.... Time and again Tacitus is ready with an unpleasant motive, susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof.

So in otherwords, this is unreliable as a source for historical data concering Jesus.

Seedy

Christ and OT prophecy

Share this