|
Listen to this post:
|
As I proved before, the Bible teaches that King David is God, and since it also teaches that Jesus is God, it teaches that Jesus is David – that was a previous, kingly life of his. In other words, David was reincarnated as Jesus.
But I have now discovered that this was not direct! There was at least one other stop on the way from the 10th c. BCE to the 1st c. CE. We need to re-apply our method of figuring out who is who, using Bible prophecies.
Isaiah predicts that a baby will be born, “Immanuel.” This occurs in his lifetime, in the 8th or 7th c. BCE. Obviously, this baby is God, because his name “Immanuel” means “God with us,” and it would be blasphemous to give that name to anyone other than God. But my point here is that Matthew says that Jesus’s birth is a fulfillment of this prediction. (Matthew 1:20-25)
- The “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7 is a baby in Isaiah’s time.
- Matthew 1 says that Jesus is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7.
- Therefore, the baby Immanuel in Isaiah’s time and Jesus are one and the same. (That was Jesus back then in Isaiah’s time.)
Do I deviate here from”historic Christian orthodoxy”? Friend, surely you agree with 1 and 2. And you should agree that 3 follows from them, if you agree with this sort of reasoning in general. As an example:
- When Isaiah says that “every knee will bow” he means, to Yahweh himself. (Isaiah 45:23)
- Paul says that “every knee should bow” to the exalted Jesus, obviously referencing Isaiah. (Philippians 2:10)
- Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh himself. (1,2)
Again, we can’t disagree with 1 or 2. And a good number of present-day evangelical apologists and theologians assure us that 3 follows. Of course, we’re assuming that what the Bible teaches is true; Isaiah and Paul are correct in what they write here. Exactly so, with our first argument.
Let’s not get too caught up in a priori assumptions about “historic Christian orthodoxy,” or give in to our western prejudices against supposedly “eastern” ideas like reincarnation. We already know that Jesus can be found all over the Old Testament. Let us, then, accept the obvious implications of the Bible. Not only is Jesus God (second argument), but he (and so, God) was once a baby in the time of Isaiah. (first argument) A mystery, to be sure, but we are accustomed to those; we expect divine revelation to contain mysteries – this is God we’re dealing with here. As for me, I choose humility over rationalism. If you’re really a Christian, you’ll do likewise. I hope you won’t mind if I point out that you’ll have a hard time finding a better model of humility than yours truly.
(Disclaimer: this post is an illustration of the fulfillment fallacy, and is not to be believed!)
Since Paul claims to be the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:47, and since the Suffering Servant is Jesus, we also know that Paul is Jesus and therefore God Himself.
Mario
Your comment regarding the descriptive nature of Emmanuel could well be correct!
In my country the name ‘Tinashe’ means “God is with us’ and that makes a great deal more of sense than
suggested alternatives
Blessings
John
@ John
“No-one seems to comment on the fact that Christ was NEVER called Emmanuel in the scriptures!”
“Immanuel” appears only 3 times in the scriptures, 2 in Isaiah (7:14 and 8:8) and once in Mattew 1:23, which is a direct quotation of Isaiah 7:14. As I have already commented, “[t]here is no evidence (in Isaiah or elsewhere) that ‘the “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7 is a baby in Isaiah’s time'”. To be accurate, there is no evidence that the “Immanuel” is either the child of king Ahaz, Hezekiah, or the mysterious child of Isaiah and the prophetess, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Anyway, the fact that there is NOBODY called Immanuel in the scriptures may well suggest that it is descriptive of a role (“God [is] with us”) rather than a proper name.
No-one seems to comment on thefact that Christ was NEVER called Emmanuel in the scriptures.!
Here in Africa we have many examples of names which contain the word ‘God’ without being God by identity.
Blessings
John
Nice and refreshing to see that you mock at your own “syllogisms”.
Looking at the first one more closely, anyway, it is not only the case that “the conclusion does not follow from the premises”, but also that the first premise is dubious, to say the least. There is no evidence (in Isaiah or elsewhere) that “the ‘Immanuel’ in Isaiah 7 is a baby in Isaiah’s time”.
BTW, that “Matthew 1 says that Jesus is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7” does NOT mean that Matthew applies Isaiah’s prophecy, apodictically, to Jesus (which would be, otherwise, only a transparent way to smooth over Mary’s “embarrassing” pregnancy), but rather that Matthew sees the Virgin Conception/Birth – for which he has an independent witness – as “prophetically certified” by Isaiah.
Thanks, Aaron. I’m going to follow up on this – may take awhile, but I will.
I would recommend Dr. Michael Heiser. He has not written a book on the subject that I am aware of but has given many lectures on it and also included it in his dissertation. Much of his study and expertise is devoted to ancient Israelite religion and what he calls “Jewish Binitarianism.” I think it would be very interesting to have you question him and ask for more detail in regard to his beliefs and research if he agreed to an interview. I’ll leave his website below. You can comment or contact him from there. He usually responds when I post on his articles. Hopefully he would agree if you wanted to discuss the identity and role of the Angel of the LORD. Thanks for entertaining this idea!
http://www.drmsh.com
Hi Aaron,
No, I haven’t written about that yet, and probably don’t have much to say about it. Can you suggest someone I should interview on that, perhaps someone who’s written an important book on the subject?
Dale
Thanks for that!!
You made your point very well
The basics of Philosophy should be taught in schools to prevent people accepting sloppy reasoning.!
On a different tack – I have only recently become aware that ‘The Shekinah’ , can be equated with the Holy Spirit..
So much for the Holy Spirit being a ‘person’. – it is God’s abiding presence!
Every Blessing
John
Hi Dale,
Have you written (or would you write) about the identity of “the Angel of the LORD” in the OT and the subsequent arguments used by Trinitarians which say that this is the second member of the Trinity? I would love to hear your take on this topic. Take care.
Also, about “God with is” or, it could be translated, “God is with us.” The very case of this baby from Isaiah’s time shows that a person may be properly given that name, even though he is someone other than God, and not God himself. So, we can’t argue, if we respect the Bible, that since Jesus is called “Immanuel,” then he is God.
Note to the sarcasm-tone-deaf: I am not asserting either argument in the post. (Nor do I believe in reincarnation, nor do I believe that David is God, as in the previous post.) Rather, my point is only that in each case, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That is, one may consistently affirm both premises while denying the conclusion.
The interpretive point of this is that the reasoning is poor when apologists and theologians argue that Jesus is God himself in the manner of the second argument – many such arguments are commonly given. Even if the conclusion of those arguments is true (that is, Jesus really is God himself), the point stands that the premises do not support it.
Comments are closed.