God is Perfect, all justice, all knowing and when he sent ALL Prophets from Adam BEFORE Prophet Jesus ALL sinners had the solution to repent AND thier sins were forgiven by praying directly to God And some times slaughter a sheep ( it is NOT a Must)
Why the same Perfect all knowing all jutsice God all of the sudden decide to change this whole standard process AND NO previous prophet told ANYONE that is process is going to changeONLY Corrupted Christianity of Paul changed that
AND that is why Islam was sent to RESTORE the original same method of worship God ALONE and pray to him directly and ask for forgivenees directlyDid ALL previous Prophets predicted a change in the nature of God to be trinity and he will have a son and NO one will be accepted in the future unless believing in that – answer is NO NO NO. A bit of common sense that is all
Is belief in Jesus compulsory?
- generally Christians argue that one has to believe in Jesus to attain salvation.
However if we read through the Bible espeically the Old Testament, this thought doesn’t seem to exist.
First of all, the name Jesus isn’t mentioned for one single time in entire Old Testamwnt, so none of the previous prophets nor their audiences would know anything about Jesus.
- Secondly, the concept of God was absolutely crystal clear to all previous nations. All the prophets from Noah to Moses, taught belief in One God, they never gave any impression of a triune God not a multi-person God whatsoever.
- Finally, the pathway to salvation was straight and simple during the times of each prophet.
For example, those who lived at the time of Moses, had to believe in One God and obey the teachings of Moses. Those who lived at the time of David, had to believe in One God and obey the teachings of their current prophet David. Similarly at the time of Zechariah, belief in One God and obedience to teachings of their current prophet Zechariah.
Yes, we agree those who lived the time of Jesus, must believe in One God and follow the teachings of Jesus but for those who preceded him never had to know or have belief in Jesus.
There was no concept of Jesus known or taught or presumed or preached prior to Jesus yet all people had their pathway to salvation through their own prophets.
The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament NEVER mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Various texts within those writings do mention a messiah/anointed son of David, heir to the throne in Jerusalem and, in some way, God’s son. These and other texts were taken to apply to Jesus by his followers.
No one writing those things was thinking, “I’m writing this about Jesus of Nazareth who will live hundreds of years in the future” or “I’m writing this about someone alive now but more importantly about someone in the distant future”.
See John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God ( word son in the original Aramaicmeant Slave or Servant But Greek translators made it Son : Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Eerdmans, 2008).
Old Testament did not predict Jesus as a God or son of God or Savior
This year, like all the others, many have been celebrating Christmas. Apart from the obvious secularisation of the event, many will actually be celebrating the birth of Jesus, who is supposed to be the Christ and saviour of the world. Many of those who say that Jesus is the saviour point to the supposed Old Testament predictions that, they say, proved that Jesus is the saviour. However, an objective look at these Old Testament prophecies will show that they never predicted Jesus.
Perhaps one of the most quoted sections of the Old Testament that was supposed to have predicted the coming of Jesus comes from the book of Isaiah. In addition to the misinterpretations (deliberate or not) of the passages that have been credited with predicting the coming of Jesus, others that describe what sort of person Jesus was supposed to have been have been ignored.
Isaiah wrote quite a long time before Jesus was born. He predicted that the saviour would be born, not of a virgin, as some would want us to believe, but of a young woman. The fact that most children were born of young women, both during Isaiah’s and Jesus’s time should make this prediction unspectacular – even laughable. So, too, was Isaiah’s supposed prediction that Jesus would have been born in Bethlehem.
Then we are told that the saviour would have been called “Immanuel”. Of course, the child was actually named “Jesus”. Most of those who did eventually call Jesus “Immanuel” came many years later, and they did so in a vain attempt to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy.
Now, while Isaiah may have been saying that he will suffer for our sake, he also predicted that Jesus would have lived a long life, albeit sickly, and see his children. Now, unless Isaiah was talking about another Jesus, the one that Christians celebrate each time this year could not have been the same one. For, in so far as everything that we know about him, he lived a very short life, was very healthy, and had no children.
Then there is the Old Testament prophet Micah, who was supposed to predict that the saviour Jesus would have been born in Bethlehem. Speaking about this saviour, Micah also said that this Jesus was supposed to have saved the Hebrews from the Assyrians. However, during Jesus’s time, it was the Romans who ruled Palestine and Jesus certainly did not do any sort of “saving” for the Hebrews from any foreign oppressor.
Isaiah 7:14, Immanuel: Prophecy of Jesus?
Isaiah 7:13-16 is a passage which is quoted by Trinitarians a lot, they use it as evidence that it is a Prophecy of Jesus coming and that the child named (Immanuel) in the verse is “Divine.” Is the name “Immanuel” really a Prophecy of Jesus and is the child Divine? We shall find out as we read further.
Isaiah 7:13-16 (NIV) 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
From the above verse we can see:
- Isaiah is frustrated and says he will give a “SIGN” to Ahaz.
- We see the child will be born from a “Virgin” (Trinitarian translation).
- The child that is to be born will be named “Immanuel.”
- The child will learn to reject evil…. “boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.”
I will deal with Isaiah 7:13-16 in four sections as written above.
1. “Sign to Ahaz“
What sort of “SIGN” would it be to Ahaz when he will never see it? How can this Prophecy be of Jesus when he (Messiah) came 700 years after Ahaz? If I say “I will show you a sign.” Shouldn’t I show you the “sign” sooner or later, while you are still alive?
How can this passage make any sense if Christian trinitarians say ‘this is a Prophecy of Jesus?’ The correct view that is regarded by majority of Scholars is that the “sign” was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, while he was alive. It would make no sense whatsoever if the “SIGN” to Ahaz comes 700 years later while he is dead.
2 Does “Almah” mean “virgin?”
The word “Virgin” in the original Hebrew language means “bethulah” not “Almah.” Trinitarians don’t know what to do with that verse but to change the actual meaning and make it out as if this is a Prophecy of Jesus. The word in Hebrew used in Isaiah 7:15 is “Almah” and the literal meaning of it is “young marriageable woman” not “virgin.”
There are some truthful Christian scholars now admitting that the word does not mean “virgin” and agree with the Jewish position that it means “young marriageable woman.” Let’s see what these Scholars have to say about the word “Almah.”
A) Theodore Gerald Soares PH.D. Professor of religious Education in University of Chicago comments on the Hebrew word “Almah”:
The meaning of Almah, translated “virgin” is not certain. Generally it seems to signify a young marriageable woman, but it is possibly used of those already married, as we should have a bride. The Septuagint several times translates the word Almah, “young woman” (Exodus, 2:8; Pss. 46:1; 68:26; Song of Songs, 1:30- 6:8). In none of these passages is the idea of virginity implied.”
B) Professor H. G. Mitchell says:
“Note Almah means: ‘the young woman of marriageable age’ (indefinite use of the article) i.e. “young woman.”
c) Stebbins has the same view as Professor Mitchell:
“The word Almah means marriageable age, and not necessarily unmarried.”
D) G. W. Wade, G. Woosung Wade (D.D., Hon. D.D., Wales) – Prof. of Latin and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. David’s College:
“a ‘virgin’ better, a (literally, the) ‘young woman.’ The Heb. Word ‘Almah’ seems etymologically to mean a girl of marriageable age, whether actually married or not.”
E) English Biblical Scholar Arthur Samuel Peake, one of the most famous Christian Bible commentators comments on the word Almah:
“The rendering ‘virgin’ is unjustifiable; for this bethulah would have been use: the word here, ‘almah’ means young woman or marriageable age, without any suggestion that she is not married.”
F) Professor Edward L. Curtis:
“His mother is indicated by a very indefinite term, i.e., ‘the young woman of marriageable age,’ for that is the strict meaning of the original.”
G) Last but not least we have Reverend, Professor G. Buchanan who goes in detail explaining the Hebrew word ‘Almah’:
“Virgin: but this rendering is unquestionably, and is now generally admitted to be, unjustifiable. The word Almah is fem. Of, youth, which is used in 1 sam 17:56 20:22 and corresponds to ghalaam (Arabic), a derivative not from the root, to conceal, which seems to be known in Arabic, but from ghallam, to be lustful; Almah means a girl, or a young woman, above the age of childhood and sexual immaturity (in this being specific than the synonymous), a person of the age at which sexual emotion awakens and becomes potent;
it asserts neither virginity to women who were as a matter of fact certainly (Gn 24:43, Ex 28), or probably (Ca 1:3 6:8, Ps 68:26), virgins. On the other hand, it is also used in Pr 30:19 where the marvels of procreation and embryology (cp. Ps 139:13-16, Ec 11:5) seem to be alluded to, and the corresponding term (or terms) is used in Aramaic of persons certainly NOT virgin”
What we learned is the word “Almah” does NOT mean “Virgin”, this is according to these highly respected Scholars, that have been quoted. According to them, they are harmoniously in agreement, that the Hebrew word “Almah” means “young marriageable woman.”
3 Does the name “Immanuel” indicate the child will be Divine, a Prophecy of Jesus?
Now the name “Immanuel” according to Trinitarian view it means “God with us.” When they say that, what they mean is the “child is divine”, God Incarnate in other words. When we take a closer look “Immanuel” only means “God is with us”, in other words God will be with his people in time comfort, nothing to do with the “Child being Divine.” Now let’s turn our attention to these Scholars, mostly Christian, let us see what their view is on Isaiah 7:13-16, and who is it about i.e is it about Jesus or someone else?
A) Professor George S. Goodspeed writes:
“The appearance of the symbolical name of Immanuel in 7:14 and 8:18 is coexistent with the dark and desolate experiences of Assyrian invasion. “God is with us” not after these pass away.”
Professor George mentions nothing about “Immanuel” being “God Incarnate” i.e a prophecy of Jesus. He makes it clear this is about the “Assyrian invasion.”
B) Professor C.R Brown says:
“The fact that Jehovah is sore displeased with Ahaz is based upon his wearing God, by occasioning him to exhaust all means for the recovery of the king’s loyalty, without success. The sign which the Lord gives, therefore, while pointing to relief from the allied armies, points also to distress from Assyria herself; hence the sign involves a threat as well as a promise. We now come to the Prophecy of Immanuel. It is to be remarked first, that the same name Hebrew consonants permit us to render, thou (Ahaz) shalt call, thou shalt call, or she is about to call…
The Article in Isaiah 7:14, most naturally refers to some well-known woman, had in mind by both Isaiah and the royal house, and perhaps present when the words were spoken. This is made yet more probable by the individuality involved in the name Immanuel, and by the fact that the land of Judah is afterward called Immanuel’s Land (Isaiah 8:8)“
C) Reverend Professor Theodore Gerald Soares, D. D., University of Chicago:
“Isaiah uttered the striking oracle, 7:13-17. There is nothing to indicate that the sign which was to be given was the miraculous conception of a child. The oracle would have been the same if the prophet said, “behold, a maiden shall be married and shall bear a son.” Etc. The sign is in the name of the child, and in the political conditions occurring within the time of the child’s birth and growth.”
D) Professor H.G Mitchell:
“Shall call,” etc., should be “will call,” i.e., when temporary deliverance from Rezin comes, mothers will think that Jehovah has espoused their cause and so “ will call” etc., “Immanuel,” is name which describes not the child but the condition of the land at the time when the name is given i.e., not “God with us,” but “God is with us”
E) Stebbins says:
“The common objection made to referring this Prophecy to Christ is, that a child to be born seven hundred years afterward could be no sign to Ahaz that Jerusalem would not be taken by the approaching army.
Stebbins goes further & writes:
“what then was this sign? It was, that a young female there present should bear a son, and that before he should have learned to choose the good and refuses the evil, the land of Syria and Israel, over which Rezin and Pekah ruled should become desolate; be overcome by the enemy and their kingdoms destroyed. Such is the obvious meaning of this Prophecy. 
F) Biblical Scholar Arthur Samuel Peake’s commentary:
“10-17 The sign of Immanuel- This incident probably took place only a few days after the foregoing, before Ahaz had publicly committed himself to his policy. Isaiah’s words which are loaded with cultic overtones are reminiscent of a dusnastic oracle. Indicating a young woman, possibly among the company present, certainly known to them, he decales that she is pregnant and will soon bear a son who will be named Immanuel (‘God is with us’). Probably the young woman was one of the wives of the king… The name Immanuel means ‘God is with us’ not ‘God with us’; there is no reference in it to an incarnation of God.”
G) W.R.F. Browning comments on Isaiah 7, Prophecy of Immanuel:
Emmanuel: The greek transliteration of the Hebrew Immanuel- ‘God with us’- and used by Matt 1:23 when quoting Isa 7:14. The name was a sign given by the prophet to king*Ahaz in 734BCE and was part of his warning not to put his trust in *Assyria as a defence against the combined forces of *Syria and Israel who were threatening *Judah.
They would be destroyed before the child to be called Immanuel shortly to be born to a young woman (the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 does not necessarily denote a virgin) would be old enough to discern the difference between *good and evil*. The sign being offered by Isaiah was thus of an assurance of the protecting power of God at a dangerous moment.
H) Reverend G. Buchanan:
The promise is that within a few weeks, or days even, God’s act of deliverance will be in every one’s mouth. The alternative rendering ‘shall be with child and bring forth,’ would postpone the deliverance for the best part of a year, whereas the narrative seems to suggest that Isaiah expected it at once.—
‘And shall call his name’ MT rightly punctuates and unusual form of the 3rd pers. Fem.: the child is to receive his name in the ordinary way, viz. From his mother: see Hastings, DB iii.480b; prophets who wished to use their children’s names as signs naturally availed themselves of the less usual naming by the father… ‘Thou shalt call would, of course, imply that the child was to be a son of Ahaz.
What we see from most of the Scholars quoted, they all unanimously agree Isaiah 7:13-16 is not a Prophecy of Jesus. Secondly they all agreed that the Child that was to be born i.e “Immanuel” was not Divine. This was a Prophecy of Ahaz that was fulfilled already in Ahaz lifetime not 700 years later.
(4) “Immanuel” will have to know what is wrong and right and grow up to reject evil?
This is the last section I am going to deal with. When ever a Trinitarian quotes Isaiah 7, thee so-called Prophecy of Jesus, they quote verses 13,14 and the beginning of verse 15 “He will be eating curds and honey” and they stop. Why do they always do that? There is something special in the verses after, you will see as you read further. Here is the passage:
Isaiah 7:15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
So “God” (Immanuel according to Christians is Yahweh) has to learn what is good and evil? Let’s get over it again shall we. God who created the heavens and the earth has to grow up like any ordinary kid and he has to learn between wrong and right? Does that make any sense at all, to say “God will grow up” and God will be a boy who will have to learn about right and wrong, good and bad? So in other words God doesn’t know the difference between what is good and bad, he has to learn? Ridiculous, blasphemy!
We now know why the Christian trinitarians hide the verses and never quote it. It is perfectly clear if anyone with common sense who reads these verses will see that Isaiah 7:13-16 does not in any way indicate anything about the Child (Immanuel) being Divine nor is it a Prophecy of Jesus.
Here is parallel Translations for passage 15-16:
New International Version (©2011)
He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
New Living Translation (©2007)
By the time this child is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong, he will be eating yoghurt and honey, for before the child is that old, the lands of the two kings you fear so much will both be deserted.
English Standard Version (©2001)
He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, for before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, for before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
By the time he learns to reject what is bad and choose what is good, he will be eating butter and honey, for before the boy knows to reject what is bad and choose what is good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned.
International Standard Version (©2012)
He’ll eat cheese and honey, when he knows enough to reject what’s wrong and choose what’s right. However, before the youth knows enough to reject what’s wrong and choose what’s right, the land whose two kings you dread will be devastated.”
NET Bible (©2006)
He will eat sour milk and honey, which will help him know how to reject evil and choose what is right. Here is why this will be so: Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right, the land whose two kings you fear will be desolate.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He will eat cheese and honey until he knows how to reject evil and choose good. Indeed, before the boy knows how to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings who terrify you will be deserted.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Curds and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you dread shall be forsaken by both her kings.
American King James Version
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings.
American Standard Version
Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.
1. Isaiah gave a “sign” to Ahaz and it was fulfilled during the lifetime of Ahaz while he was still alive not 700 years after as I stated earlier.
2. The word “virgin” that is used by most hard-headed Christian Trinitarians has also been answered in detail. According to all them (the Scholars I quoted), they unanimously agreed “Almah” does not mean “virgin.” The word for “virgin” in Hebrew is “Bethulah” not “Almah.” They all quite clearly stated that the Hebrew word “Almah” means “young marriageable woman” not “virgin.”
3. The amount of quotes I used for Isaiah 7:13-16 by the Scholars, again agreed that this could not be a Prophecy of Jesus, instead it was a Prophecy that was fulfilled at the time Ahaz.
4. I went over Isaiah 7:15-16 that it could not be a Prophecy of Jesus, since verses 15-16 mention that “Immanuel” (God according to Christians) has to learn what is good and bad and learn to refuse evil. Doesn’t God already know these things? I will let you decide. In the verses it is mentioned that they will “name him Immanuel.”
How come Jesus was never called by the name “Immanuel” in his life time? Where did his mother or step father, disciples who knew him best, ever call him by the name “Immanuel?” Again it is evident that this could not be a Prophecy of Jesus.