Jesus wasn't the messiah that Isaiah predicted. That doesn't mean that he isn't a messiah. It would just mean that either Isaiah was way off in his prophecy (not 100% accurate) or else there was another messiah that got overlooked (the Bible not the absolute truth).
Question: If the authors / editors of the Bible wanted to make Yeshua/Jesus appear to be the promised "EMMANUEL" why didn’t they edit the passage from Matthew that reads, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” to read “. . .they shall name him Jesus”?
Answer: If the Bible had been edited by modern day American Fundamentalists, this passage from Matthew probably would have been edited to read, ". . .and they shall name him Jesus. . . ." Some editor probably would have written a triumphant "No Contradictions" in the margin upon making this change.
So why did the actual writers / editors leave it in? Because there seems to have been a guiding rule in Biblical editing that where conflicting stories exist, it is better to include both than to risk choosing the wrong one.
We see this rule at work in the fact that we have three different origin stories, four different gospels, and three (at least) different apocalyptic visions.
No comments:
Post a Comment