jesus' Birth Fulfilment of prophecies?

[Half-Box1687]

The Gospels indicate that Jesus' Birth was the fulfilment of prophecies made by Who and from Where?

This is a question on a Christmas Quiz I am doing.

[4GS]

The gospels indicate that Jesus' birth was the fulfilment of prophecies made by the Prophets of Israel.

http://www.biblestudy101.org/Lists/israelruler s.html#2

http://my.execpc.com/~stephwig/timeline.html


http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/prophet.htm

[WaldoMcFroog]

Colonel Sanders - KFC.

[Skreecheeboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

[Skreecheeboy]

Sorry, I believe the answer is Isaiah. I think he was from Jerusalem.

[chakka35]

The answer you'll be expected to give is Isaiah 7:14 which says:
"Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel"

But this is not a prophecy about Jesus.

First of all, "virgin" is a mis-translation of the Hebrew "almah" which means merely a young woman, a mis-translation that the Christian Church mischievously retained even after the mistake was recognised.

If you read the whole of that section in context you'll see that Isaiah was prophesying to King Ahaz the imminent destruction of his two enemies, the kings of Syria and Israel. A rough translation in the vernacular would be:

"Suppose a young woman gets pregnant tomorrow. Between now and when she gives birth, things will change for the better (butter and honey) and before he reaches the age when he can see the difference between good and evil, your enemies will be overcome."

The frequent quoting of this out of context as a prophesy about Jesus' virgin birth (which would have meant nothing to the Jews) is a blatant piece of dishonesty by the Christian Church.

[naomi24]

I'd like to add a little bit to Chakka's post. The prophecy, so we're told, didn't only include a virgin birth, but stated that the messiah would be born of the House of David. Joseph was apparently descended from the House of David, which means if Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, then the prophecy had a chance of being fulfilled. However, since, according to the church, Jesus was the son of God, then whichever way you look at it, the prophecy has not been fulfilled, but has simply been hi-jacked to suit the church's purposes.

[4GS]

I saw a documentary on the History Channel recently that suggests Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem near Nazareth in Galilee, not the Bethlehem near Jerusalem, they argue that the Gospel writers changed the location of His birth to suit these prophecies, which makes sense, why would Joseph take a heavily pregnant Mary on a donkey just for a census? He (Joseph) would have pretty good extenuating circumstances for staying put wouldn't he?

[chakka35]

4GS, I also have always thought it odd that Joseph should drag a highly pregnant Mary around like that, especially since women did not count in censuses, but it is even odder than you think.

The census of Quirinius applied only to Judaea, not to Galilee, so it wouldn't have concerned the Joseph of Luke anyway, because he lived with Mary in Nazareth in Galilee.

It would have affected the Joseph of Matthew because in that gospel the family lived in Bethlehem of Judaea from the beginning, but then he'd have had no reason to travel!

Both gospels, with their conflicting versions of the nativity, were written late in the 1st Century with no previous information about Jesus' birth. They are obviously fairy stories.

[Octavius]

You really have a thing about fairies don't you chakka. Are you sure you are not one yourself?

It seems to me that Joseph was taking Mary to the town of his ancestors, either so that he could introduce her and the bump to the in-laws, or generally just visiting brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles for Christmas. Just like we do today. Its traditional, see.