Question for Christians Only - Where's Emmanuel?

[Secularone]

Let's see... it say's in Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means, "God with us."

This is supposed to be referencing Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and you will call him Immanuel.

Notice the word begins with a capital "I." It therefore denotes a name not just a term meaning, "God with us."

So a child is born and they don't give him the name Immanuel. Instead, they give him the name Jesus. And, in fact, no where in the Bible does it indicate that during the life of Jesus did anyone ever call him Immanuel.

And other than what is supposedly implied in Matthew 1:23, nowhere in the New Testament did anyone on any other occasion ever refer to Jesus as "god with us."

And to this day, he's still called Jesus. No one calls him Immanuel.

So, how do you Christians ignore the fact that you're worshipping the wrong guy?

[fr0d0]

I think you'll find her on one of the adult channels SO

You're basing a lot on a simple understanding of the word "I". Why wouldn't Isaiah in addressing King Ahaz use the first person in naming Jesus by his function as was the tradition??

[Secularone]

You're basing a lot on a simple understanding of the word "I". Why wouldn't Isaiah in addressing King Ahaz use the first person in naming Jesus by his function as was the tradition??

There is absolutely no indication that any prophet was attempting to name a baby Jesus by his function. There is an indication that someone was trying to foretell the birth of a child and even reveal the name of that newborn baby "Immanuel." Period.

If the prophet had meant to foretell the birth of Jesus he would have said something like, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Jesus but it would be more appropriate if he were called Immanuel, which means, God with us."

Of course, he didn't say that.

So, we only have Christianity's word that he was talking about a baby Jesus instead of a baby Immanuel. And Christians, applying such apologetics could just as easily qualify Jack or George or Ralph or anyone else as their Immanuel. If that is the character of this so-called prophecy, that it could pertain to anyone, it's basically worthless as a prophecy.

And on another note, scholars know perfectly well this scripture is not intended as a prophecy of a coming messiah. You might avail yourself of this website. http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

[theblindferrengi]

You're basing a lot on a simple understanding of the word "I". Why wouldn't Isaiah in addressing King Ahaz use the first person in naming Jesus by his function as was the tradition??

He means by "I" that it is a capital letter, and therefore a proper noun, like a name, not he was referring to himself in first person.

[solarwave]

When the verses say they will call Him Immanuel, this means, they will call Him 'God with us', which is what people said/say of Jesus, what He was God with us. Jesus is God who came down to earth, and so therefore God was with us.

[Secularone]

When the verses say they will call Him Immanuel, this means, they will call Him 'God with us', which is what people said/say of Jesus, what He was God with us. Jesus is God who came down to earth, and so therefore God was with us.

No. It doesn't say they will call Him "God with us." It says they will call him "Immanuel."
Nobody calls him Immanuel.

Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate Jesus was ever called Immanuel or God with us. And you don't call Jesus that either. You might as well give up on that argument. It doesn't fly.

(Please note that in the scripture the word "him" is not spelled with a capital letter.)

My name happens to be "James" meaning "the supplanter." My mother wanted to call me James for that very reason. So she named me James. James is on my birth certificate. She didn't name me George and then argue that I was really James because I was "the supplanter."

[fr0d0]

You're basing a lot on a simple understanding of the word "I". Why wouldn't Isaiah in addressing King Ahaz use the first person in naming Jesus by his function as was the tradition??

He means by "I" that it is a capital letter, and therefore a proper noun, like a name, not he was referring to himself in first person.

Yeah I know that - it's what I was referring to.

I stand by my original point. I read far wider than the site you refer to on the issue and frankly your and their reasoning is weak.

[AngelaRachnid]

Sorry,

not one of those child abusing/ abuser covering christians but there is also the fact that the name should be Joshua in the hebrew Jesus in the Greek

So how do they explain that?

A

[Violet]

So how do they explain that?

God did it.


(Well, that IS how they usually explain it

[solarwave]

No. It doesn't say they will call Him "God with us." It says they will call him "Immanuel."
Nobody calls him Immanuel.

Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate Jesus was ever called Immanuel or God with us. And you don't call Jesus that either. You might as well give up on that argument. It doesn't fly.

(Please note that in the scripture the word "him" is not spelled with a capital letter.)

My name happens to be "James" meaning "the supplanter." My mother wanted to call me James for that very reason. So she named me James. James is on my birth certificate. She didn't name me George and then argue that I was really James because I was "the supplanter."

You asked for an explaination, I gave it to you, if you want to disagree with me, just to try to disprove christianity wrong in some dodgy way that no expert would accept (theist or atheist) then go ahead.

Seriously there are much better reasons not to believe in God than this.

The name Immanuel was obviously used because of the meaning. If you know anything about language you will know how I explained it is a possible explaination.

(I give a capital letter to words reffering to God)

Sorry,

not one of those child abusing/ abuser covering christians but there is also the fact that the name should be Joshua in the hebrew Jesus in the Greek

So how do they explain that?

A

Actually Jesus' hebrew name was Yeshua meaning 'he will save' (makes sense considering what Jesus did) which is a shortened version of Yehoshua which means 'the Lord saves' which is translated to Joshua. There is no english translation of Yeshua. Jesus is simply a translation and transliteration through greek and latin.