Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Ben Masada

The Test of Isaiah 8:12

42 posts in this topic

The Test of Isaiah 8:20

Here is a test that every one who is involved or take upon him or herself to preach the Truth should take in order not to be found preaching an evil message.

Isaiah 8:20 - "To the Law and the Prophets" if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." If you have not noticed before, there is something very interesting about this test of Isaiah. He speaks of two words "Law and Prophets" then says "according to this word" as if he had mentioned only one.

Judaism was what Isaiah meant by "this word." In fact that's what "the Law and the Testimony" means: Judaism. Do those who are involved with teaching or discussing spiritual truth speak according to Judaism besides the Jews? Obviously not.

Jesus seems to have taken that test of Isaiah 8:20 and was proved an expert at the Truth as we have his own testimony in Matthew 5:17-19. His apostles took the same test and scored the passing test. Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken aback

with the impression that they were preaching a bout a different Jesus and took them as false apostles.

The conclusion is that as I have recommended above we all should take that test to make sure we are not teaching empty words of nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law, theory with testimony, practice. Prophets were witnesses for the power of Divine Love, Allah. All Muslim Prophets Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Suleiman, Isa, Muhamed practised what they had taught. Theory without practice, faith without work is dead. They are our to our path of immortal and indestructible life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Masada,

You say, "Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken back with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus and took them as false prophets." Will you please Explain this? I am not aware of this being biblical. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, my comment here is nothing new to our previous discussions, I'm writing here more for the benefit of those who might read your post and come away with the mistaken impression that Paul contradicted Jesus and/or the prophets, and that Jesus advocated strict adherence to the Law.

You quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, but failed to quote the rest of the chapter. Verses 20-45 include example after example where Jesus changes the meaning of the Law (mere moments after advocating that be did not come to do away with it). At other times during his ministry, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Luke 6 shows that on one Sabbath he and his disciples were hungry so they picked heads of grain, disobeying the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Luke 6 accounts another Sabbath where Jesus healed a man with a shrivelled hand, to which the Pharisees thought he should come back on another day of the week (and you yourself admitted in earlier discussions that an observant Jew would not seek out a doctor on the Sabbath unless it was urgent, and likewise an observant Jewish doctor would not see a patient on the Sabbath unless it was urgent).

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. Paul did nothing more or less than build on that mandate. Through Jesus the Law is fulfilled, we are not bound to the Law (though that does not mean the Law cannot be a good guide for righteous living).

In short, Paul complements Jesus' words rather than contradict them.

Edited by Paranoid Android
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read all this correctly the test proposed is whether or not the preaching is in line with Scripture. Of course all Protestant Christian denominations make that claim.

I understand that Jesus also told a story in answer to such a question that one should test for false prophets by the quality of the fruit the teaching produces. In that event, considering all the wars and pogroms and hate that Western religions have produced, don't they fail?

With respect to whether Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, I have always wondered what that might actually mean, other than repealing it and replacing it with something else (the "law of love"). This sort of linguistic legerdemain is typical of people trying to avoid places where the Bible contradicts itself, and does then no honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank, I'd like to note two things in your post. The first is that Jesus did indeed say that they shall be known by their fruits. However, he's talking about individuals, not institutions. What one person does reflects only on them. What someone may have done to spark bloody violence on another reflects on their teachings, their bad fruits. What I or someone else does equally reflects on our good or bad fruit. But someone's bad fruit does not mean another person's fruit is also bad.

The second thing I wanted to address was what Jesus meant when he said he came to fulfil the Law. If you read Matthew 5 Jesus explains what he means. For some reason people like to quote verses 17-19 and then just stop, as if that's the end of what Jesus had to say on the issue. But immediately after, Jesus explains by giving examples. It follows the general pattern of "You have heard that it was said *insert Law/teaching/whatever, eg "you shall not murder"*.... But I tell you *insert fulfilled version of the Law*". In each case the physical Law had been updated with a greater spiritual aspect (or mental aspect, if you prefer thinking of it I'm terms of thoughts behind action). The Law about murder is fulfilled by Jesus in saying that if you are angry with your brother you've murdered him in your mind/thoughts/heart. The Law about adultery is fulfilled with a mental component of even looking with lustful intent towards a woman is akin to adultery in your mind/heart. Jesus fulfils several other Laws throughout the gospels, more here in Matthew 5, but elsewhere as well (eg, Mark 7). When taken in context it's quite obvious what Jesus meant.

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question. Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals? As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace." It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment. That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question. Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals? As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace." It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment. That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.

Yes, but what one person in an institution does reflects on their actions, their fruit. I don't believe in institutional religion, even though I attend an institution. What the pastor at my church teaches (and the fruit it bears) reflects on him. When I teach the Bible at the midweek Bible Study (well, I've just moved to a new area, so I'm talking about my old church) that teaching and the fruit it produces reflects on me. What someone at another church or at another period in history did, whatever fruit they bore/bear, reflects not on anything my pastor, or I, or any of the other leadership team at church did/does.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

Nevertheless it is what Jesus taught and therefore what Christians believe. I'm not demanding you adopt the same moral principles I have, just using the example Jesus used to clarify what he meant by fulfilling the Law.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Law, theory with testimony, practice. Prophets were witnesses for the power of Divine Love, Allah. All Muslim Prophets Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Suleiman, Isa, Muhamed practised what they had taught. Theory without practice, faith without work is dead. They are our to our path of immortal and indestructible life.

There is nothing immortal or indestructible about man, animal or any thing that has been born or had a beginning. Eternity is a concept true only of God. .

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Masada,

You say, "Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken back with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus and took them as false prophets." Will you please Explain this? I am not aware of this being biblical. Thank you.

Yes Ogbin. It happened that Paul spent 3 years preaching his peculiar gospel all throughout Damascus and Arabia and had never consulted with the Apostles of Jesus to have a source to report to eyewitnesses. The Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem where they started preaching the gospel of Jesus. Then Paul decided to pay a visit to them in Jerusalem and before starting preaching his own gospel he took some time to listen to the Apostles. That's when he got the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus from the one he preached himself. Hence, he took them as false apostles and went ahead with his version of Jesus. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)

The Pauline version of Jesus was that he was Christ, the Messiah, son of God and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only the local Jews were after him to arrest and bring him to trial for preaching idolatry in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:26-31) The interesting point is that the Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem and preached the gospel of Jesus without any problem with the local Jews. When Paul started he almost got killed. It is only obvious that the things Paul preached about Jesus were not in the agenda of the gospel of the Apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, my comment here is nothing new to our previous discussions, I'm writing here more for the benefit of those who might read your post and come away with the mistaken impression that Paul contradicted Jesus and/or the prophets, and that Jesus advocated strict adherence to the Law.

You quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, but failed to quote the rest of the chapter. Verses 20-45 include example after example where Jesus changes the meaning of the Law (mere moments after advocating that be did not come to do away with it). At other times during his ministry, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Luke 6 shows that on one Sabbath he and his disciples were hungry so they picked heads of grain, disobeying the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Luke 6 accounts another Sabbath where Jesus healed a man with a shrivelled hand, to which the Pharisees thought he should come back on another day of the week (and you yourself admitted in earlier discussions that an observant Jew would not seek out a doctor on the Sabbath unless it was urgent, and likewise an observant Jewish doctor would not see a patient on the Sabbath unless it was urgent).

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. Paul did nothing more or less than build on that mandate. Through Jesus the Law is fulfilled, we are not bound to the Law (though that does not mean the Law cannot be a good guide for righteous living).

In short, Paul complements Jesus' words rather than contradict them.

No need to explain yourself PA, and neither the reason why you will be giving replies to my posts. Just tell me how Paul did not contradict Jesus' gospel. After 3 years of preaching his peculiar gospel in Damascus and Arabia Paul came over to Jerusalem, listened for a while to the gospel preached by the Apostles of Jesus and was taken aback with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus, considered them as false apostles and went ahead preaching Jesus according to his version of him and almost got killed by the local Jews. Now think and share with me your logical conclusion of you have one: The Apostles of Jesus were headquartered in Jerusalem and never had any problem with their gospel. Paul comes with his different gospel about Jesus and almost got killed. (Acts 9:26-31) Isn't it obvious that their gospels were different from each other? (II Cor.11:3-6,13) From here I could show you many other instances when Paul would contradict Jesus.

I would like you to show me a more specific point where Jesus changed the meaning of the Law when he declared in Mat.5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, even the dot of the letter, and to make sure all of us did the same. Any one can see that he did not change any thing of the Law. And that every one should do the same under the penalty of missing the Kingdom of God. Don't bring up the Christian claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath because the opposite is rather true. One makes the Sabbath holy by doing good to others during the Sabbath.

And last but not least, help me to see what you see because when Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the Law," Paul corrected him by saying that he did abolish the Law on the cross as if Jesus was either lying or did not know what he was talking about. (Mat.5:17; Ephe. 2:15)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read all this correctly the test proposed is whether or not the preaching is in line with Scripture. Of course all Protestant Christian denominations make that claim.

I understand that Jesus also told a story in answer to such a question that one should test for false prophets by the quality of the fruit the teaching produces. In that event, considering all the wars and pogroms and hate that Western religions have produced, don't they fail?

With respect to whether Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, I have always wondered what that might actually mean, other than repealing it and replacing it with something else (the "law of love"). This sort of linguistic legerdemain is typical of people trying to avoid places where the Bible contradicts itself, and does then no honor.

No Frank there is no such a thing as "Law of love." Love is not subject to laws. Love is subject to emotions. No one can be commanded to love. Emotions cannot be dictated upon and no one can be demanded to love or punished for lack of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question. Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals? As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace." It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment. That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

IMHO, you are right. I also can't see much of a difference between "fulfilling" and "replacing." Besides one cannot fulfill something on behalf of another. Hence Jesus made it very clear that as he fulfilled the Law, every one of us was supposed to do the same under penalty of missing the Kingdom of God. (Mat.5:17-19) But Paul coined the meaning of that word to depict replacing of the Jewish Theology which was the main theme of his Christian policy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

I hope your right or else I have blown it for the afterlife and also have a lot more according to this

9Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6

It is going to be a lonely place for the few but what did Mark Twain say "Go to Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company"

fullywired :whistle:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope your right or else I have blown it for the afterlife and also have a lot more according to this

9Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6

It is going to be a lonely place for the few but what did Mark Twain say "Go to Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company"

According to Judaism he is not. Adultery is not the same as to lust after a woman in his heart. Sin is the action, not the thought. As long as the thought remains only in the mind and is never taken down into action a sin has not been committed. But of course if we fight the thought, the action will only become remote to be carried out..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Frank there is no such a thing as "Law of love." Love is not subject to laws. Love is subject to emotions. No one can be commanded to love. Emotions cannot be dictated upon and no one can be demanded to love or punished for lack of it.

We are commanded to honor; honor is as much emotion as it is act. We're commanded not to covet/desire, a big and emotions-based command. "Subject to emotions" isn't an exclusion to the rule. Where'd that come from? Christianity doesn't run away from emotions. Love is the ingredient for good behavior; anger is the ingredient for bad behavior. Love much like honor is proven by our actions How do you know someone loves you? The only way to know for sure is to look at their actions over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Test of Isaiah 8:20

Here is a test that every one who is involved or take upon him or herself to preach the Truth should take in order not to be found preaching an evil message.

Isaiah 8:20 - "To the Law and the Prophets" if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." If you have not noticed before, there is something very interesting about this test of Isaiah. He speaks of two words "Law and Prophets" then says "according to this word" as if he had mentioned only one.

Judaism was what Isaiah meant by "this word." In fact that's what "the Law and the Testimony" means: Judaism. Do those who are involved with teaching or discussing spiritual truth speak according to Judaism besides the Jews? Obviously not.

Jesus seems to have taken that test of Isaiah 8:20 and was proved an expert at the Truth as we have his own testimony in Matthew 5:17-19. His apostles took the same test and scored the passing test. Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken aback

with the impression that they were preaching a bout a different Jesus and took them as false apostles.

The conclusion is that as I have recommended above we all should take that test to make sure we are not teaching empty words of nonsense.

Which makes anti-christian low blow #1,400.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Judaism he is not. Adultery is not the same as to lust after a woman in his heart. Sin is the action, not the thought. As long as the thought remains only in the mind and is never taken down into action a sin has not been committed. But of course if we fight the thought, the action will only become remote to be carried out..

I will have to disagree with you on that post. Whenever I come to issues like this I think of the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Issac his son. Abraham went so far as to bind him and place him on the altar before being stopped by an angel. I had always had the idea in my head, "Well if god is all knowing, then why did he have Abraham go so far during the sacrifice? If god is all knowing, he knew that Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac, he knew how faithful he was, yet he still let him get that far during the sacrifice?". It never made sense to me. I told my brother in law this and he simply put it, "It's not about what my perception is on what is happening. It's what is happening to Abraham that is important." Imagine the impact that this event in Abrahams life had on him. That must have been an incredible experience. Anyhow, back to topic. I believe the bible is guiding us (you) by pointing us out to things that weaken our soul. The example above with Abraham is an instance in which god strengthened a mans soul. Undressing that woman with your mind, or just for recreation does not give you any spiritual reward and may in fact harden your spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard unbelieving people say, "I like Jesus, but I don't like Paul." But before disagreeing with Paul one should consider Acts 9. When Christ strikes Paul (then called Saul) blind and then commands Ananias to go to him, Ananias balks at the idea, knowing Saul's reputation for murdering and imprisoning Christians. Then in Acts 9:15 "[but] the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles, and their kings and to the people of Israel."

So Paul was directly chosen by Christ and this account it told three times in the book of Acts. If there was hope for such an evil man as Saul, that should give all hope.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to explain yourself PA, and neither the reason why you will be giving replies to my posts. Just tell me how Paul did not contradict Jesus' gospel. After 3 years of preaching his peculiar gospel in Damascus and Arabia Paul came over to Jerusalem, listened for a while to the gospel preached by the Apostles of Jesus and was taken aback with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus, considered them as false apostles and went ahead preaching Jesus according to his version of him and almost got killed by the local Jews. Now think and share with me your logical conclusion of you have one: The Apostles of Jesus were headquartered in Jerusalem and never had any problem with their gospel. Paul comes with his different gospel about Jesus and almost got killed. (Acts 9:26-31) Isn't it obvious that their gospels were different from each other? (II Cor.11:3-6,13) From here I could show you many other instances when Paul would contradict Jesus.

Paul brought the message of Jesus to the Gentiles. That is the difference. There was difference of opinion on what Jewish laws and customs the Gentile believers should be held to, but Paul and the apostles eventually reconciled. Paul did not accuse the apostles of being false teachers, you're leaping to conclusions about the text that aren't warranted.

I would like you to show me a more specific point where Jesus changed the meaning of the Law when he declared in Mat.5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, even the dot of the letter, and to make sure all of us did the same. Any one can see that he did not change any thing of the Law. And that every one should do the same under the penalty of missing the Kingdom of God. Don't bring up the Christian claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath because the opposite is rather true. One makes the Sabbath holy by doing good to others during the Sabbath.

You admitted in a previous discussion that unless it was urgent or life threatening that an observant Jew would not go to a doctor on the Sabbath. Jesus changed the law in Matthew 5:20-45, though you so often prefer to quote only 5:17-19. He also changed it in Mark 7, when he declares all food clean, giving a spiritual meaning to healthy eating laws when he says it's not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean but rather what comes out of your mouth.

And last but not least, help me to see what you see because when Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the Law," Paul corrected him by saying that he did abolish the Law on the cross as if Jesus was either lying or did not know what he was talking about. (Mat.5:17; Ephe. 2:15)

Paul is saying that Jesus (via his death and resurrection) removed the effect of sin (death) and thus liberated us from the strict observance of the Law. However, Paul also encourages righteous living, and this can only be accomplished by observance to the Law. Not legalistic observance, but adherence in heart and mind. Without the Law we cannot discern righteous living. But we are not bound to observance of the Law, for the Law led to death whereas Jesus leads to life.

According to Judaism he is not. Adultery is not the same as to lust after a woman in his heart. Sin is the action, not the thought. As long as the thought remains only in the mind and is never taken down into action a sin has not been committed. But of course if we fight the thought, the action will only become remote to be carried out..

Then Jesus was not your typical observant Jew, for that's exactly what he says in Matthew 5:20-45. Come on, Ben, you can't quote verses 17-19 as proof and then dismIss the rest as forgery just because it doesn't gel with your views on Jesus. Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are commanded to honor; honor is as much emotion as it is act. We're commanded not to covet/desire, a big and emotions-based command. "Subject to emotions" isn't an exclusion to the rule. Where'd that come from? Christianity doesn't run away from emotions. Love is the ingredient for good behavior; anger is the ingredient for bad behavior. Love much like honor is proven by our actions How do you know someone loves you? The only way to know for sure is to look at their actions over time.

No, to honor is to respect and respect can be demanded under penalty of being liable to punishment. Any concept subject to emotion comes from natural Logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes anti-christian low blow #1,400.

Well, may it be what it must. The book of Isaiah is part of the Bible that Christianity adopts as part of the Canon as inspired Word of God. If you think of this text as being a low blow, you have all the right in the world to reject the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Frank there is no such a thing as "Law of love." Love is not subject to laws. Love is subject to emotions. No one can be commanded to love. Emotions cannot be dictated upon and no one can be demanded to love or punished for lack of it.

Well of course love is not a law, but Paul tries to make it one, and, come to think of it, so does Jesus.

If we take these sentiments less strictly, it is sensible. We do not need law if we act out of love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course love is not a law, but Paul tries to make it one, and, come to think of it, so does Jesus.

If we take these sentiments less strictly, it is sensible. We do not need law if we act out of love.

Exactly! Love can never be found in the same line with law. If Paul made a law our of love, what's new? All his life was to make Mythology our of Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! Love can never be found in the same line with law. If Paul made a law our of love, what's new? All his life was to make Mythology our of Judaism.

Did Jesus make love a law when he said the two greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.