Does God beget ?

That is what I mean when I say that the Christian understanding of the verses in question is an example of self-fulfilling prophecies.  The idea is that since the authors of the New Testament say that the verses in the Old Testament are alluding to the Messiah, then they must be true.  Of course, those of us who don't regard the New Testament as authoritative will disagree, and rightfully so as I have already showed.

"The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.  The God Whose throne is forever and ever has His God - "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ..."."

Wow!  God has a God!  Besides being extremely blasphemous, your claim fails to consider the next few verses of Psalm 45.  But first, let us also consider that Psalm 45 is described as "a wedding song".  That certainly would not apply to the Messiah, would it?  Here is what different translations state concerning Psalm 45:

"For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil. A wedding song." (NIV)

"A Song Celebrating the King's Marriage.
For the choir director; according to the Shoshannim ^[a]. A Maskil of the sons of Korah. A Song of Love." (New American Standard Bible)

"A Wedding Song of the Sons of Korah" (The Message)

"(A special psalm for the people of Korah and for the music leader. To the tune "Lilies." A love song.)  For a Royal Wedding" (Contemporary English Version)

"A Song for the King's Wedding

For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." A maskil. A love song of the sons of Korah." (New Century Version)

So, it is clear that Psalm 45 is a wedding song, celebrating the "King's wedding".  Who that King is I have not the slightest idea, but it certainly would not be Jesus, unless of course, Christians believe that Jesus was married (a la "The Da Vinci Code"). 

Furthermore, if we take into account the other verses in the Psalm, it should become even more clear that this is a wedding song and not a reference to the Messiah:

"8 All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia;
       from palaces adorned with ivory
       the music of the strings makes you glad.

 9 Daughters of kings are among your honored women;
       at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.

 10 Listen, O daughter, consider and give ear:
       Forget your people and your father's house.

 11 The king is enthralled by your beauty;
       honor him, for he is your lord.

 12 The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift, ^[b]
       men of wealth will seek your favor.

 13 All glorious is the princess within her chamber ;
       her gown is interwoven with gold.

 14 In embroidered garments she is led to the king;
       her virgin companions follow her
       and are brought to you.

 15 They are led in with joy and gladness;
       they enter the palace of the king." (Psalm 45:8-15)

Who is this "royal bride in gold of Ophir" whose beauty so enthralls the king?  And who is the "king"?  The Messiah?  I think not.

"Furthermore the Psalm depicts this One addressed as God with companions. As a man the Son has human companions. They also serve and obey God. However, they do not occupy the unique position as the King in His kingdom. Therefore He is anointed with the oil of gladness above His companions."

The Psalm also says that "at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir".  Which companion was this again?  Furthermore, the bride also has her "virgin companions" (v. 14) who go with her into the "palace of the king". 

"No he did not. Under the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Spirit the writer of Hebrews quite faithfully showed us who really are in submission that the passage points to Christ."

When was Christ married to a "daughter of Tyrian"? 

"Here we simply have a fundamental departure in each of our understandings of the nature of the Bible.  The New Testament is the Word of God - period. We do not regard it as a error filled commentary on the Old Testament. We regard it as God's speaking."

I agree that we have differing views.  But, if we read the verses in context, it should become clear to any person that the Christian claims are incorrect.  You are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, but when you try to claim that the verses in Isaiah and the Psalms definitely allude to the Messiah, then you will meet criticism of those claims.

"But Christ said that we shall know them by their fruits. Neither Ahaz or Hezekiah or David or Solomon attained to the level of the glory of Jesus. They in their own ways were pointers and types leading up to the coming of the Son."

No, that particular verse was talking about false prophets.  Do you believe that David and Solomon were false prophets?  Ahaz and Hezekiah were not prophets at all.  They were kings only.  Coincidentally, the prophet who advised those two was none other than Isaiah!

"Take for example Jonah. He was a type of Christ Who was three days in the grace as Jonah was three days in the belly of a great fish. Jonah pointed to the coming Son of God."

How did Jonah point to the "coming Son of God"?  If you are referring to the so-called �Sign of Jonah�, you forget that while Jesus was allegedly dead while he was in the earth for three days and three nights, Jonah was alive while he was in the fish for three days and three nights.  Furthermore, Jonah was in the fish as a punishment for running from his duties, whereas Jesus was supposedly crucified for the sins of humanity.  There is no similarity between the two.  Finally, Jonah never actually says that his experience was a sign of the coming Messiah.

�Islamispeace, you will repeat again and again your tactic of saying "Oh this is just speaking about Ahaz." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Hezekiah." Or "Oh, this is just talking about Solomon or David or one of the other kings of Judah or Israel."

Isn�t it funny that I, a non-Christian who does not even read the Bible as scripture, have to explain to you the meaning of each verse?  You mistakenly concluded that the prophecy about Emmanuel applied to Ahaz.  It does not!  Rather, the sign of Emmanuel was given to Ahaz so that he would know when God would answer his prayer.  Ahaz was not Emmanuel!  It seems to me that a Christian, who is supposed to know the Bible front and back, would know this!  But, it seems that you do not. 

Besides this, I have proven to you that the verses in question refer only to specific events and people, not the Messiah.  You have failed to refute my arguments and can only bring irrelevant quotes from the New Testament to support your claims.  I showed you that when read in context, the verses are talking about some other individual, not Jesus.  You also fail to understand that the prophecy is not just one verse.  For instance, the prophecy about Emmanuel is not only found in Isaiah 7:14!  It is longer than just one verse.  The whole prophecy is actually a few verses and has several conditions in order for it to be fulfilled:

�4 Therefore the Lord himself will give you ^[c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and ^[d] will call him Immanuel (first condition).  ^[e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right (second condition). 16 But 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 (third condition). 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah�he will bring the king of Assyria (fourth condition)."� (Isaiah 7:14-17)

So you see, Emmanuel would be that person in whose time each of those conditions would be fulfilled.  Did Jesus fulfill each and every one of those conditions?  Since when was the king of Assyria brought under Israel�s control during the time of Jesus (he had been dead for 700 years!)?  Since when were �the two kings� which Ahaz dreaded defeated in the time of Jesus (they were already dead!)? 

Similarly, the prophecy about the �Wonderful Counselor� etc. was not just one verse, but two and with several conditions:

�6 For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders (first condition).
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, ^[b] Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (second condition).

 7 Of the increase of his government and peace
       there will be no end (third condition).
       He will reign on David's throne
       and over his kingdom (fourth condition),
       establishing and upholding it
       with justice and righteousness
       from that time on and forever (fifth condition).
       The zeal of the LORD Almighty
       will accomplish this (sixth condition).� (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Now, you argue that Jesus will fulfill this prophecy when he returns, but the prophecy makes no mention of this.  In addition, the prophecy states that all those conditions would be met by the individual in question via the �zeal of the Lord Almighty�.  Therefore, the individual in question would not be divine himself, but would serve as the vessel through which God would bring peace to Israel.  This certainly does not fit your description of Jesus, whom you maintain was God Himself.

�You do not grasp that it is THEY who point to Christ the Son. - "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom also He appointed Heir of all things, through Whom also He made the universe ... " (Hebrews 1:1)�

You can quote the New Testament all you want.  You will not prove anything.  Bring me something concrete from the Old Testament.  Bring me a direct quote from Hezekiah or David or Solomon in which they say that they are the forerunners to the �son of God�.  Bringing irrelevant verses from the New Testament will not prove anything.  The issue at hand is whether what is written in the New Testament confirms what it written in the Old Testament.  You can�t prove your premise by quoting profusely from the New Testament that the Old Testament confirms it.  You need to bring concrete evidence from the latter, not the former.  So far, the only verses you have quoted are the prophecies from Isaiah, but have failed to refute the arguments that they apply to contemporary figures, not the coming Messiah.

�Concerning insisting that the details of Isaiah 7 or Isaiah 9 have only contemporary significance goes too far with an idea that does have some truth. It is not hard to see that there was some contemporary significance to this prophetic utterances.�

And that is all the significance they had. 

�But think again reader. They could not be entirely related to those contemporary people. There is NO reason to call Hezekiah the Eternal Father. That is to call Hezekiah God Himself for there forever is only one Divine Father in the Bible Who is eternal - Jehovah God.�

Oh for God�s sake man!  I already showed you that it was common practice in the Old Testament to ascribe names and titles to human beings which normally would be ascribed to God alone.  I will repeat for the 3^rd time that the name �Jehu� means �Yahweh is he� and was the name of a Hebrew prophet and a king.  Would you not agree, given your above statement, that this name should only be given to God?  Why then were human beings given such names?  Does holding such a name mean the person is divine?  Of course not!  Let us also consider that in Exodus, God Himself says to Moses that he will be like �God� to Aaron and Pharaoh.  What a thing to say, don�t you think?  The verses in question say:

�14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."� (Exodus 4:14-17)

�1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.� (Exodus 7:1-2)

Do these verses mean that Moses was truly God?  After all, it was God Himself who was saying such things!  Of course, the answer is no.  In the same way, just because Hezekiah was known as �Mighty God� did not mean that he actually was. 

�So the prophecy must point beyond him.�

There is nothing in the prophecy which would suggest that it was speaking of Hezekiah and another person. 

 Islamispeace,

     Your post was very lengthy and I won't respond to all of it right now.

      However, I will read it more than once to grasp your thought.

 Now the Psalm 45 does allude to a marriage too. This is because from one angle God wishes to obtain sons through Jesus Christ the Son. But from another angle, this entity that God isworking to create is a Bride and Wife for the Divine Person.

  The imagery of the queen looks at God's plan from another angle. He desires sons. He desires a Wife and Bride for the Son. That is a humanity which, through God's salvation, has been brought to a point that it corresponds to Christ in every way, except as one to be worshipped.

 This symbolic Queen is pointing to that aspect of God's eternal purpose that the believers are going to corporately and collectively be MARRIED to Christ the King.

 The are sons of God in eternity future. They are also collectively a Wife of the Son matching Him in expression and in love.

 The Bible concludes with a marriage of Christ and the New Jerusalem as His Bride and Wife.

  I will speak more about this latter.

 Islamispeace,  

Oh for God�s sake man!  I already showed you that it was common practice in the Old Testament to ascribe names and titles to human beings which normally would be ascribed to God alone.  I will repeat for the 3^rd time that the name �Jehu� means �Yahweh is he� and was the name of a Hebrew prophet and a king.  Would you not agree, given your above statement, that this name should only be given to God?  Why then were human beings given such names?  Does holding such a name mean the person is divine?  Of course not!  Let us also consider that in Exodus, God Himself says to Moses that he will be like �God� to Aaron and Pharaoh.  What a thing to say, don�t you think?  The verses in question say:

�14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."� (Exodus 4:14-17)

  It is true that many many people had great names in the Old Testament.

  It is also true that in the whole Bible no one, but no one. LIVED up to His name as Jesus did.

 Therefore, they were pre-cursors. They were forerunners. They were pointers. Many of them were very good. But only the Son was qualified to accomplish eternal redemption.

 You cannot point to the well named people of the Old Testament and use that to water down the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 His testimony is so glorious and so splendid that you cannot believe it. You trade the account of the Bible for fabrication and myths because the sheer glory of Christ seems to be too blinding for your religious mind.

  How can you say Jesus did not die on the cross?  Do you realize that you cannot TAKE the splendour of His giving 1000% obedience to His Father.  He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted EVERYTHING for the Father.

 For this reason His name is exalted by God above every name not only in this age but also in the age to come. And every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess.

  You should begin by saying "Amen" to everything that is written in the New Testament. You should not trade the truth of this history for some religious ideas which you find more palatable.

   Islamispeace,

You can quote the New Testament all you want.  You will not prove anything.  Bring me something concrete from the Old Testament. 

   And I would remind you that the Old Testament itself predicts that God would make a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So why should I not refer to the New Testament which God promised to make?

 Bring me a direct quote from Hezekiah or David or Solomon in which they say that they are the forerunners to the �son of God�. 

   But my dear Islamispeace, they may have not KNOWN that. Perhaps only vaguely did they know the whole counsel of God.

 In their prophecies they spoke from God. But often they spoke beyond their knowledge and addressed the future.

  Here we see Jesus refering to such a Psalm of David ro prove that David was really speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah to come:

  "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's. He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,

'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath You feet?'

 If then Dabid calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore." (Matt. 23:41-46). 

  Here is a prophetic utterance from David revealing that the Messiah to come would be the Son of God. But you must realize that in many instances God spoke through the prophets beyond the prophets own understanding of the far reaching significance of what they prophesied.

 Bringing irrelevant verses from the New Testament will not prove anything. 

   No, they do prove very much. You are just closed minded to the new covenant which God promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 to give to the house of Israel.

   And Jesus taught that He was that promised new covenant:

  "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in rememberance of Me. And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you ..." (Luke 22:19,20)

  " ... Take, eat; this is My body. And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying,Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt.26:26-28).

  So for Christ to establish the new covenant that God promised to make He had to go to the cross to accomplish an eternal redemption for the forgiveness of sins. And then the eating of the bread and the wine signify the taking of the crucified and resurrected Son of God into our being that we may be nourished, sustained, supplied, and fed by Christ Himself. Eating always symbolizes taking into our being:

 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)

  I must quote with the Old Testament, even more the New Testament. For it is the new covenant. And we must "eat" Christ. We must ask Him to come into our heart. We must receive the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and excalted Son of God.

The issue at hand is whether what is written in the New Testament confirms what it written in the Old Testament. 

  The issue is that Jesus Christ cwntral figure in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. He is seen in types, symbols, shadows, and forerunners in the Old Testament. And finally this One comes in the New Testament to establish the promised "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through His incarnation, life, death, resurrecion, exaltation, glorification and indwelling man as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).

Then indeed as the Spirit of life, (the Spirit of reality) as the life giving Spirit He can impart His laws into our hearts and into our minds and inward parts inscribing His divine nature into our beings. 

You can�t prove your premise by quoting profusely from the New Testament that the Old Testament confirms it.

   I will continue to use the New Testament. However, I use the Old Testament also. I use the entire Bible.

  I didn't see that you had that much to correct when I quoted Zechariah's prophecy showing that Jehovah of hosts was the Sent One and the Sender in Zech. 2:8-11.

 I will continue to quote the New Testament. So if you are expecting me not to you will be disappointed. And if you say that it proves nothing, I say that is your own unbelieving daydream. No disrespect intended though.

  You need to bring concrete evidence from the latter, not the former.

  The New Testament IS the latter. And I will use the entire Bible.

  So far, the only verses you have quoted are the prophecies from Isaiah, but have failed to refute the arguments that they apply to contemporary figures, not the coming Messiah.

  If you could go back in time you could ASK Hezekiah himself if he was the Mighty God or the Eternal Father ...  he would probably laugh at you and say that he was not that effective.

 By the way, we ARE talking about Jesus Christ. He used the Old Testament quotations. But then again you reject Him. But if it was good enough for Him it is also for me. I am a follower of Jesus.

 Christ, Paul, John, Peter, I will continue to profusely quote along with the Old Testament writers.

 Sorry.