CJD

Peter, your OP is magnanimous in scope. But I am always game for a discussion on OT prophecy. Surely, you have read this thread regarding Isaiah 7. On page two, I begin unpacking one Christian approach to the text. I mention it because the thread abruptly ended—presumably because the content went beyond interests and/or knowledge. Also, in this thread I attempt to discuss how to read biblical prophecies, and this one I come close to getting my point across. Both of these also failed to attract the appropriate attention, presumably for the reason(s) mentioned above.

All this to say, Peter, that your opening question is futile unless we can come to some semblance of agreement on how to approach the text.

Regards,

CJD

P.S. Hochstetler, your stereotypifying is, all by itself, enough evidence to consider your ideas laughable.

* edited to add the following: I must again restate the notion that OT prophecies are useless insofar as apologetics is concerned. Any approach that talks about the statistical "odds" of Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy (like the websites mentioned in a previous post) have yet to consider that from the outside looking in, the NT writers look like they have stretched the ancient texts to fit their message—not to mention the fact that many OT predictions failed to come about because the implicit/explicit conditions had not been met, etc., etc.

Evangelion

Isaiah 7:14, as it appears in the New English Translation (NET):

• For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign.22 Look, this23 young woman24 is about to conceive25 and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him26 Immanuel.27

The footnotes:

• 22 The Hebrew term twa, “sign,” can refer to a miraculous event (see v. 11), but it does not carry this sense inherently.
  
  Elsewhere in Isaiah the word usually refers to a natural occurrence or an object/person vested with special significance (see 8:18; 19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 55:13; 66:19). Only in 38:7-8, 22 does it refer to a miraculous deed that involves suspending or overriding natural laws.
  
  The sign outlined in vv. 14-17 involves God’s providential control over events and their timing, but not necessarily miraculous intervention.
  
  
  23 Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz.
  
  Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.
  
  
  24 Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth.
  
  Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here, hm*l=u^ (u^lm*h), can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently.
  
  The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun <l#u# (u#l#<, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam.17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.”
  
  The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word parqevno" (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23.
  
  Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term parqevno" (parqenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.
  
  
  25 Elsewhere the adjective hrh, when used predicatively, refers to a past pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5, 7, however. See the notes to those verses.)
  
  In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal family. Another option, the one chosen in the translation above, takes the adjective in an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.”
  
  In this case the woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).
  
  
  26 Heb “and you will call his name.” The words “young lady” are supplied in the translation to clarify the identity of the addressee. The verb is normally taken as an archaic third feminine singular form here, and translated, “she will call.”
  
  However the form (tar`q*) is more naturally understood as second feminine singular, in which case the words would be addressed to the young woman mentioned just before this.
  
  In the three other occurrences of the third feminine singular perfect of arq I, “to call,” the form used is ha*r+q* (see Gen 29:35; 30:26; 1 Chr 4:9). (A third feminine singular perfect tar`q* does appear in Deut 31:29 and Jer 44:23, but the verb here is the homonym arq II, “to meet, encounter.”)
  
  The form tar`q* (from arq I, “to call”) appears in three other passages (Gen 16:11; Isa 60:18; Jer 3:4 [Qere]) and in each case is second feminine singular.
  
  
  27 The name means, “God [is] with us.”

Peter Kirby

[MODERATOR]
Evangelion, if you wish to pursue the matter of what is or should be acceptable posting behavior on IIDB, I have split off a thread into the IIDB Conference Room. It needs to be unlocked by a mod with rights in that forum before more posts can be made in it. But it is not allowed to discuss moderator policy in the philosophical forums; it distracts from what we really want to discuss. If this requires clarification, you can PM me or post in Bugs, Problems, and Complaints.
[/MODERATOR]

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

Fine with me.

Thanks, Mr Kirby.

Taamalus

I am not sure now, is this an open debate? Can I refute those prophesies or do you just want the prophecies listed. There are about 330 of them.

I can play it both ways.

Sample:
Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew¡¦s usage of the Greek term ƒàƒÑƒâƒáƒÕƒæƒÞƒßƒp (ƒàƒÑƒâƒáƒÕƒÞƒßƒã) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

Counter:
In context the prophecy applied to King Ahaz reign only. It was a sign from God to assure Ahaz of the imminent fall of the opposing kings.
A virgin, by definition, can not give birth, a young woman can.
Thus verse 16 (Isaiah 7:16) makes only sense to King Ahaz:
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.

Playing Catholic:
Isaiah 40:3 (NAB)
A voice cries out: In the desert prepare the way of the LORD! Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!
This prophecy was fulfilled when John (The Baptist) made way for the Lord Jesus Christ as can be read in John 1:19-23, Matthew 3:1-6, Mark 1:1-15 and Luke 3:1-6 (NAB)
John did preach in the desert, prophesied the coming of the Lord and the Lord obviously came.

Also there is no intro page.
Taamalus stands for That name is already in usage. I am Hank, for those who know me at the AN, Infidelguy and Christian forums.

Evangelion

I am not entirely sure that it is intended to be a debate at all. As Mr Kirby has already said:

And:

I trust that this is clear enough.

You can do what you like, just so long as it remains within the parameters of this thread.

I don't doubt it.

*snip*

Thankyou for your opinion. A compelling "refutation" indeed.

I'm all agog for the next installment.

Hochstetler

Hey, this is a pretty good list. I'd say the expectation of a new ruler coming and subjugating everyone else under Israel is pretty clear.

Not really. I have no beef with the whole "virgin/not virgin" discussion.

My complaint comes with how a short-term prophecy about a completely different matter gets turned into one of the cornerstone prophecies of Jesus' birth much later.

It's as bad as the whole "Rachael weeping for her children" "prophecy" suddenly about the Bethlehem massacre.

The only thing that concerns me regarding the "virgin" debate is whether Christians into the whole double-fulfillment interpretation take the same meaning in regards to Hash-Baz-Mahar-Shalal's mother (hopefully didn't butcher that too badly) as they do regarding Mary.

Evangelion

This is an interesting one. The footnotes of the New English Translation read as follows:

• Ramah is a town in Benjamin approximately five miles (8 km) north of Jerusalem. It was on the road between Bethel and Bethlehem.
  
  Traditionally, Rachel’s tomb was located near there at a place called Zelzah (1 Sam 10:2). Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin and was very concerned about having children because she was barren (Gen 30:1-2) and went to great lengths to have them (Gen 30:3, 14-15, 22-24).
  
  She was the grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh which were two of the major tribes in northern Israel. Here Rachel is viewed metaphorically as weeping for her “children,” the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who had been carried away into captivity in 722 b.c.

(Hence the reference to "Rachel.")

It is possible that Matthew's use of the passage was not intended to constitute a definitive prophetical statement. Adam Clarke (Methodist) argued thus in his Commentary:

• Jer 31:15 - A voice was heard in Ramah -
  The Ramah mentioned here, (for there were several towns of this name), was situated in the tribe of Benjamin, about six or seven miles from Jerusalem.
  
  Near this place Rachel was buried; who is here, in a beautiful figure of poetry, represented as coming out of her grave, and lamenting bitterly for the loss of her children, none of whom presented themselves to her view, all being slain or gone into exile.
  
  St. Matthew, who is ever fond of accommodation, applies these words, Mat_2:17, Mat_2:18, to the massacre of the children at Bethlehem. That is, they were suitable to that occasion, and therefore he so applied them; but they are not a prediction of that event.

Albert Barnes (Notes on the BIble) follows suit:

• Mat 2:17 - Then was fulfilled -
  The word “fulfilled,” here is used evidently in the sense that the words in Jeremiah aptly express the event which Matthew was recording. Compare the notes at Mat_1:22.

On Matthew 1:22 (which appears to employ the same principle) he comments:

• Language is said to be fulfilled when, though it was used to express one event, it may be used also to express another. Thus, a fable may be said to be fulfilled when an event occurs similar to the one concerning which it was first spoken.
  
  A parable has its fulfillment in all the cases to which it is applicable; and the same remark applies to a proverb, or to a declaration respecting human nature.
  
  The statement that “there is none that doeth good” Psa_14:3 was at first spoken of a particular race of wicked men.” Yet it is applicable to others, and in this sense may be said to have been fulfilled. See Rom_3:10.
  
  In this use of the word fulfilled, it means, not that the passage was at first intended to apply to this particular thing, but that the words aptly or appropriately express the thing spoken of, and way be applied to it.
  
  We may say the same of this which was said of another thing, and thus the words express both, or are fulfilled. The writers of the New Testament seem occasionally to have used the word in this sense.

I consider this to be a reasonable explanation.

What, particularly, did you have in mind?


PS. It's "Mahershalalhashbaz."

Taamalus

The equivalence seen by Matthew is related in so far as the King was saved by sign, a boy born by a virgin. (Since that issue does not matter to you) Christians are saved under similar circumstances, again through a bigger and more prominent virgin.

As for the double fulfillment there are no biblical base for it.

Hochstetler

I see Matthew starting out with a barrage of prophecy fulfillments straight in a row: Bang, Bang, Bang.

* All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

* "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

* So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

* Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."

* and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

* This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "

To me, this is clearly not meant as a poetic reverie, but as a laundry list of fortelling prophetical proofs to follow up the most well-known prophetical proof: the Davidic line demonstrated in the immediately preceeding geneology.

I understand the concept of saying that something like the Emancipation Proclamation would have been like a call out of Egypt for American slaves. However, the context here is pretty clearly prescience and fulfillment.

The fact notwithstanding that Immanuel was born over five hundred years earlier, that the "son" called out of Egypt was Israel from slavery, that Rachael was concerned about the nation's bondage, and that the Nazarene prophecy is missing entirely...Matthew's string of prophecies has been convincing enough to millions of people who were ready to take his word for it. I'd say that makes it pretty successful rhetorically.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the consistancy I mentioned in the virgin/young woman interpretation for those into the double fulfillment scheme, it just makes sense to either consider both Jesus' mother and Mahershalalhashbaz's mother virgins or neither.