Clouseau

What problem? There was no sign in a man being called 'God with us'. That was the identification that was to come after the sign.

There was no point in mentioning a young woman and a birth if she was not a virgin. The case is solved.

Boro Nut

Hmmm. So the ancient scribe had no understanding of the difference between a virgin and young woman. Even though they had a clear and specific word for virgin that they chose not to use, lest it give us the impression the maid in question was a virgin. Bit of a sketchy foundation for a world religion if you ask me. Especially for someone not actually called Immanuel either. So basically, saying a currently pregnant young woman will give birth to Immanuel in a short time must mean that a virgin will give birth to Jesus in a few centuries. Or otherwise it doesn't make sense. Hmmm. You've convinced me. It doesn't make sense.

How different does a prophecy have to be to be a completely different prophecy? Personally I would have thought different in all respects due to being about something else altogether would be enough, but clearly not. Sort of takes the shine off the whole prophecy thing if the criteria are that it has to describe totally unrelated events that fail to come about as predicted within the specified timescale. Erm... nope. Still not signing up for that one.

Hey, I've got a good idea. Why don't people totally ignorant of Jewish messianic prophecies simply tell the Jews what a mistake they are making by insisting that the proper messiah actually fulfills the real messianic prophecies and to stop ignoring the bogus ones some non-Jews made up? That would convince them.

Boro Nut

Toto

The point was to use the birth of the child, and his growth to the point where he knew right from wrong, as a marker of time.

The prophecy had to do with Israelite military security. The prophecy was fulfilled in its time.

Case solved.

Then the Christians came along and claimed to have some special insight into the Hebrew Scriptures that Jewish scholars missed.

Case reopened. Christians still trying to argue for their bizarro reading 2000 years later in the face of consistent opposition from Jews and people who can actually read the texts.

Clouseau

That's not the problem. It is that modern readers think that a young woman having a baby is unusual.

Pseudo-Deity

This is certainly helpful. According to Wikipedia, Hezekiah's reign was either 715 BCE-687 BCE or 716 BCE-687 BCE. Most scholars say that the Book of Isaiah was written around the 7th century BC, so it was a prophecy about the near-future?

So, can anyone quote specific Jewish scholars writing (anywhere between 716BCE-1BCE) about the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 having been fulfilled by Hezekiah?

Toto

Clouseau - what part of marker of time do you not understand? Where do you see the idea that there was anything unusual about the birth of the child in the text?

wordy

I even fail to understand why they changed his name from Immanuel to Jesus?

Was it same as when Saul renamed himself Paul. Simon to Peter?

Like when Hindues change name when they get initiated? Or Christian innovation to mark one has died and now live as a Child of Christ?
Hope it is ok me tease christians a bit. If Jesus isn't Immanuel then Jesus is a false Prophet like Jews say he is.

Pseudo-Deity

Granted, Hezekiah doesn't sound anything like Immanuel either.

Clouseau

But prophecies often had double meanings, one comparatively trivial, the other of cosmic significance- otherwise there was no real point in writing them.

Sauron

Uh, not so fast. The idea of prophecies having double meanings is yet to be demonstrated; it has only been asserted.

In point of fact, the "double meanings" trick is yet another christian explanatory tool, designed to permit the reinterpretation and re-purposing of OT verses. Christians take the obvious reading and tell us that it's a ginzu deal: "but wait - there's more!"