Clouseau

Prophecies often had double meanings, one comparatively trivial, the other of cosmic significance- otherwise there was no real point in writing them. Fulfilment of the 'trivial' one gave confidence in the future fulfilment of the more important one.

Toto

Clouseau: can you provide some support for this? Is it something you just made up?

Are you saying that the Jews who wrote this prophecy had a double meaning in mind, or that later Christians read the Jewish texts this way? Why would we be interested in how later Christians distorted the Jewish texts on this thread?

This is a discussion board, not an opportunity for you to waste our time with cryptic comments.

Sauron

Actually, the context indicates that the birth of the child was like the starting gun of a particular series of events that was to play out. A benchmark for the stopwatch to begin.

But you've already been told that.

Which gives you even less excuse for not realizing that the verse in question does not refer to a virgin birth.

Clouseau

It's well-known, and often taught- even triple meanings are held to exist. Ancient Babylon, for instance, is a figure for a future 'Babylon'. Matthew's 'A voice is heard in Ramah' (Mt 2:18) due to Herod's massacre is taken as final fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy of disaster in Jer 31:15, which had been 'locally' fulfilled by Nebuchanezzar. King David had characteristics of Christ, as the Psalms explicitly show, as did Solomon, and indeed Hezekiah. Joshua, too. They were by no means the 'real thing', but they in some way pre-figured Christ. Every 'event' in the OT, from Gen 1 onwards, is a pre-figurement of later, NT realisation in some way.

'What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.'

Eccl 1:9 NIV

I think that double meanings were constantly expected, for the reason given. Of course, Jews were very often very unspiritual; had they been spiritual, there would have been no need for a Messiah. So what they said, what they wrote, and what they thought may have been radically different. There were no prophets in the long intertestamental period, and great pearls of wisdom are not really to be expected at this time.

I'm sure no-one is interested in distortions, but proving distortion is not easy; it may be Jews who distort. The fact remains that the Jews at the time of Christ were, from the silence, totally unable to refute Christian claims, and had no recourse but to violence, as indeed did Rome, which was forced to adopt a caricature. It is this contemporary silence that helped persuade many in the last century that New Testament claims, from fulfilled prophecies to miracles, can with propriety be sustained.

Sauron

And as we've pointed out, this is merely an assertion on your part - we still await the evidence to support this manner of interpretation.

Moreover, you'll still need to show that *this* particular prophecy was supposed to be one of those with a double meaning, and for once in your life please try to avoid assuming your conclusion.

And finally, you'll also need to show that the first iteration of this prophecy came true. Good luck -- especially since there's precious little evidence of any prophecies ever coming true in the first place.

Sauron

Restating your claim is not evidence.

Examples of other christians who have used this same technique do not serve as proof that it is valid. After all, we are discussing how christians twisted OT verses to place them in a christian framework. Given that fact, we'd *expect* to find evidence of them doing it.

What you haven't shown yet is that the practice is valid or that it applies here to this verse.

Your other problem is that the verse indicates that the birth of the child is only significant because it serves as the starting point for a series of events. So there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the birth was mentioned. Worse for your argument, this is an explanation that concurs with the straightforward reading of the text -- something which your virgin explanation does *not* do.

No, as christians *assert* and *reinterpret* the psalms to mean.

Given the fact that the Jews were keepers of their own texts for hundreds of years before christians even existed, the burden of proof is not on the Jews. It is on you, the early church, and any other christians who want to say that the texts (a) are being wrongly interpreted and (b) can be re-interpreted to have double meanings.

You're light years away from proving either (a) or (b).

What silence? As even praxeus has told you, there are precious few texts from that time. You cannot infer anything about the Jewish reaction from a lack of evidence. Especially since a lack of evidence can also indicate a lack of any serious interest.

Wrong on both counts.

RED DAVE

From Clouseau:
I'm sure we do. But Xtian distortion of Jewish scripture is documented over and over again.

From Clouseau:
What was to refute: that your boy walked on water and rose from the dead? Any kid could do that since there was no evidence.

From Clouseau:
Violence against heretics was, unforunately, a Jewish practice as the time. Xtians inherited it and made it into a fine art.

From Clouseau:
Well-known as mass murderers of Jews, Xtians, Gauls, etc.

From Clouseau:
Please explain. Are you saying the the RC Church is a caricature of "true Xtianity"? If so, please show us some "real Xtians" on the map.

From Clouseau:
You can fool all of the people some of the time ... .

Oddly, we Jews have always been largely immune to this particular brand of bullshit. We have others that we go for, but not that one.

RED DAVE

Toto

Noted.

How can you claim that the Jews at the time of Christ were unable to refute Christian claims? Celsus' work still stands as an indictment of Christianity. Most Jews did not convert to Christianity, as might be expected if Christian arguments were so persuasive.

And we have no real record of Jewish violence against Christians outside of Christian imaginary fiction - where do you get this?

What contemporary silence?

Jack the Bodiless

...In Revelation, and only there. There is no indication that any Hebrew reference to "Babylon" applied to Revelation's "future Babylon".
...This wasn't even a "prophecy" in the original text (the "prophecy" in subsequent verses is of the end of the exile). It's one of several blatant examples of the author of Matthew ripping a verse out of context to fabricate a "prophecy" for Jesus to "fulfil". Not that there actually was an infant massacre by Herod, of course: this was another tale concocted by Matthew to create a parallel between Jesus and Moses. So, like Isaiah 7:14, this fails on multiple counts.
Once again: this concept was entirely alien to Judaism. It was fabricated by Christians.

Here's a challenge for you, Clouseau: find just ONE example of a claimed "dual prophecy" within Hebrew scripture. Not an OT verse dragged out and recycled by Christians in the NT, but a prophecy allegedly fulfilled on two specific occasions within the Hebrew scriptures themselves (and not an open-ended "God will aid the people of Israel" sort of statement).

Incidentally, in Joel 1:8 "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth": some translations substitute "betrothed" or "fiance" for "husband". From the context, this makes sense: the woman is mourning for a man who maybe should have been her husband, but is gone, like the failed harvests also mentioned.

funinspace

What is clear, is that even Christian scholars acknowledge that the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is not clear.
Whether Clouseau likes it or not, Christian theologians/translaters are not in his rigid camp. So at best, it's open for debate. One online translation source, which is in line with several other major accepted translations:
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
Isaiah 7:14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman (26) is about to conceive and will give birth to a son.

26<NOTE=323tn 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 (עַלְמָה, ’almah) 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 עֶלֶם (’elem, “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 παρθΪνος (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 παρθΪνος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.