CJD

Max, while I am sympathetic to finding Jesus in there somewhere (this side of the cross), the dispute is not merely over the word (almah), but over the indisputable fact that the context of the Isa. 7 prophecy points to an Isa. 8 fulfillment. Typologically, yes, I think Jesus embodies the prophet's words in a more robust manner than Isaiah's sons, but by ripping the prophecy out of context and slamming it down on Jesus' head opens yourself (rightly) to criticism, namely, doing violence to the plain sense of the text.

As an aside, I think the Hebrew grammar leads us to read the text like this: "See that virgin? She will conceive and bear a son . . . ." Assuming, of course, that she was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, before Isaiah slept with her and, consequently, before she gave birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3).

Regards,

CJD

Paul Baxter

Just a general thought on the subject of prophecy, though I imagine it has been mentioned elsewhere. There seems to be a false dichotomy here. While there is undoubtedly a range of opinions on the matter, it's my understanding that quite a lot of people are happy to see multiple referents in OT passage like the IS 7 one. The fact that it is referred to in the gospels as a prophecy of Jesus does not necessarily imply that it had generally been taken before then as referring to THE messiah (leaving open the possibility of lesser "messiahs").

Is this helpful at all?

Kilgore Trout

Here are some rebuttals to the alleged "messianic prophecies" that YHWHtruth claims were fulfilled by Jesus.


The birth of Immanuel Is 9:6a [Matt 1:23; Luke 1:31-33; 2:7-11]

This one says "A child is born to us! A son is given to us!" So you're saying that by being born, Jesus fulfills this prophecy! Hate to tell you this but everbody who ever lived was born. I guess since christians are so captivated by the christmas story of how Jesus was born, they must think he was the only person who was born or something. As soon as christians see someting in the O.T. that says "A child is born," they think "Hey, Jesus was born wasn't he? This must be talking about Jesus!"

The revival of the Davidic dynasty Is 11:1 [Matt 1:6, 16; Acts 13:23; Rev 5:5; 22:16]

I won't even bother getting into the problems with the geneologies of Jesus, or that they made up his geneologies later to make him look like a descendent of David, because that is already clear enough. (Biggest problem: you have to be a descendent of David on your FATHER's side and Jesus supposedly has no human father.) Lets say Jesus does qualify as a descendant of David. So did a lot of people! I think god told David his decendants would number like the stars. So this does not make you the messiah.

Incarnation of Jesus Christ Is 28:16 [Matt 21:42]

So now because Jesus SAYS he is the "stone that the builders rejected" that means he fulfills this. Anybody can say anything they want. I now officially announce that I fulfill Isaiah 28:16. So I guess I am the messiah.

Preaching of John the Baptist Is 40:3-5 [Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23]

About the same as above. Once they have in the bible that there will be a messenger anouncing the messiah, every would-be messiah will make sure he has a messenger. So anybody can do this.

Jesus at baptism and transfiguration Is 42:1a, 2, 3 [Matt 3:16, 17; 17:5]

So they claim god said Jesus was his servant. If god really announced it everbody would have known it and they would not have killed him. Also the NT says god's voice said these words, but how do they know it was god? Maybe it was your devil or someone yelling on a mountain top. I suppose they did a voice-print analysis of the voice and it matched the voice that spoke to Moses!

Jesus beaten and spat upon Is 50:6 [Matt 26:67; 27:26, 30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22]
Another great one. Jesus was the only person to get beaten and spat upon in the history of the world! These are too easy.

Jesus setting his face towards Jerusalem Is 50:7 [Lk 9:51]

In my bible Is 50:7 does not appear at all related to Lk 9:51. but assuming Lk 9:51 fulfilled some prophecy, its meaningless because someone heading to Jerusalem is another thing anyone can do.

Israel failing to recognize her Messiah Is 53:1 [Jn 12:38]
This is another meaningless prophecy. For the messiah to not be reconized would be a dumb thing for god to do. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy for anyone. Here's how: I announce I'm the messiah, everyone else says "No You're not!", then I say "See! you guys don't even recognize me!" Maybe Charles Manson is the messiah, since people don't think he is.

Philip identifies Jesus as the one written of Is 53:7,8 [Acts 8:32,33]

So a follower of christ told someone that Jesus is the one in Isaiah 53:7. Followers of Charles Manson probably said a lot of great things about Manson. It doesn't make them true.

Jesus remains silent during trial Is 53:7 [Matt 26:63; 27:12-14; Mk 14:61; 15:5; Lk 23:9; Jn 19:9; 1Pet 2:23]

For one thing he talked during his trial. Putting the words "Jesus said nothing" and then having Jesus talk a couple of lines later does not count as saying nothing. Also, even if he didn't anyone can just not talk during a trial and they will fulfill this. O.J Simpson didn't take the stand during his trial, so he would fulfill this better that Jesus would.

Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world Is 53:7 [Jn 1:29; 1Pet 1:18,19; Rev 5:6]
Jesus was innocent of charges Is 53:9 [1Pet 2:22]

More things his followers claimed, so again anybody can say these things.

Jesus needed to be slain besides 2 criminals Is 53:11 [Lk 22:37]
Anyone can be slain next to 2 criminals. In fact lots of CRIMINALS were slain near 2 other criminals!

Christ's resurrection was important to his occupying David's throne Is 55:3 [Acts 13:34]
More claims by followers.

Jesus fulfilled the call to the daughter of Zion by his triumphal entry Is 62:11 [Mt 21:5]
If people knew the messiah had to enter Jerusalem triumphantly then anyone who wanted to pretend to be a messiah would do so. Self fulfilling prophecy.

This shows the circular reasoning behind thinking Jesus is the messiah. People first come to the conclusion that Jesus is the messiah, then they look for "amazing prophecies" in the OT to support their forgone conclusion. They don't realize that an impartial observer would never think these prophecies point to clearly to one man since they are too vague or self-fulfilling.

I find it amazing that the only "messianic" prophecies that Jesus fulfills are ones that anybody can fulfill (like that he was spat upon) But all the "biggies" that only the real messiah could fulfill, well it is said he will conveniently do them when he comes back!

The only "real" Jewish messianic prophecies are the ones that will be obvious to everyone in the world right away. All these little ones just lead to all kinds of fakes pretending to be the messiah because lots of people can fulfill the "easy" prophecies.

An added note on Isaiah 7:14. Even assuming it meant a virgin it would be silly to have that as a prophecy. How can a virgin having a baby be a meaningful prophecy. How do you know the woman is a virgin? Do you ask her? That's really trustworthy. They are not going to have a prophecy that in order to believe, you have to give the woman a gynecologial exam. The same can be said about Mary being a virgin. The only person who knew whether was a virgin was Mary herself. So there is no outside source that the gospel writers could have went to. You have to take one person's word for it (as if I really believed anybody asked her anyway.) If one person's word was good evidence of a claim that extraordinary, then you would have to believe in UFO's bigfoot etc.

And yes, I know the christians are not going to care about any of these things because they have too much invested in wanting to go to "heaven" and avoiding going to "hell". They don't want to know how things are, they want things as they want them to be. After all Jesus tells them to have faith like little children, so they are not supposed to question their religion, just have faith.

Javaman

Thanks for bumping this thread, KT. Good work on "Venus on the Half Shell" BTW... It made me go find good SCIFI

Also, Fr.Andrew, I guess that last one you posted was from Ezekiel but the others I have yet to find. I'll keep looking. Thank you.

And to YHWHtruth & CJD. Thanks for the Hebrew help and pointing out that, regardless of there being a virgin birth, there's really no way around the Isaiah timeline.

Since some of you replying are Christian, what's your take on the Immanuel apologetic (or is there a standard one)?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Pardon me! The first two were Isaiah, the third was Daniel and the fourth, as you already know, was from Ezekiel.

CJD

A few thoughts:

Baxter, I think you are partially correct in your comments. As Kilgore quipped, " . . . an impartial observer would never think these prophecies point clearly to one man since they are too vague or self-fulfilling." He hit it on the head. That is why using OT prophecy in the manner of YHWHtruth does next to nothing apologetically. OT prophecies are not static or specific prognostications. Once again, I encourage the reader to go to the other threads I made reference to early on in this thread.

For example, if what I have explained (keep in mind, folks, this stuff is not originial with me) in the discussion "Are these failed prophecies?" is remotely viable, then there are significant problems with Fr. Andrew's contention in this thread: " . . . but there's nothing in Jewish scripture to my knowledge which speaks of the Messiah returning after a period of time to clear up unfulfilled prophecy." This is precisely the tension of the NT that its writers' recognize, but this does not suggest that they understood the Prophets in the same way modern Xians do (as static or specific prognostications). If they did, then I would, and I might add, I would not be a Trinitarian theist. Treating prophecy like YHWHtruth hands the argument over to the Friar. However, I treat the prophecies differently not because of apologetic reasons, but for two other (obvious) reasons: 1) remaining true to the context of the pericope; and 2) remaining true to the hermeneutics of Hebrew prophecy by taking the entire Tanak into account. I have said this elsewhere: arguing for the authenticity of the Christian faith based on OT prophecies is a huge waste of time.

Finally, Javaman, I have written on the Immanuel pericope in the thread on Isaiah. My basic approach I quote from there:

Instead, fully aware of their own history, and the primary fulfillment of Isaiah's words in his own sons, [the apostles'] see this as a type more robustly fulfilled in Jesus. In other words, Jesus was the archetypal son who came as either a blessing or a curse. If we keep in mind the "exile/repentance/restoration" theme of all the Prophets (Moses included), then we can better understand how the apostles viewed Jesus in this light. He was the sign, they said. Will you repent to bring about restoration or not? No apostle pretends that Isaiah's words written in 680 BC originally had anything to do with the Messiah; but they do see Isaiah's words being "filled" as it were, in the coming of the one who, they believed, was the ultimate Immanuel (or, God with us).

Regards,

CJD

YHWHtruth

Where is your posts CJD

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I'm confused. Is there anything in Jewish scripture which speaks of the Messiah returning after a period of time to clear up unfulfilled prophecy? A "Second Coming"?
Or is that just Christian myth born of necessity to explain away the inconvenience of Jesus' having come and gone without the accompanying Messianic Age?

Radcliffe Emerson

The Jewish Messianic belief is there are TWO messiahs, and they have not come yet. They will usher in world peace the FIRST time they come, and the OT interpretations Christians like to say are prophecies of Jesus are for the most part mis-translated from the original Hebrew to mean what Christians want them to mean, not want the original Hebrew actually says.
The Messianic attributes given to Jesus in the NT are based on Greek concepts, not Hebrew. Hence the reason Hebrews never accepted the myth.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Thanks, but...is that Biblical? Is there a passage in Jewish scripture that speaks of two messiahs? This is the first I've heard about that and I thought I was moderately familiar with the Bible.