Please show me a young woman who is not a virgin in that society .... more on this later...
In context, it doesn't matter if the woman was a virgin or not. Isaiah is talking about a woman both he and King Ahaz knows and telling the king that before the woman's child knows good from evil, his enemies will be gone. It is not seen as a messianic prophecy by Jews, but as a prophecy that came true when King Ahaz's enemies were gone.
__________________ Proverbs 25:21
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Exodus 23:5
If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.
Please understand that the Jewish understanding of the verses you have provided is very different from the Christian understanding. For example, your first example is not seen as a messianic prophecy at all. The word virgin in Isaiah is also disputed by Jews, where most Jewish translations actually say "young woman" and not virgin. We do not believe the messiah will be born of a virgin. I am going to stop there as I am not allowed to debate here. There was a question asked, and I answered it with the Jewish understanding. There is no need for disrespect
So, in the end, Jews do have reasons for their rejection. They are not, I'm sure, reasons you agree with, but your reasons are not ones that Jews agree with. That's why there are two religions.
Yeah, but only one of them is correct on this account... so perhaps one set of reasons actually IS superior to the other.
.
In context, it doesn't matter if the woman was a virgin or not. Isaiah is talking about a woman both he and King Ahaz knows and telling the king that before the woman's child knows good from evil, his enemies will be gone. It is not seen as a messianic prophecy by Jews, but as a prophecy that came true when King Ahaz's enemies were gone.
I agree. The verse is taken out of context.
One question: Is theer a possibility that the bible is referring to two messiahs? One is a religious figure and the other a statesman?
It would be nice if you actually did the research. Isaiah 7:14 is not a verse about the Jewish Messiah. I mean seriously, read the context! Research the HEBREW! Research the historical context of Isaiah!
Yes, the Jewish Messiah must be a descendant of King David but, he has to be specifically a descendant through Solomon. 1 – According to Luke, Jesus is eliminated via Nathan. 2 – According to Matthew, Jesus is eliminated via Jeconiah (who was cursed from the royal line). 3 – Jesus, without a human father cannot claim the Jewish throne (you need to have a human Jewish father of the royal line to claim the throne).
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. = Experimental Electronic Music
After you provided the requirement for such verse...
All Jewish Messiah requirements are presented in the Hebrew Bible. So if Jesus gets to fulfill such requirements of the Jewish Messiah on his 2nd coming then it must be supported by the Hebrew Bible (which is it not).
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. = Experimental Electronic Music
It would be nice if you actually did the research. Isaiah 7:14 is not a verse about the Jewish Messiah. I mean seriously, read the context! Research the HEBREW! Research the historical context of Isaiah!
In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, "the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son...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." In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years' time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Some Christians do understand a double fulfillment, one in 8:3-4 and another in the future virgin born Messiah. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 could be understood as being a double fulfillment referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer. I do not hold to double fulfillment view. As not all Christians hold to double fulfillment, because of internal inconsistencies. If the word *'almah* truly means a virgin, and I believe it does, then a double fulfillment would call for a double virgin birth.
__________________ ...And by His stripes we are healed...
SEMPER VIPER
U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
Last edited by Bushmaster78FS; 22nd October 2009 at 12:45 PM.
All Jewish Messiah requirements are presented in the Hebrew Bible.
As it is clearly obvious, a point wide open to interpretation, hence the denial of Christ in the first place. Did He suppose He was the Messiah so that testified for it? Oh I know, NT authors lied about such testimony... right...
So if Jesus gets to fulfill such requirements of the Jewish Messiah on his 2nd coming then it must be supported by the Hebrew Bible (which is it not).
Another point that is widely open. Did the OT prophets understand the significance of Christ's birth and second coming? The OT prophets did not make clearly this distinction between the two comings. This can be seen in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7 and Zechariah 14:4. As a result of the prophecies seeming to speak of two individuals, many Jewish scholars believed there would be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah. What they failed to understand is that there is only one Messiah and He would fulfill both roles. Jesus fulfilled the role of the suffering servant (Isaiah chapter 53) in His first coming. Jesus will fulfill the role of Israel’s deliverer and King in His second coming. Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7, describing the second coming, look back to Jesus being pierced. Israel, and the whole world, will mourn for not having accepted the Messiah the first time He came.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, the angels declared to the apostles, “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:11). Zechariah 14:4 identifies the location of the second coming as the Mount of Olives. Matthew 24:30 declares, “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” Titus 2:13 describes the second coming as a “glorious appearing.”
__________________ ...And by His stripes we are healed...
In context, it doesn't matter if the woman was a virgin or not. Isaiah is talking about a woman both he and King Ahaz knows and telling the king that before the woman's child knows good from evil, his enemies will be gone. It is not seen as a messianic prophecy by Jews, but as a prophecy that came true when King Ahaz's enemies were gone.
If the woman was not a virgin, then it matters to use the word "virgin". The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term which opens the possibility to a wider understanding of the prophecy. Critic Jim Lippard states that the prophecy was given to King Ahaz and was fulfilled in 8:3-4. After King Ahaz refused to ask a sign from the Lord, Isaiah turned to the elders of the house of David and said: "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you [plural] to weary men, but will you [plural] weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you [plural] a sign ..." (7:13-14). Thus, God offered a sign to the king, but when the king refused the sign, the Lord gave His own sign, not to a king but to a nation, not an immediate physical sign but a distant Messianic sign.
Furthermore, the sign was not fulfilled in 8:3-4. There it says that the prophetess, Isaiah's wife, not the "almah," conceived and bore a son. She called his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, This does not sound anything like Immanuel which means "God with Us." It is true that the word "Immanuel" occurs twice in chapter 8 (vss. 8, 10). But the passage from verse 5 to 10 is on another subject not related to the son born in 8:3-4; it is a pronouncement of judgment, not of deliverance and comfort. This is confirmed by the fact that in 9:6-7 the promised Son is still seen as coming in the future. It is true that in 8:18 Isaiah said:
Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts who dwells in Mount Zion.
But this must not confuse the issue. The signs were in the meanings of their names, one of which meant "Speed the Spoil, Hasten the Booty" (a sign of judgment), and the other meant "A Remnant Shall Return" (a sign of future restoration). The sign of the virgin born Messiah would be much more than a name, it would be a person who would be God with Us.
Linear Mode
