Isaiah 53: A Contextual Discussion

[hamashiachagape]

It is fulfilled here though - 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus (actually Yeshua, Yahweh is Salvation),[c] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

 

[b&wpac4]

Let me see if I can paraphrase Isaiah here, and see if it agrees with your take on the prophecy:

"Ahaz, you are worried about being attacked. Do not worry, you will be ok. Would you like a sign?"

Ahaz: No!

"Do not try the patience of God, you will get a sign that your enemies will be defeated and Jerusalem will stand. 700 years from now, a virgin will give birth to the messiah, and before he knows right from wrong, your enemies will be gone!"

 

[hamashiachagape]

So, how does that help king Ahaz with his problem? The one Isaiah is coming to consult him about. With two kingdoms threatening to attack Jerusalem.

Well it doesn't in the immediate present. But it will in the future! No weapon formed against us will prosper!

 

[hamashiachagape]

Let me see if I can paraphrase Isaiah here, and see if it agrees with your take on the prophecy:

"Ahaz, you are worried about being attacked. Do not worry, you will be ok. Would you like a sign?"

Ahaz: No!

"Do not try the patience of God, you will get a sign that your enemies will be defeated and Jerusalem will stand. 700 years from now, a virgin will give birth to the messiah, and before he knows right from wrong, your enemies will be gone!"

The dangers of paraphrasing......thats what Eusebius and Origen did too.

Although I think you have the right idea here, except the last line.

 

[b&wpac4]

The dangers of paraphrasing......thats what Eusebius and Origen did too.

It's what you believe though, isn't it? The sign wasn't for Ahaz at all, but for the future.

By the way, how can someone being a virgin be a sign? A sign is something you can see. I'm betting that nobody who wrote the infant stories saw Mary was a virgin.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The dangers of paraphrasing......thats what Eusebius and Origen did too.

Why I like to go right to the hebrew/greek texts. Anyone here check out this ISA Interlinear?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

 

[hamashiachagape]

It's what you believe though, isn't it? The sign wasn't for Ahaz at all, but for the future.

By the way, how can someone being a virgin be a sign? A sign is something you can see. I'm betting that nobody who wrote the infant stories saw Mary was a virgin.

Actually, Luke's testimony in this case is significant because he was a medical doctor. Joseph saw it...as a matter of fact he was told.

It was for the future. The land of the two kings that Ahaz dreads is the only necessary requirement to happen prior to the Messiah's coming.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why I like to go right to the hebrew/greek texts. Anyone here check out this ISA Interlinear?

[URL="http://www.scripture4all.org/"]http://www.scripture4all.org/[/URL]

Good! Check the sources also.

 

[b&wpac4]

Actually, Luke's testimony in this case is significant because he was a medical doctor.

So doctors in the first century could determine a woman was a virgin after birth?

 

[hamashiachagape]

So doctors in the first century could determine a woman was a virgin after birth?

Why not? Besides it was proclaimed by the angel. Thats a sign in itself.

Do you know anything about Jewish weddings during the 1st century? What did they do to consummate the marriage? They checked to see after having sex if the woman was a virgin or not. These people knew.

 

[b&wpac4]

Don't you see how many hoops you have to jump through here?

Isn't it more logical that the plain reading of the text, that the boy was born at the same time Ahaz ruled and before the child knew right from wrong the enemies of Judah were gone?

 

[b&wpac4]

Why not? Besides it was proclaimed by the angel. Thats a sign in itself.

Joseph Smith claimed he was given information from an angel, yet I see you have the Messianic symbol not the Mormon one.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Don't you see how many hoops you have to jump through here?

Isn't it more logical that the plain reading of the text, that the boy was born at the same time Ahaz ruled and before the child knew right from wrong the enemies of Judah were gone?

Whats not being plainly read? Nobody is documented as being called Immanuel prior to the Gospel accounts.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Joseph Smith claimed he was given information from an angel, yet I see you have the Messianic symbol not the Mormon one.

Joseph Smith did not fulfill the prophecy. Much like Muhammad, Joseph Smith ONLY attempted to create new prophecy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't you see how many hoops you have to jump through here?

Isn't it more logical that the plain reading of the text, that the boy was born at the same time Ahaz ruled and before the child knew right from wrong the enemies of Judah were gone?

Unless ye become as children ........

[RNKJV] Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together
and a little child/lad shall lead them.

Young LT) Luke 2:42 and when He became twelve years old, they having gone up to Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast,

 

[hamashiachagape]

Joseph Smith claimed he was given information from an angel, yet I see you have the Messianic symbol not the Mormon one.

Have you ever talked to a Mormon to see how much knowledge they have about the Torah and the Prophets? Most of them haven't even read the book. Moreso, they haven't read the Brit Hadashah.

Even more interesting, you'd be intrigued to see how little a Muslim usually knows.

I on the other hand encourage all groups of faith to seek this material, as I look into theirs.

 

[b&wpac4]

Whats not being plainly read? Nobody is documented as being called Immanuel prior to the Gospel accounts.

Isaiah 8:8.

 

[b&wpac4]

and what does Isaiah 8:4 tell us?

4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Wow, that sounds identical to the prophecy to Ahaz about the child that would be born that would not know right from wrong before Ahaz's enemies would be gone.

 

[hamashiachagape]

and what does Isaiah 8:4 tell us?

4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Wow, that sounds identical to the prophecy to Ahaz about the child that would be born that would not know right from wrong before Ahaz's enemies would be gone.

Wrong kid. ""Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."

 

[b&wpac4]

Wrong kid. ""Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."

Actually, that only says what Isaiah named him. The mother could have called him Immanuel, no?