Isaiah 53: A Contextual Discussion

[hamashiachagape]

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

No thats what the Lord says.

 

[hamashiachagape]

In context " 3 Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "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]

No thats what the Lord says.

To Isaiah.

And if you want to quibble, Mary didn't name her son Immanuel either. So, wrong kid for you too.

 

[b&wpac4]

Let me just tell you, I think you're better off adopting the position of dual meanings to the prophecy.

 

[hamashiachagape]

To Isaiah.

And if you want to quibble, Mary didn't name her son Immanuel either. So, wrong kid for you too.

Fair. For one Matthew identified this as relating to a Messianic prophecy. But at the same time, Yeshua means God is salvation. Thats awful similar in characteristic to "God with us." So in essence, given the characteristics of Yeshua's character, God was with us, to save us. Scholars indicate that names of individuals in the Jewish faith express their personality and status or nature. Of course we see the significance of this character being fulfilled literally within the Gospel accounts.

Your job is to show how " Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" comes close to this impact. Also to see if he was being referred to by these names. Immanuel was applied to something completely different in Isaiah 8:8.

Secondly, the other part of this picture is that a young unmarried woman would be the equivalent of a virgin in Jerusalem during this time period. Remember that rabbis approve that Rebecca's virginity is agreed upon in Genesis 24:43.

 

[b&wpac4]

Fair. For one Matthew identified this as relating to a Messianic prophecy. But at the same time, Yeshua means God is salvation. Thats awful similar in characteristic to "God with us." So in essence, given the characteristics of Yeshua's character, God was with us, to save us. Scholars indicate that names of individuals in the Jewish faith express their personality and status or nature. Of course we see the significance of this character being fulfilled literally within the Gospel accounts.

Matthew also thinks the prophecy about riding a donkey required two animals. He doesn't get to be that important to me.

Secondly, the other part of this picture is that a young unmarried woman would be the equivalent of a virgin in Jerusalem during this time period.

And she couldn't get married and have a child? Out of the question?

 

[b&wpac4]

Your job is to show how " Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" comes close to this impact. Also to see if he was being referred to by these names. Immanuel was applied to something completely different in Isaiah 8:8.

I don't think "God with us" and "God is salvation" are close at all. That's just silly to me.

In the end Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz has as much to do with Immanuel as Yeshua.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Matthew also thinks the prophecy about riding a donkey required two animals. He doesn't get to be that important to me.

No this fits the bill according to Zechariah 9:9 " 9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

compare with Matthew 21:1-11 "1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "[a]
6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. 8A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
"Hosanna[b] to the Son of David!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"[c]
"Hosanna[d] in the highest!"
10When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" 11The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

And she couldn't get married and have a child? Out of the question?

That would be something to take up with your sources.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I don't think "God with us" and "God is salvation" are close at all. That's just silly to me.

In the end Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz has as much to do with Immanuel as Yeshua.

God was with us..literally, to save us. Its hard not to arrive to a closer meaning than this.

 

[b&wpac4]

So, why does Luke only have one animal? Guess you've got yourself an inconstancy.

 

[hamashiachagape]

If you care, we can start a thread on whether or not Yeshua was God.

 

[hamashiachagape]

So, why does Luke only have one animal? Guess you've got yourself an inconstancy.

Nope. Thats actually complimentery.

 

[b&wpac4]

God was with us..literally, to save us. Its hard not to arrive to a closer meaning than this.

Uh huh. The hoops are fun to jump through, aren't they?

 

[b&wpac4]

Nope. Thats actually complimentery.

It's complimentary to have a person riding on two animals and one animal in the same story?

 

[b&wpac4]

Your job is to show how " Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" comes close to this impact. Also to see if he was being referred to by these names. Immanuel was applied to something completely different in Isaiah 8:8.
.

I'll play the game then.

The name references how the enemies will be plundered, which shows Judah that God is with them.

Mine makes just as much sense as yours.

 

[hamashiachagape]

It's complimentary to have a person riding on two animals and one animal in the same story?

No this is from the perspective of four different people.

Matthew happens to be the most thorough in this case, as is indicated by his drawing the attention to the scripture (he should be given more weight than anyone else. Mark talks about a colt, and Luke about a donkey. Just because they only refer to one of the animals, doesn't mean that all of them are not included (because its from the perspective of different people). The reality seems to be for whatever reason, Mark didn't see a need to go into as much detail, and neither did Luke. But thats reflective from the writings they present (they don't actually write the same way as Matthew, in other words). Hence, this can not be seen as a contradiction.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'll play the game then.

The name references how the enemies will be plundered, which shows Judah that God is with them.

Mine makes just as much sense as yours.

Thats more of a reach I'd say. This is why its important to remember that Yeshua..if indeed he is the Messiah, is Elohim. We obviously know that the other gentleman was not.

 

[b&wpac4]

No this is from the perspective of four different people.

Matthew happens to be the most thorough in this case, as is indicated by his drawing the attention to the scripture (he should be given more weight than anyone else. Mark talks about a colt, and Luke about a donkey. Just because they only refer to one of the animals, doesn't mean that all of them are not included (because its from the perspective of different people). The reality seems to be for whatever reason, Mark didn't see a need to go into as much detail, and neither did Luke. But thats reflective from the writings they present (they don't actually write the same way as Matthew, in other words). Hence, this can not be seen as a contradiction.

Yeah, no. Matthew is the most sloppy with his use of the scriptures and details. Luke is the one that investigates and does his best to get it right.

I can see why you like Matthew though. You, like him, use everything very sloppy and don't investigate.

 

[b&wpac4]

Thats more of a reach I'd say.

Of course! It doesn't boost your point, so it's a reach. If it helped you, it'd be the most awesome thing.

This is why its important to remember that Yeshua..if indeed he is the Messiah, is Elohim. We obviously know that the other gentleman was not.

The messiah isn't identified as God in the Tanakh, so even if Jesus is the messiah, it doesn't automatically make him God.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yeah, no. Matthew is the most sloppy with his use of the scriptures and details. Luke is the one that investigates and does his best to get it right.

I can see why you like Matthew though. You, like him, use everything very sloppy and don't investigate.

I guess when all else fails...insult?

Hmm, so how was Matthew sloppy? Its pretty obvious who is paying more attention to detail in this case regarding Messianic prophecy.