Summations Only

That's true.Let's stick with Emmanuel. It is at least certain that SINCE Jesus was born, no OTHER human has come closer to quaify for the candidacy of being "God with us." Shall I count your refusal to acknowledge God with us as the failure of Christ to fulfill prophecy? I don't consider your disdain to acknowledging Christ as "God with us" as His failure.I regard your withholding that praise and that calling as the prerogative of your disbelief, and nothing more interesting than that.

Now I ask:Who do you think the prediction of "God with us" really refers to?Second question:If we asked that person to compare their lives with the life of Jesus Christ, do you honestly think they would claim for themselves that they were MORE qualified to be called "God with us" than Jesus ?What Jewish prophet or king or hero between the time of Isaiah's writing and Christ's birth would you assume could look down at Jesus and say -"Well, I think that I am more a likely recipient of that title "God with us" than this Jesus person."Names ?

quote:

---

So we can disregard your denial that you're thinking in circles.

---

I didn't deny that that complaint could conceivably be made.If you would be honest you would admit that you come with a priori convictions just as much.Actually, the thinking here is linear that a man called Jesus so far has acted as God being with us as no other man yet has. And I know that Emmanuel He has been praised as and called.These callers mostly just said Amen to what was written. He is indeed "God with us".I think that that is sufficiently linear thinking. Let's say that by "God" we mean all that has been revealed before in the Old Testament.There is no problem with "us" I think. But we can start with the assumption that "God" is meant what Isaiah knew as God.

quote:

---

So, in other words, you're not going to back up your claim.
FYI, I have no preconceived objections because I have no idea what examples you would offer.

---

My intrance into this discussion, I think, was just in reaction to some talk about Isaiah's prophecy. I never said I was promising a truck load of fulfilled prophecies.I have not been on the forum in a while. I think I just jumped in to this discussion when I noticed some things I wanted to say about exchanges on the Isaiah prophecy.There is no rule that I cannot participate UNLESS I have many many examples of fulfilled prophecies. That is a rule you are trying to impose upon me.

quote:

---

I don't think I've said anything about objectivity in this thread. I've pointed out the circularity of your thinking, which you finally admitted, and I've asked you to back up the claims you made.
Instead of taking potshots at my motvations, why don't you make a decent case for fulfilled prophecy?

---

I have backed up my claims that an objection to Christ being a candidate for the fulfillment of Isaiah 7 is not that far fetched. I believe it.I think what is being demonstrated here is some people's talent for missing the point. That is some people's tendency to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."Well, the prophecy said SHE will call. But Matthew said THEY will call."Okay. But isn't that kind of straining out the gnat and missing the point? This man healed the sick, raised the dead, was righteous to an extraordinary degree, was confessed as someone/s Lord and God, rose Himself from death (no mean feat mind you), and spoke words which have shattered human culture for two millennia.Songs about Him praise Him as Emmanuel.I don't suggest you jump on the bandwagon just to do so. But I think the objections raised about the prophecy are nit picky.And again, I do not regard someone's proud and rebellions refusal to call Him Emmanuel as a failure on Christ's part.Maybe you'd rather NOT God be with us.
Maybe you'd prefer there be no God at all, let alone one "with us."I don't count these attitudes as a failure on Jesus's part to fulfill the prophecy.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Whether or not I have preconceived notions about the fulfilment of prophecy is irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread. All I've done is point out the errors in your logic. I'd do the same thing if I agreed with your conclusion.

---

You've pointed out nothing of the kind to me. It is certainly reasonable to count Jesus as having fulfilled Isaiah 6:14.

quote:

---

You said you could provide examples of fulfilled prophecies that weren't contrived.

---

No I didn't. Quote me where I used the word "contrived."

quote:

---

When you walk into a discussion and make claims about the topic, there is some reasonable expectation that you will back up those claims.

---

I did back up the claims with reasonable evidences that Jesus was called and actually is Emmanuel.Right now, I am busy demontrating that some people's claim of the unfulfillment of by Jesus of Isaiah 7:14 is nothing more than skeptical bias. They try to pawn off their skepticism as the failure of Jesus.Their skepticism about the subject is not that reliable.You said above something like plenty of people have been refered to as God with us. Perhaps a few have. But you have in the prophecy a sign of a virgin being with child.Put the two predictions together and I think Jesus Christ is your best fulfiller of the prophecy.Again, Wesley's very popular 18th century song says in verse two - "Pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel" Conceded, no record of Mary addressing her child as Immanuel.Are you expecting someone ELSE to come along -
1.) born of a virgin,
2.) believed upon and sung of as our Immanuel.Halle Salasi was believed by some to be God.
Farard, alledged founder of the Nation of Islam, was taught to be God.Neither was taught to be born of a virgin as Isaiah 7:14's "sign" predicted.And I don't think either one of these two acted in a manner rivaling the character and deeds of Jesus.

quote:

---

jaywill writes:
"Well, the prophecy said SHE will call. But Matthew said THEY will call."

​

Okay. But isn't that kind of straining out the gnat and missing the point?

​

Not at all. That is the point, exactly. The subject of the prophecy was to be named Immanuel. Whether he would fit your requirements for "God with us" doesn't matter. There have been plenty of people in history named Immanuel who didn't live up to the name.

---

That's a point. However, the prophecy did not specify exactly WHEN she would call the child Immanuel.It is entirely possible that she called Him Emmanuel sometime after He was perhaps 30 years of age. How can you prove that the prophecy means the child is called Emmanuel at the time of birth ?

quote:

---

The meaning of the name Immanuel isn't particularly relevant.

---

I disagree. The Bible is not like the predictions of Nostradamus. The Bible prophecy is not about predicting willy nilly curiosities like UFO sightings. They have a spiritual and moral relevance.I think your view of Bible prophecy is shallow as if God has nothing to do but tickle our curiosity with tricks and funny predictions.If you want those kind of "prophecies" to debunk then you should go to the predictions of Jean Dixon or Nostradamus or perhaps some astrologers and secret code hunters.He gave you a VIRGIN BIRTH in the coming of Christ. Morally and spiritually He manifests God if anyone ever did. Are you really going from this to gloat that no passage in the NT records Mary calling Him Immanuel ?It appears to me like grasping for excuses to deny that God was ever with us.

quote:

---

A lot of Jewish names refer to God. That doesn't mean that anybody and everybody with "god" in his name is the Messiah. Nor does it mean that somebody who acted like God with us has anything to do with the prophecy.

---

I agree with this. There are many names with - el as God in them.C'mon. There is one man who was born of a virgin. Just going by the record of the New Testament - we are about 50% there. Plus we have Jesus called Emmanuel by loving Christians. Plus you have Him acting as you would expect God to act if He became a man - full of righteousness, holiness, truth, power, resurrection from death.You say "But that's not important." Sure it is. And I might add that even in the fulfillment of prophecy God reserves a little space so that one still has to exercise some faith.This is the difference between God wanting to do some tricks to tickle human curiosity and God seeking to gain your heart of trust and love that He could give His Spirit into you.You "Just the mechanics is all that is important." Those are your priorities. It seems sometimes that you are looking for the "proof" of an unbeliever in the Son of God confessing the Son of God.That, on this side of the last judgement, you may never get.

Isaiah 7:14 says the child is born and the mother will call His name Emmanuel. It doesn't have to mean the two events happened on the same day or even in the same year.It just says she will call Him that. And Matthew modifies it somehwhat that "THEY" will call Him that.I see no failed prophecy here. I admit that strictly speaking we don't see her calling Him Emmanuel at birth or latter.But the prophecy is that it would be done. The prophecy is not that this physical act of calling Him Emmanuel would be recorded in the New Testament. Thankfully, the virgin birth part was recorded in the New Testament.I think we should run with Jesus being the fulfillment of the prophecy. Fifty percent of the details are recorded. The rest certainly can be gathered by safe assumption.Look at Thomas and Peter as typical disciples each refering to Jesus as their God.Copied without permission from Bible Questions Answered | GotQuestions.org which I think is helpful: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You don't seriously expect me to believe that Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 because no passage of the NT records Mary addressing Him as Emmanuel ?You don't, with a straight face, expect me to disqualify Christ as the Messiah on those grounds, do you? Somehow, when I imagine one of you skeptics confronting me face to face about this "No calling of Emmanuel" issue I vision someone to be barely concealing a mischevious grin.This is a kind of "Gotcha!" attempt to thwart disciples of Jesus. I have said a number of times that the Emmanuel calling I don't read in the NT.All things considered, do you seriously expect that this omission constitutes a failure of fulfillment of Christ to be the Messiah?As for the difference between Isaiah and Matthew's reference, I have yet to study up on that.

quote:

---

But is any part of Matthew prophecy about Jesus as messiah, given that it was written after the birth and resurrection? I don't understand in what sense post-resurrection statements given in full knowledge of Isaiah can be prophecy, even if those statements are literally the Gospel truth.

---

The angel that spoke with Mary did not check to see what the New Testament had said about it, you know? Are you expecting that someone was beside the bed of hay as she gave birth penning down the Gospel?I think that this little comment of Luke's gospel may be indicative of the fact that Mary helped the Gospel writers or Peter by recalling the things of her experience - "But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19) Probably after years of pondering, she assisted the evanglists by recounting the details of her mothering this extraordinary Person.

quote:

---

You seem to be assuming that people who question whether it can be shown that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfilled prophecy are also questioning whether Jesus is the messiah.

---

In some cases some people might hold to Him being the Messiah without agreeing with the prophetic nature of Isa. 7:14. They probably were gotten hold of by the more theologically liberal branches of academia.You know, even though we don't read of the calling of Emmanuel, we are given considerable more detail about the virgin birth - ie. Luke 1:36-38; Matt. 1:18-25.

quote:

---

Well I, for one, don't question Jesus status as the messiah. Jesus is the Christ. But the question for this thread is a far narrower one. Namely whether we can find a fulfilled scripture identifying Jesus as the Messiah. In my view, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a fulfilled prophecy.

---

Do you mean that neither the virgin birth nor the calling of Him as Emmanuel, you think He fulfilled ?Do you mean you have a Son of God whose physical father was Joseph who begot Him?

quote:

---

Matthew, on the other hand, is evidence that Jesus disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah. That's good enough for me. I don't care about the mismatch with Isaiah at all; except for the need to tell the truth in this thread.

---

Well, I think that God is not sloppy in His communicating His word to man. He is precise about the number of hairs on our head. Why should I think He is loose about Him giving us His word?If there is a little difference between "She shall call His name" and "They shall call His name" I trust it is absolutely under the sovereignty of God. I will study the difference. But I have seen little differences like this before.My opinion is that they are not a test to God. They are a test to man. Such a slight difference, I think, is totally under the sovereign providence of God. And it may be His way to expose us.Some of us are experts at missing the point. Now, the "they" of Matthew must include the "she" of Isaiah.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think I was writing response as I was reading along. If I recall correctly, AFTER I wrote this question, I DID notice that you said you did not disqualify Christ as the Messiah.Rightly or wrongly, I often past comments up and read and comment as I go.Now. I would like to know if you also think Jesus was not born of a virgin. What do you think ? Yes? No?

quote:

---

I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I accept also that on the third day Jesus rose again from the dead. Is there a OT prophecy that tells us to expect such a virgin birth? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.

---

Here's the relevance in my mind, at least.You believe Jesus was born of a virgin, presumably because Matthew and Luke tell you so. Correct me if I am wrong. I know of no other place in the New Testament saying that Jesus was born of a virgin.Yet curiously you do not believe the same Gospel of Matthew when it tells you that such a birth was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.This seems curiously selective to me. If you cannot trust Matthew that - "Now all this happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (which is translated, God with us)" (Matt.1:22), how can you trust Matthew on the virgin birth?Could you help me out here? If you don't trust Matthew on the detail of the prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 how is it you trust Matthew that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary ?How can you trust Matthew that Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1-15)? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, Jesus failed to fullfill the prophecy o f Isaiah 7:14, because , if you read the 'prophecy' in context, Isaiah not only identified the woman as his wife, he identified the child as his own son, and the prophecy was a timer from the time he was conceived to the time he was old enough to know evil. .. (I.e. probably about 2 or 3).. The sign was to King Ahaz, and the prophecy was 'Before that child knows evil, the king of Assyria will get his butt kicked' (paraphrased).

​

So, it wasn't about Jesus, because the prophecy was more than a half a millennium too early.

---

I do not account Matthew to be mistaken on these grounds. Matthew didn't say that anything of the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, but specifically these words - "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel ..." "Now all this happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel ...".Matthew stops right there. The fulfilling of the words of Isaiah do not encompass the words that you include.I agree with you that the actual fulfillment of all the words that you included was the birth of Isaiah's son by Isaiah's wife (8:3). This calls for a kind of dual fulfillment because ultimately the words singled out by Matthew, he says, were fulfilled in Jesus's birth. Now you are free to disbelieve Matthew. I believe Matthew.I think this way of thinking is legitimate because it occurs elsewhere that a Scipture has a dual reference. David and Christ shared some passages in a dual way.Now while some may complain that this is contrived or not fair, I think God has the authority to fulfill His will in this manner. At least Jesus taught that He was:More than David as the kind of ultimate David (Matt. 12:1-5) . David and his followers ate the bread reserved for the priests only. Jesus transcends David who was a prefigure of Jesus.More than Jonah (12:41). Jesus transcends Jonah who was a prefigure of Jesus.More than Solomon (12:42). Jesus trancends Solomon who was a prefigure of Jesus.In the same principle Jesus transcends Isaiah's son. Isaiah's son also being a prefigure of Jesus.Now the words that you quote in Isaiah 7 from verse 15 through 17, Matthew does not include as words being fulfilled in the event of Jesus's birth.So I think we have #1 - dual prophecy of which the more important occurance refers to the Son of God.And #2 - a portion of the words of Isaiah's total prophecy being fulfilled in the birth of the Son of God.Now while we may not like this manner in which God brings to pass things said by the prophets, I believe that we have to allow for God having the sovereign authority to act in this manner should He want to.If I do not accept this rationale then I have to opt for saying the apostle Matthew is giving some kind of erroneous commentary on the book of Isaiah. But I think the writer of Matthew is rather writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.I would add this. God seems not to want to COERCE belief from man. God seems not to want to bludgeon us into believing. In His way of prophecy it seems He often leaves the doubter an escape hatch to disbelieve.It is as if God is saying "Here is the fulfillment of My prophet's words. But if you really don't want Me, here is a little side door for you to slip out with your own free will. Here's a little descrepancy - "she will call" verses "they will call". Here's a little escape hatch for you - Isaiah's son is the reference, Jesus is the final reference.If you really don't want to believe Me, I will not force you against your will. I even leave for you a little escape hatch to duck out with your disbelief intack."So it is with perhaps ANY prophecy. If you really want to hunt out a reason not to accept His word, He will even furnish a little escape route to slip away in your self chosen unbelief.He will not usurp your free will. He woos your love and trust which you are ever free to refuse Him if you wish.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First of all, this shows the dishonesty of Christians, since the term 'Almah' does not mean virgin. It means 'young woman of marriageable age'. That is strike one.

---

The skeptic hopes to lay hold of a word which would mean "anything BUT a virgin." Almah is not that word. It can be claimed to mean something else beside a virgin. It cannot be insisted upon that it could never mean virgin.Copied with permission from Christian Think Tank

quote:

---

"The Hebrew text says almah (the virgin) suggesting that a definite woman is in view. The Hebrew word almah is used seven or nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26 [1 Chron. 15:20 and the heading of Ps. 46 are uncertain]) and is the only Hebrew word which without qualification means a mature young woman of marriageable age, but unmarried and presumably a virgin. In Song of Sol. 6:8 the word stands in contrast with queens and concubines, and in Prov. 30:19 the way of a man with an almah contrasts the infatuation of youthful love with the infatuation of an adulterous woman (v. 20). Some have suggested that the word bethulah would more accurately suggest a virgin, but this term sometimes requires a qualification such as neither had man known her so that it cannot merit serious consideration as a quasi-technical term for virgo intacta [The Emmaus JournalV8 #1Sum 99 David J. MacLeod]

​

"The translation virgin (alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is bethulah.' Of the nine occurrences of 'alma' those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the "alamoth ' contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, `alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, 'so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'. [Motyer, Isaiah]

---

Some 200 years before the New Testament was written Greek translators used for Isaiah 7:14 a word [parthenos] which almost always meant virgin. This document refered to as the LXX.They could not have been enfluenced by a bias to uphold Christian doctrines which did not yet exist.

quote:

---

"The LXX renders the word by parthenos which almost always means "virgin." Yet even with this word there are exceptions: Genesis 34:4 refers to Dinah as a parthenos even though the previous verse makes it clear she is no longer a virgin. This sort of datum prompts C.H. Dodd ("New Testament Translation Problems I," The Bible Translator 27 [1976]: 301-5, published posthumously) to suggest that parthenos means "young woman" even in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. This will not do; the overwhelming majority of the occurrences of parthenos in both biblical and profane Greek require the rendering "virgin"; and the unambiguous context of Matthew 1 (cf. vv. 16, 18, 20, 25) puts Matthew's intent beyond dispute, as Jean Carmignac (The Meaning of parthenos in Luke 1. 27: A reply to C.H. Dodd, The Bible Translator 28 [1977]: 327-30) was quick to point out. If, unlike the LXX, the later (second century A.D.) Greek renderings of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 prefer neanis ("young woman") to parthenos (so Aq., Symm., Theod.), we may legitimately suspect a conscious effort by the Jewish translators to avoid the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14." [EBCNT]

---

In essence you're claiming -"Matthew has made a false statement. It is not true." That is why I asked why do you trust Matthew on history if Matthew cannot be trusted on the fulfilling of the "that which was spoken" ?I think a kind of slippery slope problem is introduced by your concept. One miracle you will accept - the miracle of a virgin birth.
The other miracle you reject - that prophetic words spoken by an Old Testament prophet could be fulfilled in this birth. Now we have another problem. Isaiah may be mistaken as well.1.) The fulfilling of the words spoken by Isaiah are suspect.
2.) The words spoken by Isaiah are questionable to begin with.I think you are on a slippery slope here. I think that you are still holding to a virgin birth of Jesus. But doubt may soon gobble up that NT teaching as well eventually, at this rate.Anyway, I am glad that you do apparently believe in a virgin birth and a resurrection of Jesus. Well, I notice the two important bounbary points -

Verse 18 - "Now the origin of Jesus Christ was in this way: ..."

​

Verse 22 - Now all this has happened so that what was spoken ..." These two verses seem to me the boundary expressions, if you will, delineating the specific match up Matthew is explaining.I probably would regard the verses from 1 - 17 as merely additional historical evidence mainly supporting verse 1 - "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." In my Recovery Version the outline is helpful -
Matthew 1:1 - 2:23 is under the editor's heading " 1. The Kings Antecedents and Status."Under that a subsection of Matthew 1:1-17 headed as " A. His Genealogy and Office - Called Christ".Then the next subsection is Matthew 1:18-25 headed as " B. His Origin and Name - Born a God-man, Named Jesus, Called Emmanuel by Men" At present I think I would regard Verse 22 - "Now all this has happened" to specifically refer to the events recorded and commented by verse 18 - "Now the origin of Jesus Christ was in this way ..." I am not sure I follow you fully. "Now all this was done" can contain additional things not specified by the prophetic words.I take the explanation as "all this" (and some) was foretold to come to pass by the Lord speaking through the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:14.The naming of the child Jesus by the parents is not specifically mentioned by what the Lord spoke through the prophet in Isaiah 7:14.That detail does not mean that "what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled" is a false statement. It is only that addition extra detail, albeit not specifically uttered by Isaiah.It is only with "tongue in cheek" mischeviousness I could suggest this matter to qualify a failed prophecy - scrapping at the bottom of the skeptical barrel.The detail of Joseph being instructed to name the child "Jesus" didn't change Jesus being born of a virgin.Again, Jesus is the name that the angel directs Joseph to call the child - "an angel of the Lord appeared to him [Joseph] in a dream, saying, Joseph ... and you [Joseph] shall call His name Jesus ..." (v.21) This detail about the angel instructing Joseph in not something the words of Isaiah 7:14 predict will happen. I don't regard the additional detail about how Christ was born to constitute a "failed prophecy" or mismatch of Matthew's history and Isaiah 7:14.A virgin DID bear a son.Now the other part about what THEY will call the child.The name Jesus is the name the parents are directed to call the child.The name Emmanuel is what this Person will be called by people. I take this to be, as a result of experiencing the life of Jesus some people, including His mother, will confess that God is with them.First He will be God with us, I think, to "His people" - " ... it is He who will save His people from their sins." (v.21) I think the FIRST people to call Him Emmanuel are the people who experience Jesus saving them from their sins. Those who do not believe that they have sins and therefore have no need of salvation, may not call Jesus "God with us." "God with us" is a declaring of praise and thanksgiving. Those groaning and chiding under the existence of Jesus are far less motivated to confess that Jesus is "God with us".Actually, "all this has happened" includes another prophecy - that is that "He will save His people from their sins" . I do not seriously count this detail having no corresponding detail in Isaiah 7:14 to constitute a failure of prophecy. What I see is a prophecy, a fulfillment, and in the details of that fulfillment ANOTHER prophecy.Well, you have God instructing Joseph (and wife) to NAME the child Jesus. You have in prediction that the child will be called Emmanual. The former is what God commanded the child to be named.
The latter is what man will call this Person.The calling ones who refer to Him as Emmanual will include His mother. It does not seem mandatory that He is called Emmanual before the revelation of His power and ability as God is manifested. I think the ones who take the lead to call Him Emmanual are "His people" who are saved from their sins.I don't think those persecuting Him wanted to admit or believe that He was "God with us". Eventually they did or will have to acknowlege Him as God. Whether he is God with them depends upon their receiving Him or not subjectively.At most all I can say is there is a slight difference in "she will call His name" (Isaiah) and "they shall call His name" (Matt.) I already commented on this. My belief is that there is no need to tap the Holy Spirit on the shoulder and educate God that He made a slight misquote. I believe God is 1,000,000 % sovereign over this difference for His own reasons.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Why do you think the Greek speaking scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible around 200 BC used for Isaiah 7:14 a word parthenos, which almost always means virgin?Christ had not even been born one way or another when these 70 scholars were doing their translation work.I may get around to discussing modes of prophecy fulfillment. But you might read again the story of Joseph in Genesis.You might also one day read carefully the books of First and Second Kings paying attention to how God fulfilled words of prophecy. Some of us pay attention to these things. God has laid a lot of ground work in the OT. His way and manner is revealed in many places in anticipation to the coming of the main focus of the Bible - the Christ.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In any case 200 years before His birth, unbiased experts in translating Hebrew to Greek must have thought "Hmm. Parthenos is the word we need here."Usually - virgin. As far as they were concerned they were reading something that had long since been fulfilled.Much latter in the Greek NT we have male usage of parthenos used for the "virgins" in Revelation 14:4 - "they who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

A lot more is made of His resurrection in the New Testament, then His virgin birth, I think.Paul has belief in His resurrection as a requirement of salvation - "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) However, the virgin birth proves that He was qualified to be the Messianic descendent of David to sit upon David's throne. Had Joseph actually been His physical father, He would have been disqualified to be the Messiah. That's another story. Neither terms sound very good to me.
I trust the Bible. I do not worship it.
And I love Christ. The attached "anity" means a lot of things to a lot of different people. But what about this? The only Bible that they had at that time was the Hebrew Bible. This was refered to as Scripture. And Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) I think this may go into a discussion about innerant - what exactly is meant ? But this sound like Jesus taught a ultimately authoritative Hebrew Bible - "Until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away from the law until all come to pass." (Matt. 5:18) I'll have to go back and look at that.Initially, I don't see any problem my understanding of innerancy in this. God had His perfect will. God made allowances for man's weakness with His permissive will.I am a little rushed right now. I think this will drift too far from the matter of fulfilled prophecy. So I will not get too deep into this right now. Imperfection and being God are incompatible to me.But the poster who said s/he could believe in the virgin birth as Matthew said, but not in what he said about the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, I did not condemn as a non-believer.I only asked him to consider the problem of doubting one detail of Matthew but accepting him on other detail.Now when I first came to the NT, I had a huge filter. Eventually I was persuaded that the whole thing falls or stands together.I have to go.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is not much of a "sign" for a girl to have a kid.I can hardly imagine that that was the only child born to a woman before the invasion of the Assyrians to Israel's enemies occured.Now God said to Ahaz that he should ask for a sign and "make it as deep as Sheol, or make it as high as high can go." (v.11) Now that sound like God wants to give a profoundly significant and powerful sign. Ahaz, in some kind of humility, refuses. God gives him a sign any way.My thought is now "If God challenged Ahaz for a sign as either as deep as Shoel or as high as high can go, then why would God then give him an easy sign?"I mean a mother giving birth to a child, who in its infancy, an invasion of Israel's enemy land will take place, is not that unusual. Maybe the quickness of the fall of their enemies was near miraculous.But there is another alternative thought. God, transcending time and viewing all world history before Him, knows what is on His heart to perform - becoming a man Himself and being born of a virgin.Someone may object that that was not a profound and deep sign which Ahaz witnessed. Perhaps not then. But in the scheme of eternity it is a sign for Ahaz to learn of some time.So Ahaz gets a sign of Isaiah's son (8:3). But I think God also tacked on a dual meaning, with forethought, not afterthought. And that sign is exceedingly profound, exceedingly deep, exceedingly high - God Himself becomes incarnated miraculously through a virgin one day.So I totally have to reject the cries of "Matthew is shoe horning false prophecies in a dishonest way." Rather God, through Isaiah, is speaking words which He knew then, (He knew in eternity past) He would fulfill in the incarnation of Christ.You see, the other prophecy of Micah said the Ruler over Israel was to come from Bethlehem but His going forth was from ETERNITY. So the whole idea of God meandering through miscellaneous actions in a improvisational way, is unrealistic.He knew what He was going to do - to come forth from eternity into the world, ... He KNEW even before the creation, let alone before the birth of Ahaz. This was the real sign as deep as Shoel and as high as high can go (that is an infinite distance).These words also may suggest the death - descent and resurrection and ascension of this God-man Emmanuel.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.