Summations Only

That has a nice authoritative sound to it. But on this thread I reserve the right to give my opinion about evidences and any other related matter to the topic.I don't demand that you don't give your opinion. Which is all that you jon, jar, Dr. Adaquate, have been doing incedently. What is "real life" is a matter of your big fat opinion.Real life for a lot of us is the virgin birth of Christ and that knowing Him we came to know God.Speak for yourself about "real life". What I keep ignoring and will continue to ignore is your phony authoritativee tone that you know the evidence points to some failed prophecy.The evidence points to something greater than Isaiah's child being born and Assyria hastling king Ahaz's enemies.

I've been reading up on the life of king Ahaz. An interesting man. He was one of the worst, if not the worst of the kings of Judah. He burned children in the valley of Hinnom to the god Molech. Child sacrifice was usually resorted by Jewish kings to in extreme national desperation. Terrible!He was desperate to seek help everywhere except in God. For Ahaz God simply was not available (seemingly so he thought), not around. The more things happened to prompt him to turn to divine help the more stubburn and self willed he became. And the worldly help that he did trust in seemed to disappoint and backfire on him. Tis interesting indeed.I can see now that God wanted to impress Ahaz that God was with them. Thus the name "Emmanuel" designated to the child to be born.Now those who divorce this conversation between God and Ahaz from grander spiritual and moral issues of the world, are morally shortsighted. The greater problem is that the human race at large has become like Ahaz, sinking deeper and deeper into withdrawing from seeking God and His help.Some shallow thinkers see only a dubious god's concern for the Assyrians at issue. Those with better insight into the whole tenor of the Bible realize to see that "God with us" is the salvation of mankind as a whole, realize how a dual prophecy could take place.It is interesting that the abominable Ahaz (or Jehoahaz) bad as he was, was mentioned in the geneology of Jesus Christ. This indicates to some of us that the grace of God swallows up the most intractable sin and rebellion of men.I am now more convinced than ever that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 does have ultimate fulfillment in the virgin birth of Christ."Thanks Matthew for letting us know." 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.

GDR, We should remember that there were also the sins offering and trespass offering. I think therefore that immediate execution was probably not the only course of action.Don't forget that in all this strictness you also have the atoning and redemptive offerings. It is the same God indeed. Have you forgotten the mercy shown to the harlot Rehab and her whole household ? That is in the book of Joshua about the fall of Jericho.God did not, therefore, wait until the New Testament to show His empathy and compassion on the wayward woman. Rehab sought God and God's people. And quite a record was reserved for her in the Hebrew Bible as an example to all. I understand the imperfect people. God however, by definition is right and righteous eternally so. The Bible is about how He can redeem us and transform us and conform us in His salvation until we match Him.The Bible closes with a marriage of these saved formerly imperfect ones and the perfect God - Bridegroom and Bride. Marvelous! Of course we should. And we should be renewed in the mind so that our reasoning is with a renewed mind. " ... be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2) And since this is a PROCESS I see no reason why on the way, we [wouldn't] have some doubts and misconceptions about His word. Sure. But I think we should heed Paul's warning about God's economy or dispensation which is in the realm of faith and divine love- " ... the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith; From which things some [teachers] having misaimed, have turned aside to vain talking ..." Some teachers want to teach how to disbelieve the word of God. I am into teaching people how to believe the word of God.God's economy is in the realm of faith. Some teachings - " ... produce questionings rather than God's economy which is in faith." (1 Tim. 1:4) Priorities with me are asking first - "What was it that was really written?" Sometimes Christian teachers may teach people to strongly believe something, but it was not really WRITTEN that way.Once I determine what is written, I look to God to teach seekers how to believe what was written. And I spend some time on places like this to defend why I believe such. That is true because God has chosen the way of faith in order to wrought and work Christ into our lives (literally): "That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (Eph. 3:17)Faith is the means God has chosen to dispense Himself into man. I am not sure why. Perhaps because lack of trust was what plunged man into all the problem to begin with. Perhaps faith is something which leaves man nothing to boast of in himself. Like Paul I say there is the "kindness and severity of God". That is not a false dichotomy between the two. That is both attributes of God are manifested- " Behold then the kindness and severity of God ... " (See Romans 11:22) I totally agree. I believe though that we have the answer to whether or not Jesus ultimately fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. He did. Since I know that we do not have all the answers, I am not afraid to admit it. I don't think that even the Apostle Paul leaves us with the impression that he had no questions left in his own heart about some things. I think Jesus may have expounded Isaiah 7:14 as Matthew His discple related it to us. I don't know that.Either way, I believe Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. If the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write that about the fulfilling of the words, that is also God telling him so. I'll believe it.You can make your choice. I was trying to show that that sometimes happened, to another poster.But unless Jesus is God, His arranging to be born in Bethlehem, was impossible. So I think He arranged somethings - as a man. And He arranged some things - as God.Jesus is the mingling of God with man - of man with God.
Jesus is the union of the infinite with the finite - the created with the Creator. Marvelous ! I am giving my reasons for not doubting that Matthew was right about Christ being the Emmanuel and the virgin born Savior. I am not easily lying down and letting some skeptics walk over me.Ask Ringo if he believes in ANY prophecy fulfillment of ANY kind in the Bible.Ask one of the other career skeptics here if they believe that ANY prophecy of ANY kind in the Bible was fulfilled.By the way, at first glance, it seems that the child Isaiah had was named by him, at God's command - Maher-shalalhas-baz (Isaiah 8:3) .No passage saying he was Mr. Emmanuel. However the land of Israel is spoken as Emmanuel's land (8:8).Now God's land (God with us's land) should not be being run over by the idol worshipping heathen Assyria or Babylon or Rome. So the land of Emmanuel MUST have a more meaningful fulfillment in someone beside Isaiah's kid.Jesus Christ must be the greater Emmanuel as the Messiah under whose feet all the enemies of God are defeated. So Isaiah 7:14 HAS to point to a greater one than Isaiah's kid.Incidently, since Isaiah took witnesses and went into the prophetess to have the child (8:3) that child could not have been born of a woman in virginity.The greater "Maher-shalalahas-bazz" has to be Jesus. This is just like He is the greater Jonah, the greater Solomon, the greater David, the greater temple, etc. 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.

Over many years now, people who jump on the almah issue hope to make the argument that its the wrong word for VIRGIN.Now over the years some have fine tuned the complaint because of Christian apologetics. There is no need to talk about "imaginary people" with imaginary motives.I think God is entirely sovereign over what word was used. Now if Almah cannot be insisted upon to be physical virginity that would account for both Isaiah's going into the prophetess to produce the child AND Jesus virgin birth having been a dual fulfillment of those words (Isa. 7:14). "And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. And Jehovah said to me, Call his name Maher-shalalhas-baz." (8:3) Now with Jesus, Mary had not yet had sexual relations with a man.So the word almah not exclusively indicating physical virginity confirms the possibility of dual prophecy.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If you check back with when I first introduced parthenos into the discussion, I mentioned that it almost always meant virgin.Was I not less than 100% absolute about parthenos = virgin ?
Now perhaps I have not seen your submissions yet.
But they would be little surprise to me as this is not the first time I have reviewed issues related to the almah / parthenos debate. Have a link to this ? So we have two words - almah in Hebrew and parthenos in Greek. Neither is 100% absolutely and exclusively only virgin.I do not read either Hebrew or Greek. But even in the English language, "virgin" might at some time refer to " a freshman, a neophyte, an apprentice, a novice, a beginner, a rookie, a rook, a greenhorn, a tenderfoot, a newbie, a recruit."Now and many years from now someone could unearth the English usage of "virgin" to refer to something other than a woman who has not had sex with a man.So why should I be surprised that in Hebrew almah could take on varied senses or in Greek parthenos could also take on various senses.I think you have no slam dunk for a failed prophecy.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You mean Gen. 34:4.Umm, before you provided this example, I already submitted it.
Go back and check. I care about accuracy too.My quotation read:

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."

---

And out of curiosity. Please give me an example of prophetic words in the Bible that you DO regard as having been fulfilled.I mean anywhere in either Old or New Testament. Do you have a couple examples that serve for you as standard models of what a fulfilled prophecy should look like ?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.

I asked:

quote:

---

And out of curiosity. Please give me an example of prophetic words in the Bible that you DO regard as having been fulfilled.

​

I mean anywhere in either Old or New Testament. Do you have a couple examples that serve for you as standard models of what a fulfilled prophecy should look like ?

---

Let's look at your model and see if your criteria for judging these things is consistent in how you judge Jesus' birth as compared to Isaiah 7:14 .I hope your next post to me will include your one or two strongest examples of fulfilled prophecy.If you don't have any examples to serve as models, that's a problem.
I might assume then that no example could ever meet your criteria. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think we would just get into throwing scholars up against each other. I do not read or write ancient Hebrew or Greek. I don't know that you do either.Because I do have to rely on others knowing the linguistics and history doesn't prompt me to dismiss Glenn Miller's rather lengthy multi nuanced article on the debate.But another website discussion says (with some objection below)

quote:

---

The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.

​

Dr. Cyrus Gordon

---

" Jewish and Christian scholars would be hard pressed to deny that the Greek term parthenos and the Hebrew term almah may have been used interchangeably by those Jewish communities that adopted the Septuagint. "Then I read this objection and assertion:

quote:

---

"On the other hand, J. Gresham Machen, who has done a definitive study on this passage, asserts that the translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew word almah as parthenos cannot be used to show a Jewish doctrine of the virgin birth, for one also finds the word parthenos used in the Septuagint to translate the word na'arah, which merely means "young girl."

​

For Machen, the very fact that the passage does not have a history of Jewish messianic interpretation and the very unlikelihood of this passage being interpreted messianically makes the New Testament account all the more credible. In other words, the gospel writer, Matthew, was not trying to fit Jesus' life into a traditional mold, but rather turned to Scripture to explain what had taken place in the event of the virgin birth.

​

One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah. Nor can a serious student lightly dismiss the word as having no possible reference to a miraculous conception.
"

---

Somone else points out

quote:

---

Hebrew word Almah= Maiden in English

​

English word Maiden= Betulah in Hebrew

​

Hebrew word Betulah= Virgin in English

​

then we can acknowlege almah as virgin as well.....

​

That question is going in circle and going nowhere..

​

Almah means virgin period. Jewish corruption and arguments against the new testament simply don't have the stomic the answer to their claim. anyone can go to http://www.freetranslation.com and type in maiden and find that word translated as Betulah. Mind you the entire web tells christians that Almah is maiden in english. if maiden is betulah and betulah is the word for virgin. What is the problem if Mary is a Almah a virgin?

---

Copied from a Jews4Jesus website.

If this is in response to my request to YOU to submit a model or two of fulfilled prophecy, it does not have to be messianic. Any prophetic prediction fulfilled is what I ask you to show me.

quote:

---

Those are the major ones. IT can't be 'written to' in a poor manner.
Choose your best 3 or 4... and we can do an analysis of them.

---

Unless there is some post I haven't read yet, you seem not to understand.YOU are the one I ask to provide an example or two.What I believe have provided you rejected.
So YOU put forth your example of fulfilled predictive prophecy from anywhere in the Bible - Old or New Testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I assume then that up front, you don't believe ANY example would get past your ever shifting goalpost.I think then it would be more honest of you to just state fulfilled prophecy has never existed.Wouldn't I be wasting my time if you conceal that no possible sample could serve as a kind of model for others to be similar to ?Even up to now you want to be less than forthright about your intention to reject prophecy and fulfillment on general principle. "what was spoken ... saying ... " specifically is "Behold, the virgin [almah, parthenos, virgin, etc] shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (which means God with us) (Matt.1:23) Its absolutely close enough for me.And a dual prophecy I accept because God does things like that sometimes. Until He secures exactly what He desires He can do something once and then again.Ie. the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea miraculously in the Exodus from Egypt. Then they crossed the Jordon river similarly miraculously 40 some years latter going into Canaan.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Give me your example specifically - Chapter - verses?

I agree with you that God fulfilled His promise to rid Ahaz of his enemies. I am willing to look more into the history of the matter.But here is what some of us also notice.
The words "God with us" are not trivial, insignificant or mere idle words. The words "God with us" are exceedingly weighty.Now for the wicked king Ahaz to have his two enemies taken away meets Ahaz's need. This prophecy takes care of the disappointing evil Ahaz. But God still has His need to be with man. He has His need which is more than just freeing Ahaz from his enemies.Therefore the principle of dual fulfillment is possible. God has not arrived yet at the fulfillment of His need. Though He has taken care of wayward Ahaz's need, God is still not WITH the people as God desires. That is a higher priority.So we have these specific words, not concerning Assyria, but concerning God being with His people - "Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel" THESE SPECIFIC WORDS ... God Almighty can AGAIN fulfill in One like the Man the Son of God Who fully manifested God in a human man and AMONG His fellow human men and women.This meets God's need to truly manifest God with humanity and that much more so than the Assyrians coming through and cutting throats upon combatants.So I believe these words God again fulfills in a manner MORE related to His eternal purpose. You have to realize the God WITH US is the conclusion of the entire revelation of the Bible. History concludes with a city New Jerusalem - "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, ...and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Rev. 21:3) God with us is exceedingly central to the purpose of the existence of everything. He created the universe to fulfill God being with us.Because it is so central to the eternal purpose of God, He would revisit these words in a greater fuflfillment than the invasion of Assyria. He would specifically have a greater fulfillment in the coming of God as a man in Jesus Christ.My second point is less important. That is that the words "Ephraim will be shattered as a people". As one complains over the exact meaning of "almah" someone also could complain about what it exactly means for Ephraim to be "shattered as a people". It could be arguable to someone wanting to move the goalpost around to prove a "failed prophecy."In Ezekiel's description of the allotment of the land during the messianic age he mentions Ephraim - "Now these are the names of the tribes ... And alongside the border of Manaseh, from the east side to the west side, Ephraim, one portion. And alongside the border of Ephraim from the east side even to the west side, Ruben, one portion." (Ezek. 48:1,5,6) If one wanted to put on the stubburn hat of a skeptic he could complain that Isaiah 7:8 was not fulfilled because Ephraim is still around as a people in some age after the Assyrian envasion.Now you may scoff that this would be unreasonable as a criticism. But it is not more unreasonable than someone pointing out that no Gospel records Mary calling Jesus "Emmanuel".So even with your example, which incidently I concur with, one could raise objection that it was a failed prophecy. Ephraim was not "shattered as a people" and was mentioned after this Assyrian invasion. That is depending on how fussy you want to be about phraseology.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.

Granny Mag,I don't think much of the website you sourced which postures itself to be all about "religous tolerance."I don't know whose rules those are about prophecy. But dual fulfillment of prophecy is evident in the Bible because God's hands cannot be tied when moral situations reoccur. He economically applies the same promise to more than one moment in time.

quote:

---

Prophecies fulfilled on a number of occasions

​

Some Bible prophecies are fulfilled on several occasions because of situations which keep occurring.

​

Example. Deuteronomy 28:49 prophesies of "a nation . . . from far" which God would send against Israel if they forsook Him. Note how the terms of this verse were fulfilled by Assyria (Isa. 5:26; 33:19; Hos. 8:1) and Babylon (Jer. 4:13; 5:15) as well as Rome (Mt. 24:28).

​

Other examples. Cannibalism, prophesied in Leviticus 26:29, is recorded in both 2 Kgs. 6:26-31 and Lamentations 4:10, and according to Josephus occurred in A.D. 70. The opposition to Christ by rulers foretold in Psalm 2:1-3 occurred at his birth (Mt. 2) and his crucifixion (Acts 4:25-28), and will occur at his Second Coming (Rev. 17:12-14) and at the end of the Millennium (20:7-10).

---

Some prophecy has an initial fulfillment and a greater coming fulfillment to be expected:

quote:

---

Some Bible prophecies are fulfilled completely initially but this fulfilment is typical of something greater to come.

​

Example. Isaiah 17 was fulfilled in the Assyrian invasion in Hezekiah's time, culminating in the destruction of the Assyrian host (v. 14). Yet this fulfilment is also typical of the host which invades the land at the time of Christ's return, and is destroyed.

​

Other examples. Jeremiah 50 and 51 are prophetic of the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, but the extensive use of the language of these chapters in Revelation 17 and 18 shows that this overthrow was typical of the overthrow of spiritual Babylon at Christ's return. Psalm 41 (not strictly prophecy) is about David's experiences in the revolt of Absalom, but his betrayal by Ahithophel is typical of Judas's betrayal of Christ (v. 9, quoted in John 13:18).

---

Christ taught that He was the greater Solomon, the greater David, the greater Jonah.So sometime because of the moral supriority of Christ to everyone else in the history of man, a prophetuc utterance may have one fulfillment in a person but a more important fulfillment in the Greater version of the person - Christ.

quote:

---

Example. The promises to David are quoted with reference to Solomon; compare:

​

1 Chronicles 17:12,13 with 22:9,10. This is because Solomon's reign was a type of Christ's Kingdom; compare 1 Kings 4:25 with prophecies of the Kingdom in Jeremiah 23:6 and Micah 4:4. However, their complete fulfilment comes with Christ; see Luke 1:32,33 and Acts 13:33.

​

Other examples. Micah 4,5 was initially fulfilled by Hezekiah in relation to the Assyrian invasion, but will be more completely fulfilled by Christ setting up the Kingdom. Some features of Psalm 72 were fulfilled by Solomon's kingdom, but the psalm will be completely fulfilled in the future reign of Christ.

---

Copied from article "Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy" at Dual Fulfilment of ProphecyEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I understand this. You fail to understand how important it is to God for a man to actually live up to the name he has.David was a darling and a man after God's own heart.
Yet David did a number of things that fell morally short of his name.So Christ, One who was sinless, essentially said that something more than David was taking place in His life. (Matt. 12:1-8) Hezekiah has a great name as you point out. But when you look at the conclusion of Hezekiah's life you realize ultimately he only selfishly cared for his own reputatation. When it was time for him to die he begged for an extension, received it, and then blew it bad with boasting to the Chaldeans.Christ, on the other hand, cared nothing for Himself. He selflessly only wanted everything for His Father. He died when it was time for Him to die. And what a death! It was not for Himself but for the whole world.So you have the well named Hezekiah. But he serves as a type. The greater wise King is Jesus Christ, living up to all His Father desired where Hezekiah fell short.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is highly unlikely to me. Matthew's Gospel reveals the highest level of morality a human being can practice (by God's indwelling grace that is). As the heavenly Father is perfect His sons also shall be perfect, Matthew records of Jesus.For Matthew to be faithfully recording what Jesus spoke there in this pristine and ultimate moral integrity, yet slipping in lies on the side, is not realistic to me.He would have had to be schizophrenic to the extreme. Look at the so-called sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-8). I don't think on one hand Matthew is portraying this highest ethical standard in Jesus' teaching, and on the other inserting his own sneaky lies to help persuade the audience.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.