Summations Only

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.

quote:

---

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 ..."

---

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 second part is this shows how the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was probably not matthew btw) wrote TO a phrase to try to attribute it to Jesus. This tactic can be shown to be dishonest if you actually READ Isaiah 7:14 in context. I am sure that most honest people know what 'context' means.. It means looking at the phrase in conjunction to the surrounding sentences.. and if you read Isaiah, Isaiah specifically mentions WHO the woman is , and WHO the child is. The woman is his wife (see Isaiah 8:3-4), and his son. .. (Isaiah 8:19 confirms this).This shows a passage that was written TO, rather than taken FROM. An after the fact retrofitting of a passage in the Jewish scripture by the NT authors is NOT scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, but rather evidence of deception.

Well, here we have some statements that can be demonstrated to be false.If you look at the "Song of Solomon" in context.. (and I do think you should), you will see the LAMH is Song of Solomon 1:3 , you will see that almah there is being used in a sexual context, and in proverbs it is sexual in nature. "The way with a man with a woman (almah) is talking about sexual intercourse.Let's look at what the orthodox Jews say about it.. from a Rabbi.from Page Not Found Now, let's take the term 'parthenos'.. There are a number of incidences where
the term parthenos has been used in Greek literature to refer to women who are of marriagable age, but not virgins.Genesis 3:4, for example. refers to Dinah as a 'parthenos' even after she had been raped.
Homer, Iliad 2.514 "Actor, son of ... Astyoche, the honored maiden"
Aristophanes Clouds 530, about a "parthenos" who exposed her baby.The other two reference are to young women who slept with a man (though
in Pindar's example quite a few men):Pindar, Pythian 3.34
Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219 of Iole (1220) who slept with Heracles (1225).So, I just find it very ironic that Glenn Miller, who is a computer jocky who runs an apologist site, claims to know so much more Hebrew that Jewish rabbis' who study it extensivley.

You keep on makign claims that can be shown to be false.I gave examples of parthnos being used for non-virgins.There is also the case of a young married couple in Rome where their tomb refers to the married woman as 'parthenos' (a Jewish couple).It seems odd that you will drag you heel on this, when there is an example of Parthenos being used as a non-virgin right in the Septuagint.

"almost always".. Is that like "a little bit pregnant'.In the time frame when the extended septiguaint was translated.. it did not.I already showed that 'Almah' does not mean virgin. .. which is the original. Then you say 'Almost always'.. so, when we look at the context.. we see that it is NOT a virgin, since Isaiah had sexual relations with that woman.You keep ignoring context. You keep on quoting a source (Glenn Miller), who is not educated in Hebrew , or Greek.In context.. it is NOT virgin. Unless you want to yank context away from the sentence, and invoke 'magical thinking', it can not mean virgin.Yanking context away from the sentence, and invoking 'magical thinking' is not rational.

Well.. it has to be unambiguous, and it has to be shown that it was considered a messianic prophecy BEFORE the l fulfillment, and it has to be translated properly and in context. 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.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

I am not making a claim of ANY full filled prophecy. All I see is that you are avoiding supporting your claims. It has been demonstrated very completely that Isaiah 7:14, if you look at it in context... was a sign to King Ahaz about the King of Assyria, and it was written down after the fact.It's not my job to support your claims.. it is up to you to support your claims.The claim is 'there is scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah'. When it comes to your claim about Isaiah 7:14.. that claims has been shown to be wanting.

What makes you think that there was a 'dual prophecy'?Now, what matthew is doing is RETROFITTING a sign to King Ahaz into Jesus. that does not make the phrase in Isaiah to be a prophecy about Jesus, but rather an after the fact retrofitting. If you read it in context AND with the proper translation.. it has nothing to do with Jesus was so ever.IT shows, well Matthew lied about it.I see no reason for it to be a dual prophecy. That is retrofitting things... and the claim for dual prophecy sounds more like the cry of desperation than anything else.

I am wondering.. did you even READ what anybody said at all.The sign is NOT about the child,.. but the conception and birth of the child is the time frame for something to happen. What was King Ahaz concerned about?? He was worried about the King of Assyeria? What was the sign?? By the time this child is old enough to say 'Mother and Father', the King of Assyeria won't be a problem anymore. That was the sign. The child was merely a clock for an event.

Boy, you certainly do not understand the Jewish traditions and naming conventions.It is common tradition to name childern after traits of God. Isaiah means "God is our salvation', and Hezekiah means "Mighty God" (or literally, God is our might). Joshua means 'God is our salvation'. That is very typical of Jewish names.

Boy oh boy.. so many claims.. so much unrelated stuff.Let's take a look at leviticus.. it's not a prophecy, and it is not a prophecy of cannibalism. Cannibalism existed before hand.This is not a prophecy, at least not in the manner that Christians use it. THis is basically a provisional caution.. if you read chapter in context..... the writer of Leviticus is saying,.. obey God's commands, and you will prosper.. but if you don't obey him, and you deviate from his expectiations, these bad things will happen. It is not so much a 'prophecy', but a series of warnings of what will happen if your behavior is going to be bad. This is the threat of punishment, not of a prophecy..Deuteronomy 28 is the same thing.. it is a list of 'these are the rewards you will get if you obey the lord, and these are the punishments you will receive if you disobey the lord. It's a 'prophecy' in so much it is a message from God (according to the author).. but it can't be 'full filled', since both the reward and the punishments are conditional. Do good, and good will come to you, else if you do bad, I'll punish you' type of details.. no "duel" prophecies.. and it has nothing to do with Jesus what so ever.. if you actually read it in context.These appear to be imagery that the authors of the New Testament are yanking out of context, and trying to retrofit into a new theology by misapplying things.. that's not 'dual prophecy' at all.The use that the authors of the New Testament put those passages is certainly not inherent in the passages themselves, in their original context.This is the technique known as 'shoe horning' a prophecy into place, after the fact.. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Matthew is not ambiguous in his words - "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 Emmanuek" (which is translated, God with us.)).

---

Yes, Matthew quoted from Isaiah ,using the Septuagint, to promote Jesus to a group of Hellenistic Jews. However, this is what is known as 'shoe horning', because if you read the actual passage, it has nothing to do with a virgin. The word 'parthenos' at the time Matthew used ti mainly meant Virgin, yes, but when Isaiah was first translated, a number of centuries earlier, it did not mainly carry that connotation. This is writing after the fact to retrofit concepts.. it is evidence that Matthew was selling the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, but he was misusing the Jewish scriptures by mistranslation and out of context quotes to do so. It might be evidence of the idea that Matthew was pushing.. but after the fact retrofitting is not particularly convincing.As a matter of fact, I consider that method something called "LYING". To make his theological point, he LIED about the jewish scriptures.

The trinity is called a 'mystery ' because it is an ad hock explaination to retrofit the concept of "Jesus being God' into Jewish Monotheism It is given a term to hide the fact that it totally and utterly does not make sense.
.

Often, people use their misunderstanding now Hebrew works to try to shove the trinity into the old testament. Let's take a look , at for example, the word "Elohim' which means lord. This shows 'plural' with the 'im', but it is most often used not as a plural, but a magnification. IF the following verb is in singular form, then Elohim is singular, but the importance magnified That can be shown in Exodus, when Moses become an 'Elohim' over Aaron. It doesn't mean there were three people named Moses.. but rather Moses was magnified in importance (sort of like the royal WE.It has nothing to do with the 'Trinity' at all. That is just plain silly.

Well, is that story true?? Sounds like a literary device to me...Seems to me that most people interpret the messanger to be John the BaptistEdited by ramoss, : No reason given.