Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Yeshua, the virgin birth, and Isaiah 7:14
#11
(09-16-2013, 12:08 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: The term conjugation is applied only to the inflection of verbs, and not of other parts of speech; inflection of nouns and adjectives (etc.) is known as declension....
No matter which interpretation one chooses a contemporary fulfillment is possible and could have taken place BUT the Holy Spirit has given ‘us’ the understanding that this sign prophesy is also applicable to the LORD Jesus and is the announcement of His virgin human birth.

Had I heard of "declension" before now, I probably would have used it instead of "conjugation." Thank you for that.

"Also applicable?" I am not so clear on the concept of "dual prophecy," as it is not Biblical, so please help me understand this. Is only verse 14 dual in nature, or the entirety of chapter 7? If the Messiah, and only the Messiah, is supposed to be born of a virgin, then there must have been a Messiah born during Ahaz' reign, correct? Who was the virgin who conceived and gave birth during his reign?
#12
benjosef Wrote:Are you arguing for a double-prophecy fulfillment, one in Hezekiah's time and one in JC's time?

I am not arguing at all ~ I am allowing you to have your cake while I have my dessert as well. The Hebrew is not specific enough to split the hair. The Greek of the LXX and the NT definitely puts this sign prophesy in the future with its fulfillment being the virgin birth of the LORD Jesus.
#13
(09-16-2013, 01:11 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote:
benjosef Wrote:Are you arguing for a double-prophecy fulfillment, one in Hezekiah's time and one in JC's time?

I am not arguing at all ~ I am allowing you to have your cake while I have my dessert as well. The Hebrew is not specific enough to split the hair. The Greek of the LXX and the NT definitely puts this sign prophesy in the future with its fulfillment being the virgin birth of the LORD Jesus.

I didn't say exactly that, but I'll respond anyway. Both the LXX version of the Prophets and the Greek Testament are exclusively products of the Church, written with the sole purpose that you may believe their sales pitch of a crucified demigod who died for your sins. The Hebrew is pretty clear here, as is the fulfillment of said prophecy in II Kings 15 and 16, that this was a contemporaneous issue, not a prophecy regarding an event some seven centuries later.
#14
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus read this in a synagogue and declared that it had been fulfilled in the presence of the hearers yet most Jews will say that this was written by and about Isaiah and was fulfilled by him, while that may be true concerning Isaiah Jesus was clear that He had fulfilled it in His time, if both are true then there is such a thing as a double fulfillment but what is more interesting is that Jesus stopped in mid-statement and did not read the conclusion: 'And the day of vengeance of our God', this constitutes a partial fulfillment much like Isa 7:14.
#15
Where do you see that Isaiah 61:1-2 is a prophecy at all? After all, it doesn't say that G-D will in the future send someone who will bring good news, it says that G-D already sent the speaker to do so.

In similar fashion to my questions above, is Isaiah 61 in its entirety a dual prophecy, or just verse 1 and part of verse 2? Simply reading the text, it looks like Isaiah is speaking of events that have not yet happened (build old wastes, raise up former desolations, eating the riches of the Gentiles, etc.), so what does it accomplish to say it's dual if the "first fulfillment" hasn't occurred? Or, we really should be focusing on the "second fulfillment," which we both should agree hasn't happened, and so this could not ultimately be speaking of J.

If you wish to argue for the concept of "partial fulfillment," then I, too, "partially fulfilled" Isaiah 61 because I have brought good news to afflicted people. Maybe I'm the Messiah?

When J read this text, why did he add "and recovering of sight to the blind" in Lk 4:18 if that clause is absent from every copy of Isaiah 61 in existence? Does it become a Messianic prophecy only when one adds to the G-D-given text, or would you have considered it Messianic if he didn't make changes? Why did he feel he needed to add to Isaiah's words?
#16
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...px#Article

In this article the author raves about a variant reading of 53:11 that is found in the so-called Great Isaiah Scroll and in 3 others of the 19 total Isaiah manuscripts found at Qumran. Here we can see that there were at least 2 different variants of Isaiah found at Qumran. In another article discussing the Qumran artifacts it is pointed out that the majority of these manuscripts are not identical in every detail with the Masoretic Text mostly due to either added or missing letters. The editors of the most recent Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation admit to the existence of multiple variant manuscripts from which they derived their publication. What this boils down to is that there is a great likelihood that some variant copies of the Tanakh may not have survived to this day and that there is a very good likelihood that the Hebrew variant(s) that the LXX variants were based on simply did not survive. But the LXX is a witness to the existence of those Hebrew variants.

In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus read from a scroll and there is no reason to believe He was adding to the text that was before Him. He could have been reading from a Greek manuscript (He was in Galilee) or from an Aramaic or Hebrew text that contained those added words. What violence do those added words do to the statement being made? None. But from my vantage point the testimony of Jesus trumps everything else.
#17
(09-13-2013, 09:08 AM)Nachshon Wrote: (Isa 7:14 [KJV])
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This verse is commonly used, along with Isaiah 9:6(5) to prove that Yeshua was born as god, and fulfilled these prophecies. We see that the NT accounts stipulate in Matthew 1:23 that Yeshua’s birth is the fulfillment of prophecy. I’d like to state my objections to these claims, and then open up the thread for discussion.

First I would set the record in proper sequence.

1.) The New Testament which is the word of God TELLS us that the virgin birth if Jesus is fulfillment of Isa. 7:14.

2.) Based upon that fact it is the verse is "commonly used" to prove the incarnation.

Let's just be clear about the order in which things occured.

Nachshon Wrote:1) Isa 7:14 was fulfilled in the time frame of King Ahaz, Hezekiah, and the prophet Isaiah. We see that Isa 7:15-25 specifies what is to occur after the child’s birth. Clearly, none of these events are associated with Yeshua’s birth or his lifetime.

The only portion of the entire chapter which the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Matthew to refer to are the words in verse 14.

It is clear that not everything else in the chapter has anything to do with the incarnation of the Son of God.

From the double fulfillment of a prophecy concerning Saul being among the prophets we can see God can re-use prophetic words to make another fulfillment of prophecy.

Compare "Is Saul among the prophets" said to have been fulfilled twice:

First Samuel 10:12
First Samuel 19:24


Can can apply prophetic words to the time of Ahaz and afterwards in the time of Jesus too.

Nachshon Wrote:2) Luke 2:21-24 specifies that Mary brought offerings as was required for married women who give birth in accordance with the Torah in Lev 12:2-8. These offerings are not commanded of virgins, like other commandments regarding virgins, i.e., Deut 22:23-29. So, Mary was not a virgin, and conceived naturally.

I will examine this latter. This is rather quick this morning. And the other portions will have to wait if I have anything to contribute.

Right now, I only conclude, as I have said before - the fact that the New Testament tells the world that Isaiah 7:14 applies to the birth of Jesus is authoritative period.

The New Testament is the word of God as the book of Isaiah is the word of God. This critics may call an argument from authority. It is. An argument from authority is not necessarily wrong. It is simply not philosophically rigorous according to human standards of logical debate.

But I may look at objections Nachshon has given as I find more time.
#18
(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: First I would set the record in proper sequence.

1.) The New Testament which is the word of God TELLS us that the virgin birth if Jesus is fulfillment of Isa. 7:14.

2.) Based upon that fact it is the verse is "commonly used" to prove the incarnation.

Let's just be clear about the order in which things occured.
The order doesn't matter. You must fulfill every word of prophecy, not just what is convenient for you. Let's be clear about that. This does not prove the incarnation, in fact it disproves it.

(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: The only portion of the entire chapter which the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Matthew to refer to are the words in verse 14.

It is clear that not everything else in the chapter has anything to do with the incarnation of the Son of God.
Isaiah was inspired to write the whole book, not just one verse like Matthew.

(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: From the double fulfillment of a prophecy concerning Saul being among the prophets we can see God can re-use prophetic words to make another fulfillment of prophecy.

Compare "Is Saul among the prophets" said to have been fulfilled twice:

First Samuel 10:12
First Samuel 19:24
These verses are not prophecies. They're just statements.

(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: Can can apply prophetic words to the time of Ahaz and afterwards in the time of Jesus too.
Double prophecies don't apply here. If that were the case, JC would have eaten cream as a child and it would have been stated in the NT. Also, all of the wording in Isa 7:14 would be in the plural to account for at least 2 fulfillments. This is not the case.

(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: Right now, I only conclude, as I have said before - the fact that the New Testament tells the world that Isaiah 7:14 applies to the birth of Jesus is authoritative period.
I guess you believe Obama too?

(09-18-2013, 05:40 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: The New Testament is the word of God as the book of Isaiah is the word of God. This critics may call an argument from authority. It is. An argument from authority is not necessarily wrong. It is simply not philosophically rigorous according to human standards of logical debate.

But I may look at objections Nachshon has given as I find more time.
Someone saying something has authority doesn't make it so. The NT has shown itself to be contradictory as in the cases above.
#19
(09-18-2013, 04:07 PM)Nachshon Wrote: The order doesn't matter. You must fulfill every word of prophecy, not just what is convenient for you. Let's be clear about that. This does not prove the incarnation, in fact it disproves it.
If you hadn't noticed All prophesy is not completely fulfilled. That is why they call it prophesy. To say Yeshua must fulfill what hasn't yet occurred is preposterous.

The death of the righteous one for Israel's iniquity is fulfilled in Isaiah 53, and 7:14 . The prophesy certainly has a short term fulfillment but surely Israel has not been completed, and are experiencing history repeating itself.
It surely wasn't Isaiah who fulfilled this prophesy, as he said; al of us are unclean; all does men all; far after his sons were born ..; Immanuel ;G-D with us occurred. It is Israel that has by your own words; have free will.

The words of Isaiah 7:14 is disputed as Alma or virgin. Actually alma is a much better description of the mother of verse 14; interpreted young woman, young woman to be wed. A young woman to be wed would certainly be a virgin if she was to bear Immanuel. As in fact the Hebrew bible used in the day of the 2nd, Temple was the Jewish Septuagint, which was a Greek translation, by Jewish scribes, seeing Greek was the most used language of the day,those scrolls which had not yet been destroyed by Rome. Within those pages of Isaiah the name of the woman was translated ;virgin. Matthew correctly quoted the verse, and had he quoted differently from them he would have been accused of unfulfilment as you do to us today.

In later finding of the dead sea scrolls, the book of Isaiah rewritten from the original context was ;alma
It certainly accommodates both action s of prophesy, the fulfilment of Israel making up their minds to obey YHVH still left to time; YHVH has all the time in the world. It is quite clear with the dealing of the middle east crisis and the Assyrians still encompassing Israel at their every border; Immanuel is soon to return.

If you say Jesus dod not fulfill prophesy because all is not well, then you might ask where is Israel's Messiah 400 years late from Yeshua. Yeshua will come when your Messiah comes; The prophets wrote it.
YHVH came first to refine the heart of His people Israel.Don't worry Yeshua has it covered!
You look at one man and not the G-D who has Immanuel from Israel's birth who has visited Israel many times, left to a remnant called Jewish Christians
#20
(09-19-2013, 07:10 AM)Azriel Wrote:
(09-18-2013, 04:07 PM)Nachshon Wrote: The order doesn't matter. You must fulfill every word of prophecy, not just what is convenient for you. Let's be clear about that. This does not prove the incarnation, in fact it disproves it.
If you hadn't noticed All prophesy is not completely fulfilled. That is why they call it prophesy. To say Yeshua must fulfill what hasn't yet occurred is preposterous.
Isa 7:14 and Isa 9:6(5) were fulfilled in the timeframe of Isaiah, King Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Please look at the context.

(09-19-2013, 07:10 AM)Azriel Wrote: YHVH came first to refine the heart of His people Israel.Don't worry Yeshua has it covered!
You look at one man and not the G-D who has Immanuel from Israel's birth who has visited Israel many times, left to a remnant called Jewish Christians
The Tanakh mentions nothing about Jewish Christians, but only Israel.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)