Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

I believe the Jewish interpretation is that it is of the house of David.Not a place, but a family line.

Except of course, when you read the passage in context, the 'prophecy' as quoted by those hundreds of years later is not there to be found.What good is a dual prophecy is you have to take things out of context, and it can't be known to be a sign until hundreds of years after it happens?

You are working from mistranslations from 2500 years later. YOu are also working from a different cultural/social mindset.

quote:

---

It DOES say virgin in the Septuagint. You're right. Isaiah did not say virgin, but the Jews of Alexandria who translated Isaiah into Greek DID say virgin. And the kid born of the virgin would be called "God with us," which is what Emmanuel means. If you believed God's Son was born of a virgin, and you read that in the Scriptures that belong to the physical race of God's Son, then you would be amazed and you would point that out. You would! I'm telling you. And it would encourage you, and it would make you excited, and you would be more affirmed in your faith than ever.

---

You are incorrect here. The term used was Parthenos. At the time period when Isaiah was translated, it did not nessesarily mean virgin.It was also used for Dinah, in Genesis, after she was raped.Homer used it for a non-virgin in the Illiad 2.Pindar used the word parthenos in reference to a woman who was exposing her child on the mountain. I would think that a woman who
gave birth to a child is not a virgin.

You make claims about those stories being created after Jesus.Please, show me your evidence.

So, your claim is all based on one book, written for the popular press, that is badly docuemented.Ok.Why should be believe that book?How is that evidence?

That is your claim. HOwever, I don't see it as a scholarly piece at all.The talmud is a compilation of many Rabbi's opinions. Other in the talmud will claim differently.The problem with your claim is that that the verse in Micah 5:1-2 is in
MASCULINE form, not feminine form. If it was a physical location, it would be in feminine form, but if it was talking about a clan it would be in masculine form. ANother thing, this verse is about Bethlehem Ephrathah, in other words, Bethlehem, the son (or grandson) of Ephrathath (see 1 Chronicals 4:4 and 2:50-51).This message has been edited by ramoss, 05-19-2005 12:34 PM

Actaully, quite wrong. Jewish traditional names might refer to god, but that doesn't mean the bearer of the name is God. There were many many Immanuels in Jewish litature. My own grandfather was named Immanual. That does not mean he is god.

According to the Jewish faith, the child born of the woman in Isaiah 7:14 is not the messiah. Isaiah 7:14 is not a messanic passsage.If you read about it in context, that young woman (not virgin) who was to bear the child was none other than Isaiahs wife. The child was his own son. If you read 8:4, you will see that Isaiah went to the prophetess and insured she woudl conceive, and in Isaiah 8:18 declared that he and family are the signs that are given to ahaz.

In the Jewish faith, it is not a messanic passage. When you look at the passage in CONTEXT, it is a sign to Ahaz that the war that is bothering him will be over before the time period that a child would be conceived, born, and then grow to be old enough to know the difference between good and evil. THe sign was Isaiah's own son, and it refered to a time period, not the child itself. That comes from reading Isaiah in context.What good is a prophecy is you have to take it out of context, and is not reconized to be a messanic prophecy until 600 years after it was written down, and the 'prophecy' was only reconized (out of context) 70 years after the event it was alledged to have prophecised?It was not a prophecy about Jesus. It was a statement about Ahaz that an alternate meaning was shoved into place by people who needed to find something there.If you think

Except of course, in the Jewish faith, this passage is not meant to be about the Messiah. Isaiah was writing in a time period they had not need for waiting for 'the messiah'. The concept of a waiting for a 'Messiah' developed in the 2nd century B.C.E. under the rule of Antioch, where the jewish people wanted to have their OWN king, and not be ruled by foreign kings that oppressed them.The hope of the Jewish messiah was the desire for self rule, with a human king that kicked out the foreigners, and was annointed to rule.In Isaiah's day, there was Ahaz.

Let's see where you can find where in the Gospels where Jesus is called Immanual in his lifetime.

The time period has to do with the concepts that were happening in the religion. If a concept does not exist in the religion at the time of the writing, then the author (in this case Isaiah) is not writing about that concept.

I have a proposition. If you read the Tanakh, there is no place that a messiah is actually mentioned. While there are individual phrases that are taken to be messanic, the designantion of those phrases as messanic are oral tradition, taken much later.The concept of there being a messiah is a later development, and all the phrases that are used as 'messanic' passages are taken bits and peices from the older writings.

From my reading.. Isaiah 9:5-6 is specifically talking about Heizkel (Which translates to be 'THe Mighty God' btw). As for Isaiah 9:1-2, he discussed who that was in 8:18.. He was talking abouthis own son, Immanual. This is a sign talking about Ahaz's own son Heizekel as a greater one. (remember, Isaiah was the prophet for 4 different kings, and if nothing else , he knew how to smooze up to the kings.Note: I found a Jewish site that discusses Isaiah 9 from the Jewish perspective (actually, from a Jewish anti-missionary perspective), so it
addresses the messanic claims. It also discusses the hebrew words and grammer, as well as how the KJV sort of changes the translation of certain words in that passage compared to other passages. The site isForbiddenThis message has been edited by ramoss, 12-28-2005 02:45 PM