- Status
T
Todd977
Guest
I could be wrong but it seems the Jews themselves expect the Messiah to be a descendant of King David and to be born in Bethlehem. (2 Samuel 7:1-16; Malachi 5:1). These two Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. I think there were also Old Testament prophecies concerning Messianic times when the blind would see, the deaf would hear, and the lame would walk (Isaiah 35:5-6), and the dead would live (Isaiah 26:19), which things were also fulfilled in the miracles of Jesus Christ.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
I’m not Jewish, but I find this whole mindset a bit disturbing. I can imagine the early Church fathers thanking God they are here to explain to the Jews what their own Jewish prophets were saying.
If we had a person who overheard this conversation between the king and God, that person would have had no idea or clue that part of that conversation was a prophecy concerning the Messiah. But 700 years later, Matthew knew. Despite the fact there are tons of prophecies written in the OT Matthew could have tried to use to explain Jesus, he did not refer to them. NO! Why? Because not one prophecy clearly and unambiguously tells of the birth of Jesus. Lucky for us that Matthew somehow was able to find a chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible that was a hidden prophecy. Despite all the open and obvious prophecies that deals with the age of the Messiah, it was only by tearing back the layers of this hidden prophecy was Matthew able to see what no man has seen before. Jesus.
One must ask, why was Jesus hidden? Why didn’t Isaiah or God just say at the end of 7:14, “and by the way, this also refers to the coming of the Messiah 700 years from now.”
I mean, there are obvious prophecies of the age of the Messiah to be found in the OT, why was important prophecy hidden?
Here’s what I think really happened. Matthew lifted the quote from Isaiah and shoehorned Jesus into it in order to convince the Jewish people that Isaiah himself was prophesying the coming of Jesus. When the early Church father’s had to explain away what Matthew had done, they applied the idea of Supernatural & Ultimate Fulfilled Sense etc. Self serving simplicity.
And I appreciate you going step by step to further my understanding.
You are correct, I do not.
Once again you are correct. I do not.
The more I read the OT, the further away I am moving from Catholicism. As I stated before, I have an opinion, you have an opinion. But what I want is God’s opinion. I can get that by reading the Hebrew Bible.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Because if the child was born beyond the kings lifetime what would be the point? The child was probably known by the parties involved.
To the parties involved yes. To us, not so much.
I knew you would.
Within the context of Isaiah 7 there is no problem. It’s only when extra stuff is added that the name issue becomes a problem.
I’m sure there are plenty of long term prophecies. Isaiah 7 isn’t one of them.
Probably not. But what God thinks is the only important issue.
No. It’s this way cause that’s what God of the Bible says is this way.
And I say it’s all self serving on the part of the OT authors.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I said:
QUOTE:
If you are so sure of that, why do you think, “Isaiah was referring to a child to be born within the King’s lifetime” . . . who was “UNKNOWN to us”?
Johnsteinson replied:
QUOTE:
Because if the child was born beyond the kings lifetime what would be the point?
The point would be just what the Prophet Isaiah said the point would be: To give a miracle “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” Johnsteinson.
With the interpretation I am putting forth, on the shoulders of St. Matthew’s interpretation which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and united to the authoritative Church Jesus the Messiah founded, and united to the ancient Church Fathers, and even a pre-Messianic rabbinic interpretation of “almah” as “parthenos” the miracle fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 IS “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” and IS literally “Immanuel” or “God with us”. . . . that’s what the point is Johnsteinson.
With your interpretation, you have some unknown woman, having some unknown kid, and you are forced to conclude this is a “miracle” . . . and not just a “miracle” but a miracle “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” Johnsteinson.
Think about that for a minute Johnsteinson.
If my neighbor’s wife who is a “young woman” . . . if she has a “son” . . . . with Johnsteinson-theology you’ve got a miracle . . . . as “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol”. But nobody really knows except the people back in the day because I say it. I can’t offer any evidence. I think it and I say it so it must be so.
And if this “sign” that you don’t really know who it is, and you don’t really know who the mother is, but it is real convincing because . . . . well because you say so (Ipse dixit). . . . why would Ahaz go right back to his divining of evil spirits to help him discern? After all, according to Johnsteinson, this great sign is self-evident.
You asserted the child and the woman must have been self-evident for the people of Judah. You admitted you didn’t know who this son was AND don’t know who this mother was, despite this “son” being called “God with us”.
You would think a child-sign so great would be enshrined . . . yet he is never even mentioned in your theological world.
And you want to think of this (?) as the final definitive interpretation?
St. Basil the Great talked about this type of interpretation saying . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . it is the most absurd thing imaginable to think that what was given to us by the Lord as a sign should be something so common and familiar to nature.
Yet we see you Johnsteinson assert this exact absurdity . . .
Johnsteinson — Isaiah was referring to a (unknown to us) child to be born within the King’s lifetime.
But my showing you isn’t going to do it. You are going to need grace if you want to see something like this. If interested, see Psalm 119 on your own, and see the necessity to call on the Lord to understand “The Law” or Torah beyond a mere history message.
2nd CORINTHIANS 3:7-18 7 Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, 8 will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? 9 For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. 11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor. 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
When I received the Lord of hosts (Jesus the Messiah—True God and True man) earlier tonight Johnsteinson, I fell prostrate (shortly afterwards) in adoration/worship and then after gratefully worshiping Jesus, I asked our Lord Jesus on your behalf to bless and grace you and help you too. I will continue to pray for you Johnsteinson.
God bless.
Cathoholic
ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . it is the most absurd thing imaginable to think that what was given to us by the Lord as a sign should be something so common and familiar to nature. . . . . Then, since Ahaz does not ask for a sign, neither in the depths nor from the heights, so that you might understand that he who descended into the lowest regions of the earth is the same who rose above all the heavens (Eph 4:9—10), the Lord himself gave a sign: a sign truly extraordinary and portentous, far superior to the common law of nature: the same woman is both virgin and mother; and though remaining in the holy condition of virginity, she also obtains the blessing of childbearing.
QUOTE:
If you are so sure of that, why do you think, “Isaiah was referring to a child to be born within the King’s lifetime” . . . who was “UNKNOWN to us”?
Johnsteinson replied:
QUOTE:
Because if the child was born beyond the kings lifetime what would be the point?
The point would be just what the Prophet Isaiah said the point would be: To give a miracle “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” Johnsteinson.
With the interpretation I am putting forth, on the shoulders of St. Matthew’s interpretation which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and united to the authoritative Church Jesus the Messiah founded, and united to the ancient Church Fathers, and even a pre-Messianic rabbinic interpretation of “almah” as “parthenos” the miracle fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 IS “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” and IS literally “Immanuel” or “God with us”. . . . that’s what the point is Johnsteinson.
With your interpretation, you have some unknown woman, having some unknown kid, and you are forced to conclude this is a “miracle” . . . and not just a “miracle” but a miracle “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol” Johnsteinson.
Think about that for a minute Johnsteinson.
If my neighbor’s wife who is a “young woman” . . . if she has a “son” . . . . with Johnsteinson-theology you’ve got a miracle . . . . as “as high as the Heavens” and as “deep as Sheol”. But nobody really knows except the people back in the day because I say it. I can’t offer any evidence. I think it and I say it so it must be so.
And if this “sign” that you don’t really know who it is, and you don’t really know who the mother is, but it is real convincing because . . . . well because you say so (Ipse dixit). . . . why would Ahaz go right back to his divining of evil spirits to help him discern? After all, according to Johnsteinson, this great sign is self-evident.
You asserted the child and the woman must have been self-evident for the people of Judah. You admitted you didn’t know who this son was AND don’t know who this mother was, despite this “son” being called “God with us”.
You would think a child-sign so great would be enshrined . . . yet he is never even mentioned in your theological world.
And you want to think of this (?) as the final definitive interpretation?
St. Basil the Great talked about this type of interpretation saying . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . it is the most absurd thing imaginable to think that what was given to us by the Lord as a sign should be something so common and familiar to nature.
— St. Basil. On The Holy Generation of Christ 4; PG 31 From Luigi Gamberno. Mary and the Fathers of the Church pp.143-144
Yet we see you Johnsteinson assert this exact absurdity . . .
Johnsteinson — Isaiah was referring to a (unknown to us) child to be born within the King’s lifetime.
But my showing you isn’t going to do it. You are going to need grace if you want to see something like this. If interested, see Psalm 119 on your own, and see the necessity to call on the Lord to understand “The Law” or Torah beyond a mere history message.
2nd CORINTHIANS 3:7-18 7 Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, 8 will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? 9 For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. 11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor. 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
When I received the Lord of hosts (Jesus the Messiah—True God and True man) earlier tonight Johnsteinson, I fell prostrate (shortly afterwards) in adoration/worship and then after gratefully worshiping Jesus, I asked our Lord Jesus on your behalf to bless and grace you and help you too. I will continue to pray for you Johnsteinson.
God bless.
Cathoholic
ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . it is the most absurd thing imaginable to think that what was given to us by the Lord as a sign should be something so common and familiar to nature. . . . . Then, since Ahaz does not ask for a sign, neither in the depths nor from the heights, so that you might understand that he who descended into the lowest regions of the earth is the same who rose above all the heavens (Eph 4:9—10), the Lord himself gave a sign: a sign truly extraordinary and portentous, far superior to the common law of nature: the same woman is both virgin and mother; and though remaining in the holy condition of virginity, she also obtains the blessing of childbearing.
— St. Basil. On The Holy Generation of Christ 4; PG 31 From Luigi Gamberno. Mary and the Fathers of the Church pp.143-144
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
It can be very hard. Jesus HIMSELF had to explain the prophecies about himself to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus. Jesus HIMSELF had to explain to the Apostles that John the Baptist was the Return of Elijah.
Your difficulty is in thinking that prophecies are simple prognostications of the future. There is an ELEMENT of that, but there is always a much deeper spiritual meaning.
With Isaiah 7:14, NO ONE has offered a really plausible explanation of how that prophecy was fulfilled during the lifetime of King Ahaz, including yourself. IN FACT, the ONLY plausible explanation is the Messianic fulfillment. Why should it surprise you that the prophecy was not fulfilled in King Ahaz’s lifetime? HE DID NOT WANT a sign if you recall.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Let’s turn to the New American Bible, Isaiah 7:14, Footnotes
The Young Woman: Hebrew 'almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.
Now let’s turn to The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with The Apocrypha. An Ecumencial Study Bible
Footnote to 7:14
The Young Woman is not identified; she may be either the wife of Isaiah or of King Ahaz. Although 7:14 is cited in Mt 1.23 as a proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus, based on the LXX translation “parthenos” (virgin), the Hebrew word “almah” simply means young woman, not virgin.
My comment
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible.
In 7-14 we have a son that will be born named Immanuel, that being a sign of a good outcome.
In Isaiah 8:3 we have a son that will be born named Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which will mean a bad outcome.
Isaiah 8:3 And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz”.
His name means “hasteth to the spoil, speedeth to the prey” and he is the second son of Isaiah, and is the sign of destruction to Judah’s enemies, Syria and Samaria.
“God is with us” just means “God is with us.” Not in a physical form walking around like a man. You can see that the word Immanuel and the phrase “God is with us” are used several times in Isaiah, and not once is it referring to Jesus. Whether or not Judah is being saved or conquered, God is with us.
With all this fighting that is about to occur, with all the arguing between God/Isaiah and the king, with all the mayhem that is sure to follow, somehow, Matthew was able to see Jesus in all this mess. This whole mess has nothing to do with the Messiah.
The Young Woman: Hebrew 'almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.
Now let’s turn to The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with The Apocrypha. An Ecumencial Study Bible
Footnote to 7:14
The Young Woman is not identified; she may be either the wife of Isaiah or of King Ahaz. Although 7:14 is cited in Mt 1.23 as a proof text for the virgin birth of Jesus, based on the LXX translation “parthenos” (virgin), the Hebrew word “almah” simply means young woman, not virgin.
My comment
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible.
Here we have God asking the King for a sign, either in the depths or in the heights above.
- “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.”
You are over thinking the Immanuel part. Immanuel is no more important part of Isaiah than the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which can be found in Isaiah 8:3.
In 7-14 we have a son that will be born named Immanuel, that being a sign of a good outcome.
In Isaiah 8:3 we have a son that will be born named Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which will mean a bad outcome.
Isaiah 8:3 And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz”.
His name means “hasteth to the spoil, speedeth to the prey” and he is the second son of Isaiah, and is the sign of destruction to Judah’s enemies, Syria and Samaria.
“God is with us” just means “God is with us.” Not in a physical form walking around like a man. You can see that the word Immanuel and the phrase “God is with us” are used several times in Isaiah, and not once is it referring to Jesus. Whether or not Judah is being saved or conquered, God is with us.
With all this fighting that is about to occur, with all the arguing between God/Isaiah and the king, with all the mayhem that is sure to follow, somehow, Matthew was able to see Jesus in all this mess. This whole mess has nothing to do with the Messiah.
I could not care less what St. Basil thinks. I only care what God thinks.
Like I previously stated: I have my opinion. You have your opinion. I want to know what is God’s opinion. Why you insist on telling me what Matthew or Paul or St. Basil says is a mystery. I want to know what God says. That is all that matters.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Why didn’t Jesus fulfill this prophecy?
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hosea 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
And sometimes it’s just straight forward words from God. Complications not required.
2 KINGS 15:29-30 and 2 KINGS 16:7-9 to see that it was fulfilled.
Oh…there was a sign that kicked in when the king went against God. See Isaiah 8:3 for the rest of the story.
A
asonct
Guest
One almost must understand the importance of the Bible’s greatest prophet and greatest prophecy. This is the moment when God made man would walk the earth. This is the moment when the Blessed Mother would be the new Eve and through the Immaculate Conception would give birth to the Savior, Jesus.
This is a major moment. Isaiah is the prophet to deliver the good news of the coming of the Messiah.
This is a major moment. Isaiah is the prophet to deliver the good news of the coming of the Messiah.
A
asonct
Guest
The entire OT leads to the NT. Jesus fulfills not one but EVERYTHING of the Old Testament in the New Testament. The Old was looking for their Shepherd. They were crying for God.
The New is all about the arrival of the Good Shepherd. Cries are heard. Jesus is Lord.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
When did Jesus fulfill this prophecy?
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hosea 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
D
DanielJT
Guest
Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Paragraphs 671 + 672
671 Though already present in his Church, Christ’s reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled “with power and great glory” by the King’s return to earth.556 This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ’s Passover.557 Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God."558 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ’s return by saying to him:559 Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!"560
672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel561 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.562 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by “distress” and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church563 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.564
The numbers in red indicate citations within the text to various Bible passages and/or Church Fathers. I did not link to those specifically, but here is the CCC online, hopefully the same paragraphs I’ve shown you if I can do this correctly: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1V.HTM
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Thank you for providing the Church’s opinion. But what I’m looking for is God’s opinion. What does God say about Jesus coming back a 2nd time because I can’t find it anywhere in the OT.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Kewl. What part of Isaiah holds all this information?
J
johnsteinson
Guest
2 Samuel 7:1-16???
I think you meant Micah 5:2.
They are all questionable.
Then why do we still have the blind and the deaf? Why do we still have people in wheelchairs? And where are all these dead people living?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The Bible IS the word of God.
Your difficulty is in understanding that word. But that difficulty was removed when Jesus assumed flesh, and walked among us. He also left us His Church to further aid us in understanding God’s word.
If you reject God’s Church, and His Apostles, then you also reject Jesus, and HIM who sent Jesus. After death, you will certainly get to know God’s opinion. But in this life, you need Faith.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
I assume you have been following the conversation concerning Isaiah 7:14. Do you disagree with my conclusion that Isaiah chapter 7 has nothing to do with Jesus?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
That would certainly be the modern Jewish opinion.
J
johnsteinson
Guest
Do you disagree with my conclusion that Isaiah chapter 7 has nothing to do with Jesus?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Johnsteinson comment
QUOTE:
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible.
So what?
The rabbis themselves DID eventually translate Isaiah as well. Many of the Jews in the Diaspora could not speak Hebrew and thus Greek texts including the Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books were all translated into the Greek and used in Synagogue services Johnsteinson.
ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (Greek = parthenos) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Johnsteinson comment
QUOTE:
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars.
If you think this comment somehow undermines the Pre-Messianic Rabbis translation of the Septuagint in the Temple Judaism era you are mistaken in your logic.
That’s like arguing the Book of Exodus is not reliable because Moses wrote Genesis first. Does this mean the rest of the Tanakh is full of inaccuracies too? If you are going to be consistent in your (ill)logic it would.
The rabbis saw the woman of Isaiah 7:14 as “parthenos” Johnsteinson. That is just a fact.
These arguments against a fulfilled Jewish (Catholic) interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 are non-sense Johnsteinson.
You are grasping at straws. And you calling your mere interpretation as “God’s” is **more **ipse dixit. And I am saying none of your arguments have been persuasive so far. None.
QUOTE:
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible.
So what?
The rabbis themselves DID eventually translate Isaiah as well. Many of the Jews in the Diaspora could not speak Hebrew and thus Greek texts including the Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books were all translated into the Greek and used in Synagogue services Johnsteinson.
ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (Greek = parthenos) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Johnsteinson comment
QUOTE:
The original Septuagint (also known as LXX) was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses by 72 Jewish scholars.
If you think this comment somehow undermines the Pre-Messianic Rabbis translation of the Septuagint in the Temple Judaism era you are mistaken in your logic.
That’s like arguing the Book of Exodus is not reliable because Moses wrote Genesis first. Does this mean the rest of the Tanakh is full of inaccuracies too? If you are going to be consistent in your (ill)logic it would.
The rabbis saw the woman of Isaiah 7:14 as “parthenos” Johnsteinson. That is just a fact.
These arguments against a fulfilled Jewish (Catholic) interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 are non-sense Johnsteinson.
You are grasping at straws. And you calling your mere interpretation as “God’s” is **more **ipse dixit. And I am saying none of your arguments have been persuasive so far. None.
- Status