Help with Isaiah 7:14

[Kaninchen]

Just thought I’d mention that there is no knock-out answer to this, not for the past couple of millennia anyway.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic Church teaches not opinions but God’s truths. The Catholic Church’s truths ARE God’s truths.

 

[johnsteinson]

Allow me to put this another way:
We all know the Septuagint isn’t completely Jewish. It has Christian influences and should not be considered a completely Jewish text. We all know that the Church edited it to reflect their beliefs. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people.

Alma is the female form of elem, which means a “young man,” not a male virgin. This word appears twice that I can think of in the Jewish Scriptures (I Samuel 17:56, 20:22). As expected, without exception, Christian Bibles correctly translate “elem” as a “young man,” “lad,” or “stripling,” never “virgin.” Not once.

Notice what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) says about Isaiah 7:14:
“The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.”

Notice what the Bishops have said: “…without specific reference to virginity.”

Next, let’s examine 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.”

The word alma appears in the Jewish Scriptures seven times in the feminine and twice in the masculine. If EVEN ONE reference refers to a woman who is clearly not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

Let’s go back to a part you ignored for whatever reason:

You said:

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?

Then I responded:

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.

There is ample evidence to state that Matthew played with the wording of the Jewish Bible for his own ends. At least there is enough probable cause for a Grand Jury to indict Matthew of fraud.

I don’t expect all of this to change your mind, which is fine.

Perhaps you believe I am misguided, or perhaps you feel towards me like John felt toward the Jews:
John 8:44
“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

I will be absent from my computer till Sunday.

 

[Cathoholic]

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
Allow me to put this another way:
We all know the Septuagint isn’t completely Jewish. It has Christian influences . . .

Non-sense. The Septuagint was written/translated before the Christian era by the rabbis for use in Jewish liturgical services in the Diaspora.

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
We all know that the Church edited it to reflect their beliefs.

More ipse dixit.

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people.

You can offer that (ipse dixit) argument Johnsteinson, but with nobody asserting “almah” was not translated as “parthenos” in Isiah 7:14, your point is irrelevant.

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people.

I have no idea what Johnsteinson means when Johnsteinson states: “as we have it today”.

If Johnsteinson, means . . . . there are texts existing that don’t match other ancient texts, the Tanakh has the same issue. Yet we can be very sure of reasonably proper translations. Sure enough that “almah” to “parthenos” is not in dispute anyway.

If Johnsteinson, is trying to stick to his original argument (now it has seemed to change), and means that . . . . . the rabbis ONLY translated the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), this is non-sense . . . unless Johnsteinson is taking “Torah” to mean the WHOLE Tanakh in this context (which would negate his own point).

Johnsteinson (with parenthetical addition mine)

QUOTE:
We all know that the Church edited it (the Septuagint) to reflect their beliefs.

Let’s compare Johnsteinson’s opinion above, with Septuagint.net and the Jewish Encyclopedia . . . .

From Septuagint.net . . . .

QUOTE:
The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language.

The book of Ezra and Nehemiah also subtly allude to this loss of the Jews being able to speak Hebrew.

From The Jewish Encyclopedia . . . .

QUOTE:
“The Septuagint” . . . is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria . . .

. . . .Evidence exists of the fact that in the synagogue of the Greek was freely used (Tosef., Meg. iv. 13). There is even a tradition that Greek letters were engraven upon the chest in the Temple in which the shekels were kept . . . . , it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life. . . . .

. . . . It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s work, speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore **more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era **(Swete, “An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek,” ch. i.).

Johnsteinson = “not the Jewish people”???

Who Johnsteinson do you think translated the rest of the Tanakh into the Greek for the Jewish synagogue services that the Jewish Encyclopedia alludes to?

I hope you don’t think the rabbis asked Gentiles to translate the sacred books for their Sacred synagogue services Johnsteinson.

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
Notice what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) says about Isaiah 7:14 . . .

No Johnsteinson. This is NOT what the USCCB “says” about Isaiah 7:14.

The USCCB has an English translation of Scripture on its website that happens to also have commentary from that that Bible—not commentary from the Bishops. It is Catholic commentary—but mere unofficial commentary.

I have already pre-empted your argument about the USCCB item Johnsteinson. I saw it coming. That’s WHY I already put up what the Catholic Church officially teaches about Isaiah 7:14 Johnsteinson. That’s WHY I already put up the CCC quotes concerning Isaiah 7:14 (from CCC 497).

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
There is ample evidence to state that Matthew played with the wording of the Jewish Bible for his own ends.

No Johnsteinson. There is no evidence whatsoever. More mere ipse dixit.

Johnsteinson

QUOTE:
Perhaps you believe I am misguided, or perhaps you feel towards me like John felt toward the Jews

As I told you. I will not play that game and chase down rabbit trails. You are trying to pull off the fallacy of equivocation here and I am not going to fall for it. It is a tactic people use when they have a weak argument they cannot defend. You Johnsteinson, are trying to pass off a weak argument.

Using the fallacy of ipse dixit (earlier) and the fallacy of equivocation (immediately above) will not support your point. The topic for the thread is Isaiah 7:14.

 

[DanielJT]

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.

You are dodging a perfectly good answer.

The Catechism is rife with Biblical citations. You use a citation to who where you are getting that information from.

Therefore: What the Church says in official doctrine such as the CCC is what God says.

Also, we are not dealing with “opinions” here. We are dealing in truth.

Truth = God’s Words as given to us in the Bible = Infallible interpretation by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit = Truth

Now, you asked a question but ignore answers given to you. Is the purpose of your question to seek answers or is there another agenda you are trying to get to? And if there is another agenda, why not lead with that so we can all be on the same page from the beginning instead of chasing the weasel round the mulberry bush.

 

[Achilles6129]

Here’s a good article that deals with this subject:

bible.org/seriespage/call-faith-and-sign-immanuel-isaiah-71-25

The prophecy of the chapter is amazingly accurate. The sign that a boy was about to be born is the pivotal point. Before he would be old enough to tell right from wrong, that is, about 12 years old, the enemies would not only be defeated but cease to exist. According to history, Shalmaneser V (the successor to Tiglathpileser) campaigned against the land and besieged Samaria. He died in the duration and was succeeded by Sargon II who completed the destruction of the northern state in 722 or 721 B.C. So the oracle in Isaiah 7 could be dated about twelve years before that destruction in 722 B.C.

There are many interpretations offered for this verse, and you will have to be careful to deal with the context, the meaning of the words, and the theology of the Bible all together. I think one has to see from this prophecy two “fulfillments” (as is often the case with prophecy)—a near, partial fulfillment and a far or ultimate and complete fulfillment—because of the time references in the passage for the age of the child and the invasion. Moreover, the way Matthew uses Scripture supports this idea: he saw these old prophetic passages as partially typological, meaning that the historical fulfillment became a type of the final, full (and literal) meaning. But this opens several possible interpretations that cannot be decided altogether satisfactorily. One view takes the “wonder child” to be born as Hezekiah, the good and righteous king to follow. But he would have been born a good number of years earlier than this oracle, probably. Another view is to take the child as Isaiah’s son Maher mentioned in chapter 8. This has a certain appeal because the wording of Isaiah 8:1-4 is similar to that of 7:14, that child is called a sign in 8:18, Immanuel is repeated twice in chapter 8, and the view would give us closure, an identity in the Old Testament passage. The weakness is that the view would require the “young woman” or “virgin” ripe for marriage to be the prophet’s wife, who already had a son. Some who hold this view argue then that Isaiah may have married again—but surely this sounds contrived to fit the view. Another view is that some young princess (a virgin at the time of the oracle) who is unknown to us but known in the court suddenly married and had a child as a sign that the dynasty would continue. This fits the oracle well enough, but the weakness is that there is no closure. But of course, there is no closure anyway, for the prophet never tells who it is.

Another approach is to say that in this case there was no immediate fulfillment, only the ultimate fulfillment in Christ. But that would create all kinds of difficulties for the time limits in the context. So, you need to do some reading on the matter and decide which you prefer. I find the anonymous princess view the most plausible, and the Maher a close second.

 

[johnsteinson]

Here’s a good article that deals with this subject:
bible.org/seriespage/call-faith-and-sign-immanuel-isaiah-71-25

As a reminder:
Isaiah 7:14
14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

From the article:

The Hebrew word is ‘almah (from a root ‘alam) with an article, “the young woman.” A careful study of this term would, I believe, yield the conclusion that it describes a young woman who is ripe for marriage; and that the term in and of itself does not mean “virgin”—the context would decide that. In this context, in the royal court, the most polite society, and certainly as a heavenly sign of God’s presence, this young woman would certainly be presumed to be a virgin.

2 points on this. 1 agreement and 1 I disagree with.

I agree

1. The author says that the word “almah” does not in and of itself mean “virgin.”

Author has reached the wrong conclusion.
2) In the last sentence, the author reaches the conclusion that the young woman must be a virgin because of the polite society etc. I would make the point that because she lived in a polite society etc, that she would be married first, then have intercourse and become pregnant.

Fact is, we really don’t know much about this woman. So anything one way or another would only be speculation.

From the article:

But of course what really matters is that ultimately the fulfillment is Jesus Christ.

It was a good article despite it’s one way leaning. I’m glad I had a chance to read it.​

My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT. The authority of the Church depends on the NT being true. The argument that the Church says the NT is true so therefore it is true is to be considered self-serving.

 

[johnsteinson]

You are dodging a perfectly good answer.
The Catechism is rife with Biblical citations. You use a citation to who where you are getting that information from.
Therefore: What the Church says in official doctrine such as the CCC is what God says.
Also, we are not dealing with “opinions” here. We are dealing in truth.
Truth = God’s Words as given to us in the Bible = Infallible interpretation by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit = Truth

Now, you asked a question but ignore answers given to you. Is the purpose of your question to seek answers or is there another agenda you are trying to get to? And if there is another agenda, why not lead with that so we can all be on the same page from the beginning instead of chasing the weasel round the mulberry bush.

I was in error by not stating my position crystal clear. My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT.
I did not come to Catholicism until late in life. It was not until I became a Catholic did I decide to read the OT. Atheist–>Catholic–>Independant God believer

I made it my job to match the prophecies in the OT with the NT. I tried to make an unbiased, objective examination of the OT. The fact is, the authority of the Church depends on the NT being true. It is not my intention to disrespect the Church. However, the argument that the Church says the NT is true so therefore it is true is to be considered self-serving.

An objective reading of the OT and NT shows there is a large disconnect between the 2 faiths. There is only the barest of strings that attach the two.

From reading the OT I reached the following conclusion:

1. The Messiah
   The Messiah will be a man. Nothing more. Nothing less. When all the prophecies have been fulfilled and utopia is at hand, look to Israel. Whoever is the king at the time is the Messiah. Animal sacrifices will return at that time.
2. The Devil.
   The devil is a messenger for God like any other messenger, unlike the Christian version, which has the devil as a force against God. (The relationship between God and Satan in the book of Job peaked my interest.)

The question I have is at what point in Biblical history did the Messiah and the devil get promoted. But that can be saved for a later discussion.

It is not my intent to mislead, annoy, or to otherwise cause grief to those I discuss these matters with.

Hopefully this clears up what my goals are.​

My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT. The authority of the Church depends on the NT being true. The argument that the Church says the NT is true so therefore it is true is to be considered self-serving.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Greek speaking Alexanderian rabbis translated it as virgin before the Christian era. There were plenty of other Greek words they could have used for “young woman” but they chose one that was synonymous with maid/virgin. As with all translations, the theology of the translator becomes embedded in the text by the choice of words that were chosen. In this case we have a Jewish translation that was pre-Christian which gives greater insight into their thinking by what Greek words they used. The Septuagint clearly underscores it as a sign from God, because a normal conceptional birth would not be a miracle or sign as was required by the verse.

 

[johnsteinson]

Greek speaking Alexanderian rabbis translated it as virgin before the Christian era. There were plenty of other Greek words they could have used for “young woman” but they chose one that was synonymous with maid/virgin. As with all translations, the theology of the translator becomes embedded in the text by the choice of words that were chosen. In this case we have a Jewish translation that was pre-Christian which gives greater insight into their thinking by what Greek words they used. The Septuagint clearly underscores it as a sign from God, because a normal conceptional birth would not be a miracle or sign as was required by the verse.

By the same token, if it was meant to be “virgin” then perhaps the word “betulah” would have been used because that means virgin.

In any event, Cathoholic makes a valid point that we are veering off the topic of Isaiah 7:14.

---

My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT. The authority of the Church depends on the NT being true. The argument that the Church says the NT is true so therefore it is true is to be considered self-serving.

 

[Cathoholic]

johnsteinson. You said (parenthetical addition mine):

QUOTE:
By the same token, if it (almah) was meant to be “virgin” then perhaps the word “betulah” would have been used because that means virgin.

No. If Betulah meant “virgin” (betulah doesn’t only mean virgin but if it did) it would not be the correct word here because then you would miss the layers or senses of meaning that are there now.

Layers and senses of meaning that point directly to Jesus the Messiah. Layers and senses of meaning that St. Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit readily saw as he wrote to fellow first century Jewish readers primarily. Layers and senses of meaning, that may have some sort of immediate partial fulfillment, . . . . but definitely points to a much bigger (infinitely so) long-term fulfillment.

“Almah” is the perfect Hebrew word for Isaiah 7:14.

Someone else could just as soon say:

QUOTE:
By the same token, if it (almah) was meant to be merely a “young woman” then perhaps the word “narrah” would have been used because that means young woman.

Naarah (na’arah) = Young Woman

Again, “Almah” is the perfect Hebrew word for Isaiah 7:14.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

johnsteinson:

I was in error by not stating my position crystal clear. My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT.
I did not come to Catholicism until late in life. It was not until I became a Catholic did I decide to read the OT. Atheist–>Catholic–>Independant God believer

Thanks for your explanation. I was sure you weren’t a Catholic (as you yourself have indicated above) but rather a Catholic doubter. You have stated your position as one of determining for yourself how the Bible should be interpreted. (A Protestant position.)

This is a VERY common, and WIDE avenue, taken by the generality of unbelieving mankind. Because of that, you will be blinded and the text will remain a mystery. It is only IN FAITH, that the Bible will reveal its secrets. God speaks to His little ones, in Faith, not to the sleek and the strong who rely on themselves alone.

 

[johnsteinson]

Thanks for your explanation. I was sure you weren’t a Catholic (as you yourself have indicated above) but rather a Catholic doubter. You have stated your position as one of determining for yourself how the Bible should be interpreted. (A Protestant position.)

This is a VERY common, and WIDE avenue, taken by the generality of unbelieving mankind. Because of that, you will be blinded and the text will remain a mystery. It is only IN FAITH, that the Bible will reveal its secrets. God speaks to His little ones, in Faith, not to the sleek and the strong who rely on themselves alone.

And I’m sure Moslems and Baptists and the Jehovah Witness would same the same. It’s nothing I haven’t heard before.
I’m just trying to get answers.

 

[Achilles6129]

Greek speaking Alexanderian rabbis translated it as virgin before the Christian era. There were plenty of other Greek words they could have used for “young woman” but they chose one that was synonymous with maid/virgin. As with all translations, the theology of the translator becomes embedded in the text by the choice of words that were chosen. In this case we have a Jewish translation that was pre-Christian which gives greater insight into their thinking by what Greek words they used. The Septuagint clearly underscores it as a sign from God, because a normal conceptional birth would not be a miracle or sign as was required by the verse.

By the same token, if it was meant to be “virgin” then perhaps the word “betulah” would have been used because that means virgin.

In any event, Cathoholic makes a valid point that we are veering off the topic of Isaiah 7:14

I think that the reason the Septuagint does translate it as “virgin” is because the translators just figured that a young, unmarried woman in that society would be synonymous with a virgin. That’s a position that I basically agree with.

 

[Almagor]

Regarding Isaiah 7:14. Almah may mean a young woman of an age to get married or a virgin. I don’t think we need to know the morals of the woman in question to determine if she is in fact a virgin, in those days girls were not allowed to be anywhere without a chaperone and if she lost her virginity somehow she could forget about marriage. As far as 1 prophesy that applied to Jesus I think Isaiah 53, the entire chapter fits that bill. Who else suffered and was rebuked during His suffering and yet by His suffering saved us from sin, was cast in a grave with the wicked and the rich? No one before Jesus and no one after Him either.

I would like to say some other things but my post was not accepted before as it had too many words, so God Bless you all.

 

[johnsteinson]

Regarding Isaiah 7:14. Almah may mean a young woman of an age to get married or a virgin. I don’t think we need to know the morals of the woman in question to determine if she is in fact a virgin, in those days girls were not allowed to be anywhere without a chaperone and if she lost her virginity somehow she could forget about marriage.

Isaiah never says who this young woman is. My guess is, that given the morals of the day, a young woman being pregnant would indicate she is a married young woman.

As far as 1 prophesy that applied to Jesus I think Isaiah 53, the entire chapter fits that bill. Who else suffered and was rebuked during His suffering and yet by His suffering saved us from sin, was cast in a grave with the wicked and the rich? No one before Jesus and no one after Him either.

Here is my best argument against this being about the Messiah.
The main description would be 1) Rebuked 2) suffered 3)saved us from sin.
Let’s tackle #1

1. Rebuked. By whom? When?

Isaiah Chapter 53:3. Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.

The NT tells us a completely different story…
MARK 3:7-9
7 Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; 8 hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon. 9 He told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, so that** they would not crush him**;

LUKE 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and** human favor**.

LUKE 4:14-15
14 Then Jesus, filled with the power of the spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country. 15 He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.

It doesn’t say that as Jesus got older, more and more people despised him. It sounds like Jesus was treated like a rock star. The more he got around, the more he was loved. He was an immensely popular person. It wasn’t till the very end that somehow a group of people were found and ushered into the courtyard to condemn him.

Isaiah 53 clearly points out that this servant was despised and rejected his whole life. This clearly isn’t describing Jesus.

Where am I wrong?

I’ll stop here so this won’t be too long.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Let’s tackle #1

1. Rebuked. By whom? When?
   .

My goodness there are so many… this is just a smattering.

They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Jn 8:59

Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.
Jn 5:18

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
**Jn 7:1 **

And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again.
**Mt 20:19 **

And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews.
**Mt 27:29 **

And after they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own garments on him, and they led him out to crucify him.
**Mk 15:20 **

For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and scourged, and spit upon:
**Lk 18:32 **

And the men that held him, mocked him, and struck him.
**Lk 22:63 **

And Herod with his army set him at nought, and mocked him, putting on him a white garment, and sent him back to Pilate.
**Lk 23:11 **

And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
**Lk 23:36 **

 

[Cathoholic]

Johnsteinson. I am assuming you are still reading despite being banned (and I encourage you to continue reading here). I told you elsewhere I would add this information for your behalf and to fulfill your requests (reiterated below).

Johnsteinson, you said (on this thread) concerning your seeking:

My mission is to determine the truthfulness of the NT by studying the OT.

And you also said this:

I made it my job to match the prophecies in the OT with the NT. I tried to make an unbiased, objective examination of the OT.

You also added this:

What I’m looking for is a logical flow from the OT to the NT.

You also said (Parenthetical addition mine) . . . .

I would like to know how other people (presumably Catholic people since you asked this on a Catholic forum) understand Isaiah 7:14.

OK Johnsteinson, I’ll take you at your word. And I’m glad you want to understand Jewish doctrine in the fulfilled sense (Catholic doctrine) Johnsteinson.

I have some suggestions for you as you try to understand the fulfillment of Judaism (Catholicism).

• BOOKS
• AUDIOS
• YOUTUBE VIDEOS

---

BOOKS

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Dr. Brant Pitre (here)

The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity by Taylor Marshall (now Dr. Taylor Marshall). Can be found here.

Salvation Is from the Jews by Roy H. Schoeman (here).

******Also a Two-part article by Mr. Schoeman entitled “Judaism Fulfilled” (here and here)

Promise and Fulfillment: The Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 8 (Letter and Spirit) by Dr. Scott Hahn (here)

A Biblical Walk Through the Mass: Understanding What We Say and Do In The Liturgy by Dr. Edward Sri (here)

How Christ Said the First Mass or the Lord’s Last Supper
by the late Fr. James L. Meagher (older book but absolutely profound. Can be found here)

Worthy Is The Lamb by Tom Nash (here)

---

And I will give you some audio and video resources on the following post Johnsteinson.

 

[Cathoholic]

My (Cathoholic’s) suggestions for you (Johnsteinson) concerning your request to understand Catholicism from an Old Testament standpoint.

Continued from Post 58 . . .

---

• BOOKS
• AUDIOS
• YOUTUBE VIDEOS

---

BOOKS

Already suggested a reasonable starting sample of books on post 58 (here).

---

AUDIOS

Audios by Dr. Brant Pitre (here).

Dr. Pitre gives away many of his outlines of the talks for free there too if you find the audios are too expensive for you.

Dr. Pitre also has a free audio on Dr. Scott Hahn’s website entitled: The Destruction of the Temple and the End of the World: Matthew Chapters 23-25 (here)

Here are many free audios given away from Dr. Scott Hahn which should be helpful too.

Dr. Hahn and others here concerning St. Matthew’s Gospel (which was originally written to Jewish readers). Here is a related audio.

Dr. Scott Hahn has many marketed audios too (here and here for instance).

Dr. Hahn (along with Dr. Brant Pitre and Dr. Michael Barber) has a free audio course that I think you would be interested in too.

An Eight Lesson Course on: Feasts of Faith

When God became man what became of the feasts of His people, the Israelites? What became of the Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of the Tabernacles, the Lord’s Day, and other special days in the Jewish calendar? Did they lose all significance and meaning after the coming of Christ? Or, like the Old Covenant itself, were they fulfilled in the New?

This can be found here.​

I’d personally recommend this and this to you Johnsteinson.

Here are a couple of fine audio series’ from Dr. Michael Barber that I think you may want to listen to as well.

Exodus: Deliverance and Sacrifice (here).

Understanding Sacrifice and Sacrament In The Book of Leviticus (here).

Tim Staples has a lot of insight into the concept of bond servanthood in the Old Testament
based upon Saint Paul’s Epistle To The Philippians (here).

Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s Eucharistic Symbols In The Old Testament is also excellent and can be found here.

Fr. Pacwa again: Jesus Christ: Our True High Priest (3 CD set here)

Jimmy Akin has great Old Testament information on the New Testament Priesthood in this debate: Does the New Testament Mention a Sacramental Priesthood? (here)

Steve Ray on Abraham: Father of Faith AND Works (MP3 here. CD here)

(This audio may be useful if you had a Protestant Christian background)

---

VIDEOS

Dr. Scott Hahn: The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass (here)

Dr. Brant Pitre, **Jesus & the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist **(here)

West Coast Biblical Studies Conference 2013- Dr Brant Pitre: Marriage, The Family, & Spiritual Warfare (here)

Dr. Scott Hahn: The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass (here)

Scripture and Liturgy - with Dr. Scott Hahn (here)

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy DVD by Dr. Brant Pitre (here)

Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray (here)

---

If you apply the principles that you will internalize from reading the books, listening to the audios, and watching the videos, I think you will understand WHY Isaiah 7:14 could only in its fulfilled sense be referring to Jesus the Messiah.

Jesus is God taken flesh upon Himself. Jesus the Messiah is True God and True Man.

Hope these suggestions help in answering your questions Johnsteinson (or anyone else who may have some of the same questions and come upon this thread).

God bless.

Cathoholic