Isaiah 7:14

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cpb88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well… let’s look at the quote carefully, then: speaking directly to Ahaz, the prophet (conveying the words of God) says, “καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ”. That is, “you will call the name of him ‘Immanuel’.” (This ‘you’ isn’t ya’ll, but you singular.)

So, strictly speaking, God isn’t saying that the boy’s name will be Immanuel, or that ya’ll (whoever that might imply) will call him Immanuel… but that Ahaz himself will call him Immanuel. 😉
So if the prophecy is to be fulfilled in its entirety, the newborn baby of the Virgin Mary would be called Immanuel. This tends to discredit the assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled.
 
So if the prophecy is to be fulfilled in its entirety, the newborn baby of the Virgin Mary would be called Immanuel. This tends to discredit the assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled.
He’s called ‘Immanuel’ all the time. It’s just not his name.

Nice try, though… 😉
 
He’s called ‘Immanuel’ all the time. It’s just not his name.

Nice try, though… 😉
Can we say the same for the following names?

The following is a list of names referring to El and their meanings in Hebrew:
Ariel, Auriel – Lion of God, Daniel – Judged by God or Judgement of God, Eli – a variant on the name of God, or “my God”, Eliana – My God Answers, Elijah (Elias) – Whose God is Jah, God Jah, The Strong[dubious – discuss] Jah, God of Jah, My God is Jah. Reference to the meaning of both (Eli)-(Jah)Elisha – Salvation of God, Elishua – God is my salvation, Eliezer – My God Helps,Elizabeth – My God is Oath, Emmanuel – God is with us, Ezekiel – God will Strengthen, Gabriel, Gavriel – Man of God, God has shown Himself Mighty, Hero of God or Strong one of God, Gamaliel – Reward of God, Hamaliel – Grace of God, Immanuel – God with us, Ishmael, Ishamael – Heard by God, Named by God, or God Hearkens, Israel, Yisrael – Struggles with God or Prince of God, Joel – Jah is God, Lemuel – Dedicated to God, Michael – Who is like God? a question, Nathanael, Nathaniel – Given by God or God has Given or “Gift of God”, Raphael – God is Healing or Healing one of God, Samuel – Name/Heard of God,
 
Why wasn’t Immanuel a proper name for God on Earth?
I think you misunderstand me: I’m not claiming that ‘Immanuel’ can’t be a proper name, just that the prophecy doesn’t require that it has to be Jesus’ proper name. 😉
 
Can we say the same for the following names?

The following is a list of names referring to El and their meanings in Hebrew:
Ariel, Auriel – Lion of God, Daniel – Judged by God or Judgement of God, Eli – a variant on the name of God, or “my God”, Eliana – My God Answers, Elijah (Elias) – Whose God is Jah, God Jah, The Strong[dubious – discuss] Jah, God of Jah, My God is Jah. Reference to the meaning of both (Eli)-(Jah)Elisha – Salvation of God, Elishua – God is my salvation, Eliezer – My God Helps,Elizabeth – My God is Oath, Emmanuel – God is with us, Ezekiel – God will Strengthen, Gabriel, Gavriel – Man of God, God has shown Himself Mighty, Hero of God or Strong one of God, Gamaliel – Reward of God, Hamaliel – Grace of God, Immanuel – God with us, Ishmael, Ishamael – Heard by God, Named by God, or God Hearkens, Israel, Yisrael – Struggles with God or Prince of God, Joel – Jah is God, Lemuel – Dedicated to God, Michael – Who is like God? a question, Nathanael, Nathaniel – Given by God or God has Given or “Gift of God”, Raphael – God is Healing or Healing one of God, Samuel – Name/Heard of God,
If you are honestly curious, there is a little book called “Who moved the stone”. Read it.

If you are here to sow confusion, shame on you.
 
If you are honestly curious, there is a little book called “Who moved the stone”. Read it.

If you are here to sow confusion, shame on you.
Telling me to read a book without first giving me a brief synopsis is pointless. It accomplishes nothing.

As for the second statement, you seem to be saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!” Mythology reigns supreme because it’s comfortable.
 
I think you misunderstand me: I’m not claiming that ‘Immanuel’ can’t be a proper name, just that the prophecy doesn’t require that it has to be Jesus’ proper name. 😉
If God wanted the prophecy to come true in all its splendor, why not name the child Immanuel? Departing from the original intention just waters down the result.
 
If God wanted the prophecy to come true in all its splendor, why not name the child Immanuel? Departing from the original intention just waters down the result.
“in all its splendor”? what in the world does that mean? :rolleyes:

Such a notion implies that we are the arbiters of what prophecies mean and what God intended by them. “Original intention”? Do you think you know God’s original intention in creating this prophecy?!? As God reminded Job, “Where were you when I founded the earth? … Tell me, if you have understanding. Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected?” 😉

This argument hardly stands, though, even on its own merits. I’d direct your attention to Isaiah 9:6 – καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“he will be called by the name”). Notice that it’s the same construction as the verse we’re discussing! Now… what does Isaiah 9:6-7 tell us? “[T]o us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”

Now, let’s see… is God’s prophecy “watered down” because Jesus is seen as having many names by which people will call Him? Is God’s “original intent” thwarted because Jesus’ given name isn’t “Immanuel Wonder-Counselor Mighty-God Everlasting-Father Prince-of-Peace bar-Yosef”? Puh-leeze…! :rolleyes:

You’re grasping at straws here, and not even making much sense in the attempt…
 
“in all its splendor”? what in the world does that mean? :rolleyes:

Such a notion implies that we are the arbiters of what prophecies mean and what God intended by them. “Original intention”?

You’re grasping at straws here, and not even making much sense in the attempt…
Your evaluation of my point has nothing to do with my point. Why even bother?

As a contrast, here is part of the Jewish point of view about whether Isaiah 7 and 9 is a prophecy about Jesus:

Jesus was also a violent man, and neither a ‘Prince of Peace,’ nor even a ‘Ruler of Peace.’ There are other verses in the Christian’s New Testament that indicate this. Here are two more:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [Luke 19:27]

The verse above comes at the end of a parable that Jesus told, of a man that leaves his land to go to be anointed as the King. When he comes back to his land, he says the above verse. Every single Christian commentator claims that Jesus was referring to himself as the man who left his land to be anointed King, and so in his own parable, Jesus is saying the above, asking that those who do not wish to have him reign over them be murdered in front of him.
In the verse, below, Jesus tells his followers to go and buy a sword.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:35]
We have shown from quotations from the Christian’s New Testament that Jesus was not a 'Wonderful Counselor, Jesus was not a ‘Mighty Gd,’ Jesus was not an ‘Everlasting Father,’ nor was Jesus a ‘Prince of Peace’ or even a ‘Ruler of Peace,’ in spite of how Christians wish to interpret the original verses from Isaiah 9:6-7.

So, according to the Jewish interpretation, who is Isaiah 9:6-7 speaking about?

According to Judaism, the answer is in the names chosen. The name ‘Hezekiah’ which in Hebrew is ‘Chizkiyah’ comes from the words ‘chazak’ and ‘Ya.’ ‘Chazak’ means ‘strong’ or ‘mighty’ and ‘Ya’ is the shortened name for Gd used as a suffix. Many might recognize the Ya’ in the word, ‘halleluyah’ which means,‘praise Gd.’ Judaism believes that Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, who reigned for almost 30 years. The name Hezekiah, Chizkiyah, is the same name in meaning, as one finds in the verses from Isaiah 9:6-7, a ‘Mighty Gd.’
 
Telling me to read a book without first giving me a brief synopsis is pointless. It accomplishes nothing.

As for the second statement, you seem to be saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!” Mythology reigns supreme because it’s comfortable.
Ooops. My mistake. I had somehow assumed that someone with strong opinions bases them on some research. This would included reading.
 
Ooops. My mistake. I had somehow assumed that someone with strong opinions bases them on some research. This would included reading.
Not if you want to facilitate a dialogue. I can just see it now. A dialogue is started with
Socrates and he says, “Read this book first, and come back after you have finished.”
 
Not if you want to facilitate a dialogue. I can just see it now. A dialogue is started with
Socrates and he says, “Read this book first, and come back after you have finished.”
You’re right, of course. Socrates doesn’t say that; he just presumes that you’re already well read: “‘And have you not read,’ said Socrates, ‘what happened to poor Dædalus for his Skill in so many excellent Arts?’” – Xenophon, The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates. 😉
 
Your evaluation of my point has nothing to do with my point. Why even bother?
Because I made the assumption that you’d be able to follow my point. Allow me to be more explicit, then: you claimed that the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 7 wasn’t fulfilled “in all its splendor” because Jesus didn’t take on the name ‘Immanuel’ as his proper name. Therefore, I showed you another prophecy that Christians see as fulfilled in Jesus, in which four names are given, relative to the target of the prophecy. By your logic, unless a person takes on the name as his literal, given name, then the prophecy is “watered down”. However, I’m simply demonstrating how foolish an assumption that is: if Isaiah is showing five names for the Messiah, then by your logic, the prophecies are “watered down” and not “in splendor” unless the person takes on all those names. That’s just a silly assertion… which is what I have demonstrated to you. So, my evaluation has everything to do with your point. 😉
As a contrast, here is part of the Jewish point of view about whether Isaiah 7 and 9 is a prophecy about Jesus:
Talk about a non sequitur! We’re talking about the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies about Jesus with respect to his name, and you reply with a statement about how non-believers in Jesus see this prophecy fulfilled? :rolleyes:
 
By your logic, unless a person takes on the name as his literal, given name, then the prophecy is “watered down”. However, I’m simply demonstrating how foolish an assumption that is: if Isaiah is showing five names for the Messiah, then by your logic, the prophecies are “watered down” and not “in splendor” unless the person takes on all those names. That’s just a silly assertion… which is what I have demonstrated to you. So, my evaluation has everything to do with your point. 😉
Whether it is foolish or silly is a matter of interpretation, not logic. Your evaluation seems to stem from opinions based on quality of the argument rather than the points made in the argument.
Talk about a non sequitur! We’re talking about the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies about Jesus with respect to his name, and you reply with a statement about how non-believers in Jesus see this prophecy fulfilled? :rolleyes:
I am pointing out that the original intent of the Jewish scripture is revealed by Jewish scholars, not an interpretation after the fact several hundred years later based on wishful thinking. It’s nice to believe that this section of Isaiah prophesied the coming of Jesus, but this is eisegesis, not exegesis.
 
Whether it is foolish or silly is a matter of interpretation, not logic. Your evaluation seems to stem from opinions based on quality of the argument rather than the points made in the argument.
No; my evaluation is based on the fact that your argument doesn’t hold up. My opinion, following from my evaluation, is that you’re being foolish. 😉
I am pointing out that the original intent of the Jewish scripture is revealed by Jewish scholars
I see. Only Jews are able to interpret the Scriptures? Hmm… so, all those Jews of 1st century Palestine, who interpreted the Scriptures to mean that they referred to Jesus, must’ve been right! 😉
not an interpretation after the fact several hundred years later based on wishful thinking.
You realize, of course, that your quotation is from 2012 – that is, many thousands of years after the prophecy, and several thousand years after Jewish Christians began asserting that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? That’s eisegesis, my friend… 😉
It’s nice to believe that this section of Isaiah prophesied the coming of Jesus, but this is eisegesis, not exegesis.
This is probably the most worthwhile contribution you’ve made to this thread. 😉

That is, how are we to understand the meaning of prophecy? Given the way that prophecy is typically given, it’s difficult to understand what it’s pointing toward for its fulfillment. By definition, then, all claims of prophetic interpretation are, technically speaking, a sort of eisegesis – explicitly, they read back into the original text with meanings that are found after the fact! So, the charge of ‘eisegesis’ really doesn’t stick, in this case; all prophecy interpretation fits that bill. 😉
 
What if the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to make the correlation? The Holy Spirit doesn’t engage in eisegesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top