Isaiah 7:14

[Gorgias]

Only Jews with no agenda are able to interpret the Scriptures in light of the events

Right. So… a Jew who interprets Isaiah in 2012, specifically discussing how Jesus doesn’t fit the prophecies… has no agenda?

Otherwise, having an agenda to prove a point tends to result in a certain distorted predetermined outcome.

That’s my point – clearly, he wants to prove the point that Jesus isn’t the messiah. Again, though… nice try.

Are you saying that Biblical scholars have no business trying to determine the meaning of the Scriptures 2600 years after they were written?

Hey… you were the one who suggested that “an interpretation after the fact several hundred years later” was suspect, not me! If you want to back down from that assertion, however, feel free…

All claiming of prophecy that was interpreted as prophecy only after the fact is eisegesis.

Oh. So… Jews never thought that Isaiah was a prophet? You might want to tell them that yourself – they’ll be happy to know that they’ve been mistaken these past few millenia…

 

[nmgauss]

Gorgias, you’re grasping at straws. You are using one-liners as bullets, and you’re contributing nothing to this discussion. I was hoping we could have a constructive dialogue, but you want a destructive debate.

 

[Cpb88]

“be strong and steadfast! Do not fear nor be dismayed, for the Lord, your God, is with you wherever you go.” -Joshua 1:9

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, you’re grasping at straws.

Hmm… I disagree. How do you see it that way?

You are using one-liners as bullets

You’ve gotta admit, your tone is somewhat hostile to Christians. Putting things the way you have, on a Catholic forum, you’ve gotta expect that your assertions will invite responses that exhibit the same level of charity as your posts. Boy, I wish I could be more charitable; but when you say that “only Jews with no agenda can interpret Scripture” (in response to the assertion that the apostles were Jews who interpreted Scripture), or that Christian interpretation of prophecy is “wishful thinking”, or that Jesus doesn’t fulfill God’s Word “in all its splendor”… hey, you’ve gotta realize that them’s fightin’ words, son…!

(And, if you didn’t previously realize that your tone is offensive to Christians, then let this be your clue-by-four… )

I was hoping we could have a constructive dialogue, but you want a destructive debate.

That sounds good, on the face of it. And, I’m sure it makes you feel good to be able to assert that. But, is it really accurate? After all, I think I’d offer that I started off with “constructive dialogue,” but it was countered by you as “having nothing to do with your point.” Really? Your point was that Jesus’ name had to be, literally, ‘Immanuel’, if prophecy were to be fulfilled in Jesus; I pointed out that Isaiah gave a good half-dozen names for the Anointed, and it would be silly to assert that any one person must have all these names in order to consider the prophecy as ‘fulfilled in all its splendor’. Interestingly, you completely ignored this assertion. Now I ask you… who is it that wants to avoid constructive dialogue?

Peace,
G.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Ok, heres one:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” -Isaiah 7:14

So why did Joseph name him “Jesus”, and not “Immanuel”?

Just came across an explanation that seems to point to the tribe of Joseph being two 1/2-tribes … which will return to a “full Joseph” in the future. Like Jesus was ‘1/2’ and not the full Immanuel? (bottom of commentary). Of course, I could be making all the wrong associations, but the commentary is interesting.

biblestudysite.com/cbapend.htm (main site)

103 The first fulfillment of prophecy in the N.T.

 

[PJM]

=Cpb88;11794456]Ok, heres one:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” -Isaiah 7:14

So why did Joseph name him “Jesus”, and not “Immanuel”?

It was COMMON in those times and palce for names to have more than one meaning.

FROM FATHER HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY
JESUS. The name of Our Lord. It is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, whose Hebrew is Jeshua or Joshua, meaning Yahweh is salvation. It is the name through which God the Father is to be invoked and by which the Apostles worked miracles (Acts 3, 6). In standard usage the name “Jesus” is applied to the Son of Mary, who is also the Son of God; as distinct from “Christ,” which refers to his Messianic role as the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies. See also SACRAMENT OF GOD.

EMMANUEL. The biblical word for “God with us.” A prophetic name used by Isaiah foreshadowing the coming of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14). The belief that the child would be born in Bethlehem and would be “the one who is to rule over Israel” is advanced by another prophet, Micah (Micah 5:2).

The names are not my friend, contradictory:thumbsup: