You haven’t established fulfilment. For example, you say Isaiah is talking about a virgin and Mary was a virgin, I don’t accept the ‘prophesy’ about virginity and I don’t accept that Mary was a virgin.Correct, it is the fulfillment that is to be interpreted in light of the prophesy but saying that i have a particular interpretation of the prophesy itself is meaningless.
Ok, at least we are moving to the root cause of our divide.You haven’t established fulfilment. For example, you say Isaiah is talking about a virgin and Mary was a virgin, I don’t accept the ‘prophesy’ about virginity and I don’t accept that Mary was a virgin.
As yet, you’ve done nothing but assert.
Ah, now we move to the usual proof text ‘pantomime debate’ (“Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!”)?So what exactly does Isaiah 7:14 talk about? What does it say and what do you think it means?
Of course i know the drill, the word means ‘a young woman’ mistranslated to a ‘virgin’.Ah, now we move to the usual proof text ‘pantomime debate’ (“Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!”)?
Doesn’t lead anywhere, used to be quite fun in the 90s when we all had to do it all fresh and think on our feet, now a quick google is all that’s needed.
Proof texts are the most barren form of apologetics, seriously.
Well, if you know the drill, you know the context.Well, if this is not the most barren idea then i don’t know what is, coz a young woman giving birth is not a sign for anything, they do it all the time even now.
A young woman giving birth is not a sign in any context, a child learning to speak is not a sign, a man walking down the street is not a sign, these are natural things expected to happen any time.Well, if you know the drill, you know the context.
Well, the child is, obviously, important in the context of the time. That you want it to be about an entirely different time and context is your problem not mine.A young woman giving birth is not a sign in any context
It’s true, a young woman giving birth is not a sign of anything.Well, the child is, obviously, important in the context of the time. That you want it to be about an entirely different time and context is your problem not mine.
Empty assertion isn’t argument.happening to them real time was all prophesy about the end times which is now.
It is not an empty assertion. In the NT we still see the same kind of talk about Judah and Jerusalem being separate, these consistency means whatever happened as a narrated in the OT was a prophesy which is being fulfilled today in the spiritual sense.Empty assertion isn’t argument.
At best, proof text arguments are often not so much about signs as they are about signifieds. Usually, the signs don’t even count as signs.A barren assertion is the claim that a young woman giving birth is a sign.
You have not explained how a young woman giving birth is a sign, how young? which young woman?At best, proof text arguments are often not so much about signs as they are about signifieds. Usually, the signs don’t even count as signs.
As I suggested above, google is your friend in proof text arguments.You have not explained how a young woman giving birth is a sign, how young? which young woman?
Why should we care what importance others ascribe to our texts?Of what importance was it to the people even today?
Our text our God our everything; don’t you see any problem with this?Why should we care what importance others ascribe to our texts?
Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus, Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus. They’re two different religions, you don’t get to determine how Jews view/interpret/use our scriptures any more than we get to determine how you use yours (or how you use ours).
Since we don’t see anybody as disadvantaged by not being Jewish, no, I don’t see a problem. That and the fact that Christianity would seem to be mainly harmless to its adherents, obviously.Our text our God our everything; don’t you see any problem with this?
I felt a little left out when you said ‘our texts’ which implies, ‘from our God’Since we don’t see anybody as disadvantaged by not being Jewish, no, I don’t see a problem. That and the fact that Christianity would seem to be mainly harmless to its adherents, obviously.
Well, the Tanakh is long out of copyright so there’s not a lot we can do about its use (or misuse).I felt a little left out when you said ‘our texts’ which implies, ‘from our God’
I don’t think it’s that easy, it wasn’t a book, it was a collection of texts that could be used and re-used. Promise to cheer up Ahaz and later used to influence Hezekiah?I have a question about your text and specifically about Isaiah 7 when Isaiah was talking to king Ahaz. Was it written after the event (child being born by the young woman and the kingdom not falling) or before the event?
Let’s be clear: I am saying that the writers of the first three Gospels in no way clearly say that Jesus is GOD. This is difference from saying ‘divine’. There is noting in Mark 1 that says Jesus is God. Not a word.Your claims that early Gospel writers did not view Jesus as divine and only John did is easily refutable. Precisely what Mark chapter 1 is about.
It is very important to our discussion; if it was written before the event, it would be important to also find a writing of when it was fulfilled and when Ahaz witnessed a young woman giving birth. If it was written after, then it is just another meaningless text.I don’t think it’s that easy, it wasn’t a book, it was a collection of texts that could be used and re-used. Promise to cheer up Ahaz and later used to influence Hezekiah?
Of interest to scholars.
Of course, it has entirely different purposes for Christians. Not our problem.