Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 11:38 pm
Do you assume that Jewish scholars
aren't very knowledgeable on the Bible?
It's based on the context.
Who are the Jewish scholars you are referring to? The only Jew I've seen that argues the way you've presented is
Tovia Singer. Do other Jewish scholars also have this same interpretation?
Verse 15a is a stand-alone proverb.
Verse 15b introduces the first four things and verse 16 names them: the grave, the barren womb, the earth not satisfied with water and the fire which never says, "Enough!"
Verse 17 is commentary on the aforementioned rebellious generation. Then the cycle starts over.
Here's Prov 30:15-17:
Pro 30:15 ¶ The leech has two daughters:
Give and Give.
Three things are never satisfied;
four never say, “Enough”:
Pro 30:16 Sheol, the barren womb,
the land never satisfied with water,
and the fire that never says, “Enough.”
Pro 30:17 ¶ The eye that mocks a father
and scorns to obey a mother
will be picked out by the ravens of the valley
and eaten by the vultures.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/15/s_658015
Prov 30:17 is not linked either by the ESV to verses 15-16. Each has its own paragraph marker.
Verses 15-16 is about not being satisfied. Verse 17 is about mocking and scorning parents.
There is also no commonality shared between those two sayings:
Verses 15-16: leech, daughters, give, satisfied, enough, sheol, womb, land, water, fire
Verse 17: eye, father, scorn, obey, mother, picked, ravens, valley, eaten, vultures
Again, you cannot use the same text for the pronouncement of the prophecy and the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Then how can you use Matthew 1:23 to prove that anyone called Jesus Immanuel?
Because Matt 1:23 and Isa 7:14 are separate verses.
[Mat 1:23 ESV] 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
[Isa 7:14 ESV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
And the person being named was given that name as a message to the people being threatened by Israel and Syria.
That's the claim, but it lacks the evidence. The only thing you've presented is the prophecy, which is a circular argument.
It means "God with us" or "with us is God"
Christians
render it "God with us", but it doesn't make that the meaning.
Then please provide a Hebrew lexicon definition.
You use Jesus being God as a premise to argue back to Jesus being God. That's circular.
We can go into all the verses that point to Jesus being God after the debate on his Messiahship.
Yes and no. Yes, it's implied those are the two kings. No, it doesn't rule out other possible kings since it's not explicitly stated.
I addressed this fallacy in an earlier post with my illustration of Hilkiah finding the book of the law.
I don't think your point of Hilkiah is relevant. The point is not exact words are required in order to refer to a single thing. My point is since there is not exact wording, it can allow to refer to multiple things.
Then who was the virgin who gave birth to the child whose early life timed the downfall of Pekah and Rezin?
That's the problem, nobody really knows who the alma is. There's several possible candidates: a prophetess (impregnated by Isaiah) and Ahaz's wife. But neither really fits well.
[Isa 8:3 KJV] 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
Who is the prophetess? How do we know she is a young unmarried woman? And the son's name is Mahershalalhashbaz, not Immanuel.
There is no textual confirmation of Ahaz's wife fulfilling the prophecy.
If every use of the word "alma" in the Tanakh refers to a virgin, then either:
I think the emphasis on alma being a virgin or not makes the water muddied. I'm not claiming alma necessitates being a virgin. But in the vast majority of cases, it does. Virginity is an inference from alma being an unmarried woman. Most unmarried woman were virgins. Yes, it could be possible an unmarried woman had a secret affair and lost her virginity, but that would be the exception.
In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.
https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/almah- ... ung-maiden
So, the primary meaning of alma is of a young unmarried woman, but it infers virginity.
1. There was a pregnant virgin present when Isaiah met Ahaz, or
2. Isaiah was timing the downfall of Pekah and Rezin with the early life of a nonexistent child, which makes him a false prophet, or]
3. The pregnant woman wasn't a virgin but Isaiah thought she was, again making him a false prophet, or
We can rule these out.
4. Isaiah was "prophesying[/i] that the downfall of Pekah and Rezin would be "foretold" by a birth 700 years after it happened, which would make him a false prophet and a laughingstock.
I don't claim the two kings being referred to in the prophecy are Pekah and Rezin.
The only way to avoid all of these scenarios is for Isaiah to be using the word "alma" to refer to a nonvirgin.
Even if it was a non-virgin, it's problematic for it to refer to an unmarried young woman and be fulfilled. There is no textual confirmation of a young unmarried woman naming her child Immanuel.
And how would a sign of a son born from an unmarried young woman who is not a virgin be a sign from God? Wouldn't this rather be a sign of fornication rather than a godly sign?
If there's no passage in the Tanakh of any person being called Immanuel, then there's no textual evidence that prophecy was fulfilled.
If there's no passage in Christian text with anyone calling
Jesus Immanuel, there's no evidence of any "prophecy" being fulfilled there (you can't use Matthew 1:23 to prove its own fulfillment.
My emphasis is not on someone being "called". My emphasis is on a separate text showing another person being referred to as Immanuel. Where in the Tanakh has this textual confirmation?
You've already admitted that the Tanakh never says any prophecy will be fulfilled more than once.
I've said there is no explicit text that says this and there is no text that disallows more than a single literal interpretation.
If Christians don't use the same four senses as the Jews, then there's no comparison or continuity.
The continuity is interpreting a passage in multiple ways and more than just a single literal sense.
What they don't do is assign the prophecy another literal fulfillment. That's what you're trying to do with Isaiah 7
I'm not even sure it was literally fulfilled at the time of Isaiah since there's no textual confirmation of anyone named Immanuel.
That's why I don't believe the far fulfillment was referring to Pekah and Rezin.
There is no "far fulfillment". It's a Christian invention.
Well, by your logic, then that is just a Jewish denial of a Christian claim.
We can go on forever really about debating what does Isaiah 7 refer to. People have been debating this for thousands of years and it's perhaps one of the most contentious and difficult passages to understand. One thing for sure, it's not conclusive what it really means, both on the Jewish side and the Christian side.
As I've pointed out, his mother was to call him "Immanuel".
Yeah, same answer to my same question. I'll let readers judge on the validity of it.
Since there is acceptable sacrifice even without a temple, then I rest my case.
We've argued this already. Not going to rehash this again and I'll let readers assess.
My other question still stands. What would be the consequences of God being temptable? Wouldn't it put mortals in a dreadfully precarious predicament? And if it was that bad with God in heaven being temptable, would it be any better with God on earth being temptable?
Don't really see the reason why we should go off into the weeds with this. This is not relevant to whether Jesus is the Jewish messiah or not.
