Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I understand if this meant that the context validated a certain conclusion but that the Jews were too blind to see it because of tradition. But if the context isn't there then the prophecy is worthless.Some especially Messianic prophecies seem to have been written and not meant to be understood properly till the fulfilment came. With some other Messianic prophecies there is indeed a logical progression that can be understood and could have been understood by the Jews, but the paths of logic in some instances meant that they would have to think a bit differently than through the dogmas they had set up to think with. I think it would have been hard for them to see the full truth of the Messiah even if to those Jews who did accept Jesus, the meaning of the prophecies seemed easy enough to see.
Archaeological evidence trumps tradition, and internal evidence is only relevant regarding writing style to identify age and some other archaeological stuff. Authors intent is also valid but says something about the author and not what was actually happening at the time in many cases. Modern historians don't necessarily reject internal evidence and traditions, because they have used the Bible to point to archaeological discoveries.True I am biased, but I accept the internal evidence of the timing of the gospel writing and accept the traditions and internal evidence for the authorship. Modern historians use methods that are also biased however and they seem to reject the internal evidence and tradition (no matter how reliable) and make the assumption that the prophecy about the destruction of the temple had to have been written after the event, and then look for a time and place that they think might fit each gospel after that event.
With regards to prophecy about the destruction of the temple, do you have evidence showing archaeologist's biases?
Translating Almah as virgin in Isaiah 7 is not legitimate. Context prevents that.Isaiah's context of the Isaiah 9 prophecy being about a divine child who is the Messiah (rules on David's throne forever) can make the Isa 7 child a child of a virgin, which is legitimate if we accept that Almah is indeed used to refer to virgins at times in the OT.
But also the immediate context of the Isaiah prophecies can also point to a normal child and a differing translation and non literal understanding of Isa 9 can point to Hezekiah I guess, if one is desperate for a fulfilment. BUT there should always be a mind that can see the alternatives and see that the prophecies could be dual prophecies and the Jews should be ready to admit that. But Isaiah's commission (Isa 6) shows that God wanted that the Jews did not fully understand things. (That is a tough one to understand but God has His reasons)
Saying that God has his reasons for making a a statement ambiguous or hidden is begging the question.
There is no reason that makes one think a prophecy has a dual fulfillments unless the author says so.
I can definitely follow the Christian reasoning regarding this, as I used to believe it myself, but I reject it because of exegesis. So I can look inside and outside the christian perspective.I have heard that Almah can be translated as virgin, and has been used to refer to virgins. But of course the translation of "virgin" probably does not fit the context of the original prophecy of Isa 7, I think, and so that is why I see that original prophecy as giving a rough time span for events then, which would have happened as predicted if Ahaz had done as God wanted, to calm down and trust Him. A baby may have been born whose name was Immanuel etc. BUT the use of "virgin" would still only be referring to the literal understanding of the Messianich prophecy in Isa 9.
I hope you could follow that.
We shouldn't overemphasise the importance of a name's meaning unless God changed it for a specific reason related to the context. Otherwise we could see many people as divine.It's a bit far back and long ago for me to remember really. I guess the literal Isa 9 prophecy is Messianic and refers to a divine Messiah and Immanuel means God with us and sounds as if it could be about someone divine. The child of Isaiah was not Immanuel but fulfilled the time span meaning. God's words to Ahaz were that if he did not stand firm in his faith he would not stand at all. (Isa 7:9) and this is what happened. The child called Immanuel was to be given for a trusting Ahaz, but was not given at all because Ahaz did not stand firm in his faith.
I'm just guessing what I had meant.
The question regarding Ahaz is: was there a child born in the time of the two Kings and did they leave the land before the child knew right from wrong?
Also, a question I have been thinking about, are there two Kings who died in Jesus childhood? We know of King Herod, but was there another one?
So, no. A yet unfulfilled prophecy does not make the prophet false as long as the fulfilment fits the context. Revelations is a good example.There are prophecies in the OT which have not yet been fulfilled and which are expected to be fulfilled eventually. Does that make the prophet a false prophet? I guess the prophet was seen as not false based on fulfilled prophecy originally but anything which should have been fulfilled long ago and has not been, probably would indicate a false prophet. The Jews seem to have original fulfilment or explanation of prophecies that have dual meaning.
I disagree with your first point about Jesus. One would have to know which prophecies are about the Messiah first, make predictions off that and then determine who fulfilled them.Starting with the 2nd point, I should have said in needs one to know the story of Jesus first (not believe first).
With the 1st point, Jews do look at what Christians say and claim we understand things the wrong way and cannot be right, but as far as I can see we are just using alternative but legitimate understanding and translation of scriptures, but imo the Jews have so completely rejected the Christian understanding that it is true what the prophecy says that the Jews have cut Jesus/their king off from themselves in more ways than one. Judaism seems set in it's thinking about Christianity.
I wouldn't paint Judaism with such a broad brush. I do think their traditions get in the way, but the traditions also helps one to understand things, and in any case it is their religion and texts so they can do what they want with them. You certainly are using alternative understanding but to say it is legitimate still has to be proven.