The OT Prophecies Concerning Jesus

Well there are some scholars who point that verse 16 is simply saying that by the time the child is that old it will have accorded of course it had occured before Jesus was even born much less that age.

Other scholars tend to say the line of thought stopped at verse 15 and 16-25 is about coming judgement and the child in 16 actually refers to Shear-jashub who Isaiah was told to bring but was never mentioned unless he was being refered to in verse 16....I think it would have been alot easier if God would have said through Isaiah Hey you in 700 yrs Im sending the messiah, just like it would have been easier if Jesus would have said Yep I am God instead of making us think and try to figure it out... I think he really wanted us to try and figure out some stuff for ourselves and just believe and have faith in what we can not figure out exactly.
 
Jews don't accept the OT prophecies as concerning Jesus for different reasons.

The OT is their Holy Book and nodody can say they have only second-hand knowledge of it.

They have noticed, as independent observers do, that the "prophecies" are often taken out of context, modified, based on mistranslations.

Real prophecies, saying "a certain Jesus, God himself, will appear on such a date and die on a cross and resurrect and to go to Heaven" do not exist.

But the main reason why Jews don't accept Jesus is because Jesus and/or his followers became heretics by adopting religious concepts from their worst spiritual enemies the Hellenic religions.
 
i never really liked the term jew being synonymous with those not believing in christ. there are some that believe.
 
We have someone on the Jewish forum who can deal with the messianic Jews. Jew has two or three definitions. I'm refering only to Jews as believing in the Jewish religion.
Someone who is a Jew by birth or culture, can believe in Jesus-Christ, but then he is a Christian as to his religion.
 
Dor said:
Well there are some scholars who point that verse 16 is simply saying that by the time the child is that old it will have accorded of course it had occured before Jesus was even born much less that age.

Other scholars tend to say the line of thought stopped at verse 15 and 16-25 is about coming judgement and the child in 16 actually refers to Shear-jashub who Isaiah was told to bring but was never mentioned unless he was being refered to in verse 16....I think it would have been alot easier if God would have said through Isaiah Hey you in 700 yrs Im sending the messiah, just like it would have been easier if Jesus would have said Yep I am God instead of making us think and try to figure it out... I think he really wanted us to try and figure out some stuff for ourselves and just believe and have faith in what we can not figure out exactly.
Click to expand...

The fact that the term "the child" is used points to a specific child. I can't see how this isn't the same child in vs 14. For one, the vs 14 child eats butter and honey "that he may know to refuse evil, and chose the good" in vs 15. Then it rolls with the same phrase in vs 16, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose the good..." The phrasing is exactly the same! Moreover, the reference to eating butter and honey is again stated in vs 22. Evidently, butter (which is made from milk, vs 23) and honey has a deeper meaning than the literal, often seen as symbols of abundance as in the land of milk and honey in Exodus 3:8 and Numbers 16:13,14. But in this instance butter and honey seem to denote deeper teaching (Isaiah 28:9) and wisdom (Prov. 24:13,14) for a growing child, so that he "shall know to refuse evil, and choose the good". It's apparent that the child in vs 16 is the same as the one in vs 14, 15.
 
The butter and honey the child is eating is a sign of the utter devastation of the country. Most of the population has disappeared and the herds are left unattended. Honey is no longer collected. So the survivors can have as much milk, butter and honey as they want.
 
mansio said:
The butter and honey the child is eating is a sign of the utter devastation of the country. Most of the population has disappeared and the herds are left unattended. Honey is no longer collected. So the survivors can have as much milk, butter and honey as they want.
Click to expand...

So how would you interpret the butter and honey the child eats so that he may refuse evil and do good?
 
Dondi said:
The Jewish faith has serious contentions about Jesus being the Messiah, and I'm just trying to clarify some of the prophesies attributed to Him. One thing is for sure, either the Jews or the Christians are wrong.
Click to expand...
hmph. our prophetic tradition, as "jews for judaism" are trying to make clear and, moreover, our tradition of interpretation and hermeneutics, both combine to make it impossible that jews could consider jesus a suitable candidate for messiahship. so from our PoV, no, our faith *does not* have "serious contentions" on this matter. let me attempt to make this abundantly clear once again:

TaNa"Kh verses + christian interpretation = jesus is the messiah
TaNa"Kh verses + Oral Law + jewish interpretation = jesus is *not* the messiah

in other words, we're using different criteria from you. even if you look at the original language, you are going to see things differently from us because you lack the Oral Torah and our interpretative tradition which flows from it. both are, from our PoV, *absolutely inseperable* from the Written Torah. it's the difference (at least as far as i am concerned) between me as a lay person reading a statute and trying to decide if someone qualifies for a specific tax bracket (which may seem extremely obvious *on the basis of the statue alone*) and reading a book which expresses the opinions of a *tax lawyer* who has been to law school, done tax exams, etc. obviously i may feel that the tax expert is wrong, but he knows more about tax is me. or i may feel that the tax statute has been misinterpreted by subsequent authorities, or whatever. suffice it to say that as far as i can see, it is not possible for us to agree that jesus qualified in jewish law for the legal category of "Moshiach" - and that all jewish authorities, without exception, are united in this opinion, which is pretty rare!

Faithfulservant said:
I believe that they are purposefully blind to Jesus being the Messiah because they are supposed to be.
Click to expand...
it's a pretty poor theology that relies on someone else being an idiot.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
OK, let's take a small breather here...

No one is calling anyone an idiot. But there is a strong contention of opposing thoughts here, that perhaps would be best if all agree to disagree, and let this part be.

What say you's guys? ;)

v/r

Q
 
bananabrain said:
hmph. our prophetic tradition, as "jews for judaism" are trying to make clear and, moreover, our tradition of interpretation and hermeneutics, both combine to make it impossible that jews could consider jesus a suitable candidate for messiahship. so from our PoV, no, our faith *does not* have "serious contentions" on this matter. let me attempt to make this abundantly clear once again:

TaNa"Kh verses + christian interpretation = jesus is the messiah
TaNa"Kh verses + Oral Law + jewish interpretation = jesus is *not* the messiah

in other words, we're using different criteria from you. even if you look at the original language, you are going to see things differently from us because you lack the Oral Torah and our interpretative tradition which flows from it. both are, from our PoV, *absolutely inseperable* from the Written Torah. it's the difference (at least as far as i am concerned) between me as a lay person reading a statute and trying to decide if someone qualifies for a specific tax bracket (which may seem extremely obvious *on the basis of the statue alone*) and reading a book which expresses the opinions of a *tax lawyer* who has been to law school, done tax exams, etc. obviously i may feel that the tax expert is wrong, but he knows more about tax is me. or i may feel that the tax statute has been misinterpreted by subsequent authorities, or whatever. suffice it to say that as far as i can see, it is not possible for us to agree that jesus qualified in jewish law for the legal category of "Moshiach" - and that all jewish authorities, without exception, are united in this opinion, which is pretty rare!

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

I right with you bananabrain. I'm a Christian, but I guess I'm a "doubting Thomas", as it were. I'm just beginning to understand that there needs to be a Jewish interpretation of the Christian OT in order to discern the various prophecies, particularly in regards to the "Moshiach" or Messiah. The current discussion is dealing with the child of Isaiah 7:14. So far, I'm not seeing a definitive for including this particular verse in the Messianic prophecies. The Isaiah 9:6 child may be another matter, but I haven't gotten to that one yet as I'm trying to tackle these one at a time to avoid confusion.

There is a difference, btw, between being blind and being stupid. Christians take the view that Israel is blind from the NT book of Romans 11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." The implication is that because Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah this blindness disables them from seeing the truth. But of couse, the few that do believe are part of the elect according to vs 7, "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

But I have observed that there ARE verifiable and logical reasons for the Jews not to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It has driven me to re-evaluate my own faith.
 
I wouldnt use the word "idiot" lol

God can harden peoples heart.. He can blind them.. Its not a poor theology
 
bananabrain said:
TaNa"Kh verses + christian interpretation = jesus is the messiah
TaNa"Kh verses + Oral Law + jewish interpretation = jesus is *not* the messiah
Click to expand...
dondi said:
I'm just beginning to understand that there needs to be a Jewish interpretation of the Christian OT in order to discern the various prophecies
Click to expand...

Thats right the Jewish interpretations which yall both admitted they were.
They can not be wrong could they?. It has to be the Christian interpretations that are wrong.

And Christians are the only narrow-minded ones?????????
 
Dor said:
Thats right the Jewish interpretations which yall both admitted they were.
They can not be wrong could they?. It has to be the Christian interpretations that are wrong.

And Christians are the only narrow-minded ones?????????
Click to expand...

You've got it wrong. Perhaps I should have said Jewish perspective. Doesn't make sense that those who are most familiar with the OT scripture would be Jews since it was they that produced the OT? And wouldn't it make sense to explore what they believe in the OT in order to gain a proper perspective?

Let's take it one step further, so you'll see what I mean. Suppose I formed a religious group based on the New Testament, but I also produced my own scriptures that was a companion to the New Testament. This would be another scripture that told a story of how God was once a man and elevated himself to Godhood and then produced billions of children through spiritual wives that populated the earth starting with Adam. And in this other "Testament", I declared that it is possible for man to achieve godhood through righteous living and becoming a temple priest. What would you say to that? Of course, you would say I was wrong. Why? Because you have your New Testament to refute it. Why should I believe in your New Testament? Because I already said that this other "testament is a companion to the NT. Therefore I would have to test my "testament" to the New Testament, right? To see if it were true or false. Because the New Testament came first and has precedence over anything after.

I'm doing the exact same thing with the NT with the OT that you would do with someone who had "another testament" as a companion to the NT. You see?
 
i understand that you are just making a point on one level with that analogy. however, what is wrong with it on a different level is that the new testament is not written by one person. it is a group of people that experienced the life of jesus, the miracles he performed, the words he spoke, the prophesies he fulfilled that make up the new testament. in addition, those that accept jesus have the ability to receive the holy spirit as the new testament proclaims. those that do have it, now how it works and how it feels and now how life altering it is; both jews and gentiles alike.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
i understand that you are just making a point on one level with that analogy. however, what is wrong with it on a different level is that the new testament is not written by one person. it is a group of people that experienced the life of jesus, the miracles he performed, the words he spoke, the prophesies he fulfilled that make up the new testament. in addition, those that accept jesus have the ability to receive the holy spirit as the new testament proclaims. those that do have it, now how it works and how it feels and now how life altering it is; both jews and gentiles alike.
Click to expand...

You have a point. More than one person wrote the NT, which lends a better credence to it. My main contention has to do with precedence. The NT was established on the OT. So the things in the NT must be in line with the OT, regardless how many people wrote it.

But tell me, are you saying that God's spirit wasn't in the writers of the OT when they wrote these things down, or when they prophecised?
 
Dondi said:
You have a point. More than one person wrote the NT, which lends a better credence to it. My main contention has to do with precedence. The NT was established on the OT. So the things in the NT must be in line with the OT, regardless how many people wrote it.

But tell me, are you saying that God's spirit wasn't in the writers of the OT when they wrote these things down, or when they prophecised?
Click to expand...

The writers and prophets of the ot were indeed inspired by god. however, those inspired were a select few and how god interacted may have been slightly different, take moses or john or noah or david for example and how god interacted with them and his chosen people and the law before christs time. then look at the apostles of the nt and how the holy spirit interacted with them with the establishing of churches and gathering people of different languages and cultures into the body of christ.
 
No one is calling anyone an idiot. But there is a strong contention of opposing thoughts here, that perhaps would be best if all agree to disagree, and let this part be.
Click to expand...
with respect, Q, it is hard for me to be tolerant towards a theology that considers me to be "purposefully blind". how is this not insulting of my religion? i mean, i do my best here, but this is kind of saying to me that *our* interpretation of *our own* scriptures is a sort of Divinely-sanctioned foolishness. and this, to me, flies in the face of the fact that we use different interpretative methodologies to christians. i have already outlined how our respective methodologies differ - incidentally, providing a mechanism for what i believe is know as dual or parallel covenant theology - but apparently faithfulservant believes that my continued adherence to judaism is due to G!D "hardening my heart" (so i'm like pharaoh, too!) which, evidently requires that for my heart to be "de-hardened" i would have to become a christian.

let me be absolutely clear about this. i do not have a problem with christians being christian. i do not have a problem with christians believing jesus to be their messiah. i do not have a problem with their justifying these positions through interpretative techniques which are not mediated through judaism. what i do have a problem with is the holding up of judaism as "blind", "hard-hearted" and, therefore, essentially wrong.

i do not find christian theology convincing - although i find it in many ways passionate and beautiful and see it as a perfectly acceptable and sustainable basis for righteous living. i do not consider that it fits the sources better than the interpretation of my own tradition - although i can understand how christian interpretations follow from their interpretative methodology and support their right to use it. in short, christianity is all very well - but it doesn't work for me. that is not because i am unaware of certain things (rather the reverse) and it is not because i am stubbornly clinging to my own illusions, despite being aware of the superior claims of christianity. i consider this view of judaism to be not only ludicrous, but patronising. i consider attempts to justify it to be flying in the face of the evidence. judaism is not dependent upon the goodwill or sanction of christianity. it existed "B.C", for several thousand years - and it has existed for a couple more, "A.D.". this is not being "narrow-minded", the same way as that it is not "narrow-minded" of me to reject other things which i consider to be self-evidently lacking in credibility. christianity may be, for others, the objective standard from which other beliefs deviate, but this is a point of view that is very far from being universally accepted.

i get very tired from feeling i have to continually refute sloppy thinking about judaism that is adduced to support unwarranted chauvinism by christians. i'd prefer to have a dialogue based upon mutual respect, but am finding it a little one-sided right now. i don't mean to be rude, really, but it is terribly wearing.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I get tired too BB..having to refute sloppy thinking about Christianity. I didnt mean to offend you with my blind statement you're obviously a proud person and my choice of wording was not the best. However, thats the only explanation I have that so many people who love God and who God chose to be His people dont see Jesus as their savior. Im comfortable with that line of thinking because I believe that one day everything will be alright.. so If Im delusional in my thought process.. allow me that... Im not trying to hurt anyone.
 
Well, since I started this post, I wonder if we could continue examining these OT prophecies. So far, we've really only discussed one: Isaiah 7:14. I think we have exhausted this one, though from the context of the text, I'm still not convinced this one is a valid Yeshua Messianic prophecies, given the original historical background. I still haven't gotten a clear answer on dual prophecy, if by that the prophecy has more than one application, nor do I have an answer as to how one derives whether a text of scripture warrants dual prophecy.

Should we move on with this thread to another prophecy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top