AntiChristian:


They shall call his name Emmanuel.
Who called Jesus Emmanuel?

I don't understand your question. You just read it from the bible nah. You really didn't know that was his name?

Maynman:


Quote the verse where Isaiah mentioned jesus

Immanuel is mentioned

Maynman:

You are the one making the claim.

Immanuel was born during the days of king Ahaz. This was approximately 700+ years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Immanuel was the younger sibling of Shearjashub who was Isaiah’s first son (cf. Isaiah 2:3). Hence, ruling out the notion that Immanuel was born of a virgin.

What claims are my making? The bible tells us that Jesus Christ is Immanuel not me.

tctrills:

I don't understand your question. You just read it from the bible nah. You really didn't know that was his name?

He shall be called Emmanuel is a future prophecy.

Who fulfilled the prophecy by calling Jesus such name when he was born?

tctrills:


What claims are my making? The bible tells us that Jesus Christ is Immanuel not me.

The tanakh never said so, maybe in the king james VERSION you are reading.

In the original Old Testament Hebrew “almah” simply means “young woman.” After the Exile the Hebrew books had been translated into Persian Aramaic, and then in the third century BC they were translated from that into Greek, called the Septuagint, where “almah” becomes “parthenos,” which meant “virgin.” But that’s not in the original. There’s a different, specific word for a virgin, “bitullah,” which isn’t used here.

AntiChristian:


He shall be called Emmanuel is a future prophecy.

Who fulfilled the prophecy by calling Jesus such name when he was born?

Christians all over the world call him Emmanuel.

tctrills:

Immanuel is mentioned

How is mentioning immanuel translate to jesus?

That’s a hebrew name invoking EL, immanuEL.
Show me Where Isaiah mentioned jesus in the tanakh, you christians call Old Testament.

Maynman:


How is mentioning immanuel translate to jesus?

That’s a hebrew name invoking EL, immanuEL.
Show me Where Isaiah mentioned jesus in the tanakh, you christians call Old Testament.

Jesus is Immanuel

tctrills:

Jesus is Immanuel

Ignorance is not Bliss.

Isaiah 7:14 is totally contextual, contemporary and topical to Isaiah and Ahaz, and to the Syrio-Ephraimic crisis with Rezin and Pekah.

Don’t read v. 14 unless you’re willing to begin with 7:1 and continue, in context, thru to the actual pronouncement of what the actual “sign” really is, in vss. 15–16 ff….

“15. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings….”
THAT is the sign and the fulfillment: the land of that alliance between Israel and Syria, while the child born to the young maiden was still in young childhood, would be forsaken of both her kings – Pekah and Rezin.

Maynman:


The tanakh never said so, maybe in the king james VERSION you are reading.

In the original Old Testament Hebrew “almah” simply means “young woman.” After the Exile the Hebrew books had been translated into Persian Aramaic, and then in the third century BC they were translated from that into Greek, called the Septuagint, where “almah” becomes “parthenos,” which meant “virgin.” But that’s not in the original. There’s a different, specific word for a virgin, “bitullah,” which isn’t used here.

Well we are not reading from the same books and we don't share the same beliefs.

tctrills:

Well we are not reading from the same books and we don't share the same beliefs.

You don’t need beliefs to read and understand a book.

In the original Old Testament Hebrew “almah” simply means “young woman.” After the Exile the Hebrew books had been translated into Persian Aramaic, and then in the third century BC they were translated from that into Greek, called the Septuagint, where “almah” becomes “parthenos,” which meant “virgin.” But that’s not in the original. There’s a different, specific word for a virgin, “bitullah,” which isn’t used here.

tctrills:

Christians all over the world call him Emmanuel.

In essence the prophecy was never fulfilled in the Bible?

Maynman:

Ignorance is not Bliss.

Isaiah 7:14 is totally contextual, contemporary and topical to Isaiah and Ahaz, and to the Syrio-Ephraimic crisis with Rezin and Pekah.

Don’t read v. 14 unless you’re willing to begin with 7:1 and continue, in context, thru to the actual pronouncement of what the actual “sign” really is, in vss. 15–16 ff….

“15. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings….”
THAT is the sign and the fulfillment: the land of that alliance between Israel and Syria, while the child born to the young maiden was still in young childhood, would be forsaken of both her kings – Pekah and Rezin.

What's your point here?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

tctrills:


What's your point here?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

in Isaiah 7:14. Here, Isaiah wrote, quite uncontroversially, that “the young woman is with child”, but this Hebrew text was mistranslated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as “a virgin will conceive”.

The “young maiden” in 7:14 is already pregnant or shortly will be, and she’s known personally to both Ahaz and Isaiah.

The son who would be born to her, according to the “sign,” she would actually name “Immanu’el” –– as his actual, proper, given, called-by name. That’s the proper name that his mother will name and call him.

AntiChristian:


In essence the prophecy was never fulfilled in the Bible?

Many of the bible prophecies would not be fulfilled in the bible. Is that supposed to be a problem?

tctrills:


What's your point here?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Which land is that? Which kings?

“the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

Maynman:


in Isaiah 7:14. Here, Isaiah wrote, quite uncontroversially, that “the young woman is with child”, but this Hebrew text was mistranslated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as “a virgin will conceive”.

The “young maiden” in 7:14 is already pregnant or shortly will be, and she’s known personally to both Ahaz and Isaiah.

The son who would be born to her, according to the “sign,” she would actually name “Immanu’el” –– as his actual, proper, given, called-by name. That’s the proper name that his mother will name and call him.

No he did not, it was a promise of things to come.

tctrills:

No he did not, it was a promise of things to come.

Yes it did.
the actual sign and it’s fulfillment –– the undoing and failure of the alliance of Rezin & Syria and Pekah & Israel against Judah –– was to occur while the son born to that young maiden was still in young childhood, still eating soft sweet foods, and still too young to know right from wrong. THAT is the prophecy and that is the sign.

Maynman:


Which land is that? Which kings?

“the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

My kingdom is not of this world Jesus said.

tctrills:

Many of the bible prophecies would not be fulfilled in the bible. Is that supposed to be a problem?

Yes, a virgin didn't give birth outside the Bible!

Why would the naming of the child be done by Christians outside the Bible?

tctrills:

My kingdom is not of this world Jesus said.

Which land? Which 2 kingss?

“the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

sign and the fulfillment: the land of that alliance between Israel and Syria, while the child born to the young maiden was still in young childhood, would be forsaken of both her kings – Pekah and Rezin.

Maynman:


Yes it did.
the actual sign and it’s fulfillment –– the undoing and failure of the alliance of Rezin & Syria and Pekah & Israel against Judah –– was to occur while the son born to that young maiden was still in young childhood, still eating soft sweet foods, and still too young to know right from wrong. THAT is the prophecy and that is the sign.

Wrong. Let me get you, you are saying that the mighty God, the price of peace, the Everlasting Father was born by a virgin in the days of Isiah?

tctrills:

Wrong. Let me get you, you are saying that the mighty God, the price of peace, the Everlasting Father was born by a virgin in the days of Isiah?

I’m saying:
Isaiah 7:14 says the woman “is giving birth.” Present participle (feminine singular). Yoledet. The woman is in the process of giving birth as he speaks (or writes).
in Isaiah 7:14. Here, Isaiah wrote, quite uncontroversially, that “the young woman is with child”, but this Hebrew text was mistranslated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as “a virgin will conceive”.

AntiChristian:


Yes, a virgin didn't give birth outside the Bible!

Why would the naming of the child be done by Christians outside the Bible?

I thought you said it was a prophecy. Jesus has many names. The bible tells us that Emmanuel was one of them so how does what you are saying change any of that.

Maynman:

I’m saying:
Isaiah 7:14 says the woman “is giving birth.” Present participle (feminine singular). Yoledet. The woman is in the process of giving birth as he speaks (or writes).
in Isaiah 7:14. Here, Isaiah wrote, quite uncontroversially, that “the young woman is with child”, but this Hebrew text was mistranslated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as “a virgin will conceive”.

Please answer my question sir. Are you teaching that a virgin gave birth to the prince of peace, the Everlasting Father, the mighty God in the days of Isiah?

tctrills:

Please answer my question sir. Are you teaching that a virgin gave birth to the prince of peace, the Everlasting Father, the mighty God in the days of Isiah?

I’m saying in the original text a “virgin” was not mentioned, it may have been edited to that in your versions.

This refers to King Chizkiyahu/Hezekiah, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the great rabbinic commentaries explain. You’ll note the operative word here in Hebrew is Yulad, “was born” from the Hebrew grammatical construct of Binyan Pu’al. The English translations that dubiously say “is born” are therefore incorrect. Being that this refers to someone who “was born” and already living during Isaiah’s time, that is 700 years before Jesus! So in no way, can this verse refer to Jesus. But rather, it refers to King Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah), a contemporary of Isaiah’s.

Maynman:

I’m saying in the original text a “virgin” was not mentioned, it may have been edited to that in your versions.

This refers to King Chizkiyahu/Hezekiah, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the great rabbinic commentaries explain. You’ll note the operative word here in Hebrew is Yulad, “was born” from the Hebrew grammatical construct of Binyan Pu’al. The English translations that dubiously say “is born” are therefore incorrect. Being that this refers to someone who “was born” and already living during Isaiah’s time, that is 700 years before Jesus! So in no way, can this verse refer to Jesus. But rather, it refers to King Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah), a contemporary of Isaiah’s.

Oga, it's simple, we both don't believe in the same text. Please prove yours is the original. I am listening.

tctrills:

Oga, it's simple, we both don't believe in the same text. Please prove yours is the original. I am listening.

Which language was the original written in?


In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.

Maynman:

Which language was the original written in?


In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.

So I don't speak Hebrew hence I just made some research and again you are wrong.

כִּי־זֶרַע יְשַׁלַּח יְהוָה לָכֶם נְאֻם־יְהוָה וְרֹעֶה יִקָּח עַל־שְׁכֶם

This verse in Hebrew is saying "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

tctrills:


So I don't speak Hebrew hence I just made some research and again you are wrong.

כִּי־זֶרַע יְשַׁלַּח יְהוָה לָכֶם נְאֻם־יְהוָה וְרֹעֶה יִקָּח עַל־שְׁכֶם

This verse in Hebrew is saying "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

First of all, this is a mistranslation. The words in the original Hebrew are, ‘sar shalom.’ The word ‘sar’ does not mean ‘prince,’

Prince’ in Hebrew is ‘nasee’ and not ‘sar.’ The Christian translators intentionally chose the English word ‘prince’ to lead the reader into thinking about Jesus.

Maynman:

I’m saying in the original text a “virgin” was not mentioned, it may have been edited to that in your versions.

This refers to King Chizkiyahu/Hezekiah, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the great rabbinic commentaries explain. You’ll note the operative word here in Hebrew is Yulad, “was born” from the Hebrew grammatical construct of Binyan Pu’al. The English translations that dubiously say “is born” are therefore incorrect. Being that this refers to someone who “was born” and already living during Isaiah’s time, that is 700 years before Jesus! So in no way, can this verse refer to Jesus. But rather, it refers to King Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah), a contemporary of Isaiah’s.

Again, I don't speak Hebrew so I researched. כִּי־הִנֵּה הַנַּעַר הָרָה וְנִקְרָא עֶלְיוֹ שֵׁם עִמָּנוּאֵל כִּי־אֶעֱנֶה יְהוָה עַל־אַדְמַת הַזֹּאֲתָ לֹא־בַחֲמַת־עַם וְלֹא־בַכַּף חָרָב

This verse in Hebrew is saying "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

tctrills:


So I don't speak Hebrew hence I just made some research and again you are wrong.

כִּי־זֶרַע יְשַׁלַּח יְהוָה לָכֶם נְאֻם־יְהוָה וְרֹעֶה יִקָּח עַל־שְׁכֶם

This verse in Hebrew is saying "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Hebrew is not necessarily written this way.
Send me link where you got this

the operative word here in Hebrew is Yulad, “was born”