AlanF said:
[Quoting NewLight2]: The Old Testament is one document. The New Testament is one document. They are two separate documents, however, combined they make up the one modern day book, the Bible. [End of Quote]
So say the Christians.
So, AlanF, are you trying to imply that the Old Testament was written by the same people who wrote the New Testament? Or that the Old Testament was written at the same time period as the New Testament? Just what are you trying to imply by saying "So say the Christians"?
AlanF said:
In a following post Newlight2 said:
Actually, you are now commenting on my post, not NewLight2's.
AlanF said:
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: First of all, AlanF, you made a mistake -- in Isaiah 7:13-14 the person being spoken to was not Ahaz, it was the House of David -- the nation of Israel (Ahaz had correctly refused to test God):
: Isaiah 7:13-14: He said, "Listen now, house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you [plural] a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel.
: My Christian friend helped me to realize that in my previous post on this Thread, I was basing my answers on the fact that the prophecy was given to Ahaz, and that the prophecy had to have an immediate fulfillment. [End of Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]
Well your Christian friend is wrong, because the complete text of Isaiah 7:1-17 shows that Isaiah spoke to both Ahaz and to the "house of David". Note the bolded text (NIV) below:
1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood-because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' "
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria."
The entire passage is talking to both Ahaz, the king of the nation, and to the people of the nation. Verse two says that Ahaz and his people were afraid. God spoke through Isaiah variously to Ahaz and to all of the people in every part of the passage. The latter part of verse sixteen is obviously referring to all of Judah, including Ahaz, as being in "dread". Verse 17 makes this all explicit: "The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father..." the things spoken of.
[Quoting AlanF's earlier statement]: AlanF said:
:: Not a single word in Isaiah 7 indicates a fulfillment of the prophecy beyond a few years. [End of Quote]
[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped]: But, actually, where does the context state that it has to have an immediate fulfillment? The prophecy simply says: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."
Why couldn't that simply mean that before the Messiah arrives, the land of those two kings will be forsaken? [End of Quote]
Because context doesn't allow it. A contemporary reader would have no reason to think that the prophecy given to Ahaz would have anything other than a contemporary fulfillment. According to the passage I quoted above, it was Ahaz and the house of David, Judah, who were in fear of the two marauding kings. It was them to whom Isaiah gave the prophecy for their comfort. They were not concerned about events hundreds of years in the future. They were concerned for their safety NOW. Look at verses 16-17 once again: "... the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria." It is simply ridiculous to claim that such language does not refer to Ahaz and the people of Judah.
Let's see, where should I start:
AlanF said: "Context doesn't allow it"
You correctly stated that the LORD was comforting them with a message, however, the LORD had already given a comforting immediate promise BEFORE Isaiah 7:14, notice:
Isaiah 7:5-8: Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
Since the LORD had already given a comforting immediate prophecy ("It will not take place, it will not happen" and "Within sixty-five years..."), then why do you claim that Isaiah 7:14 must have been a prophecy with an immediate fulfillment?
Wouldn't a prophecy (given to the entire House of David, not only Ahaz) about the Messiah coming into the world, who was going to take away all of the faithful people's sins, have been comforting to the listeners of Isaiah? And wouldn't it have been comforting to hear the prophecy that within 65 years, those two kings would be no more, and that when the Messiah arrives, the land of those two kings would be forsaken?
AlanF said: "They were not concerned about events hundreds of years in the future."
All throughout the Bible, the Jews expected the Messiah SOON - they did not know that the Messiah wouldn't come to Earth for hundreds of years -- so Isaiah 7:14 would be a comforting reminder that the Messiah is coming to take away the sins of all faithful believers.
What is the main purpose of prophecy? It is to prove that only Yahweh (Jehovah) can foretell the future with accuracy -- hundreds of years in advance.
Also, in Isaiah 8:3-4, it says:
I [Isaiah] went to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher Shalal Hash Baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, 'My father, and, My mother', the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria."
Isaiah 8:3-4 is definitely unquestionably an immediate prophecy because the prophecy states that it is.
I find it very interesting that Isaiah 7:14-16 does not mention when the child "Immanuel" was born, or who his parents were, however in Isaiah 8:3-4, which is a definite immediate prophecy, it does mention when the child was born, and who the child's parents were.
If Isaiah 7:14-16 had an immediate fulfillment, how would the readers of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah's time know which child it was or when the child was born, because the Scriptures do not state this information? (There could have been more than one child called "Immanuel")
And, if Isaiah 7:14-16 was already given as an immediate prophecy, why was it necessary to have a 2nd immediate prophecy, which is nearly identical, in Isaiah 8:3-4?
Also, Isaiah 9:6-7 proves that Isaiah did indeed insert prophecies about hundreds of years in the future, in the middle of context in which he was speaking about current and immediate events -- in other words, "the context does allow it" because this is the writing style of Isaiah:
Isaiah 9:1-12: But there shall be no gloom to her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time has he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light: those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them has the light shined. You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy: they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. For all the armor of the armed man in the tumult, and the garments rolled in blood, shall be for burning, for fuel of fire. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of Yahweh of Hosts will perform this. The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it has lighted on Israel. All the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, who say in pride and in arrogance of heart, The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place. Therefore Yahweh will set up on high against him the adversaries of Rezin, and will stir up his enemies, the Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
In Isaiah Chapter 9, the surrounding context is obviously speaking of current events and immediate events, and yet Isaiah 9:6 says "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
That Verse says "a child IS BORN to us" [present tense], but we know that this a future prophecy of the Messiah, because NO ONE ELSE could possibly have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7! Who else is Eternal? Who else is God? Who else shall rule God's Kingdom? It is obviously a future prophecy about the Messiah -- but the surrounding context is speaking of immediate and current events.
Isaiah did the exact same thing in Isaiah 7:14-16 -- he gave a prophecy with a fulfillment hundreds of years in the future -- right in the middle of context which is describing current and immediate events -- the exact same as he did in Isaiah 9:6-7.</font>
Please let me know what you think about these comments.
Also, gumby, did you even read any of those Web Pages I posted about the supposed Jesus/Horus connections? You, and several other people keep claiming that there is all this "ancient evidence" which supports your claims, but I have never seen anyone provide a link to see any of this "ancient evidence".
