That's an understandable and reasonable seeming appraisal of the authors proficiency in the art science of mythcraft ... from an analysis of the text contextualized with broad deference granted to the academic consensus... If you had access to their knowledge of the source materials, the historic events that brought about the project of the construction of scriptures, and lastly... understanding of the depth and complexity of the of the layers of priorty stratications that were all held in mind... When you see these things , it's not a debate of whether they were good at it... they were among the great masters of syncretism, all things cryptic, the human psyche, and anything else useful for effective governance at the late Bronze/Early Iron Age.
@@Highspergamy . The gospel authors are masters of the pen but not synchronism. Christianity when it began was the most exclusive religion to ever exist . Denying the god's of other religions existance or calling them demons . With that attitude . Early Christians would not associate Jesus with a demon . They would not synchronise Jesus with a non existing being or a demon as far as they are concerned but they will use the language , concepts and ideas present in the culture they lived . Because everyone does that
Yes, I've always found the NT quotes verses of the OT in places where it doesn't seem to apply. Day of Pentecost, they quote Joel. Joel doesn't talk about speaking in tongues. He does talk about God's Spirit falling upon people, which did supposedly happen on Pentecost. But Joel said the sun and moon would turn red, and there are no signs in the sky on Pentecost. That Joel passage seems like quite a stretch.
Just compare every Ot quote in the Nt with the actual Ot text. Either misquoted with added words or out of context and sometimes even made up Ot references. E.g. that the Messiah has to suffer, will die and be raised on the 3rd day. Nowhere it says this😂
Matthew working from a poor translation (the Septuagint) caused other problems. My personal favorite is in 21:7 where Matthew doesn't understand the Hebrew synthetic parallelism in Zechariah 9:9 and thinks it refers to two donkeys not one, so of course has to have Jesus planking across two animals at once, Jackass-style, as he rides in to town.
Has anyone made a wiki or similar that cross-references Dan's videos with the scriptures that they discuss? It would be nice to be able to search for what Dan says about, say, Isaiah 7 and get a list of videos like this one in response. It could be extended to other Bible scholars who make social media videos. Seems like a useful resource.
Lord of the Rings. Christianity is a central theme in J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional works about Middle-earth, but always a hidden one. This allows the book to be read at different levels, and its meaning to be applied by the reader, rather than forcing a single meaning on the reader. J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic from boyhood, and he described The Lord of the Rings in particular as a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work; it contains numerous themes from Christian theology.
Bart Ehrman: All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end. Also Bart Ehrman: The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. The sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
Does the author (or authors) of Isaiah say anything else about the child Emmanuel, other than his birth and infancy will have something to do with the invading kings ceasing their invasion?
@@germanboy14 OK, thanks. It just seems odd that the author(s?) of Isaiah would ho to the trouble of mentioning the child, if his only purpose was to show the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy. Unless Emmanuel was meant to serve as a metaphor for something?
@@Noneya5555 the name is just a sign given to Ahaz. It means God is with us, I.e. that God is with Ahaz. God basically says to Ahaz don't worry, before the child xy even can speak or knows the difference between good and bad your enemies will be defeated. I will help you. Just like many Hebrew names are just signs. When God heard Ishmals mother, he said to call the child Ishmael (God hears). Why? Because God hears his believers. There is also the name Hezekiah (God is strength), why Hezekiah defeated his enemies mentioned in the torah by Gods help. Elyahu means He is God. It doesn't mean Elyahu is God
What was fulfilled? Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy and sign given to Ahaz from God of Israel about the two kingdoms in the north waring against Southern Kingdom Judah. Has nothing to do with a supposed messiah being born
Sounds like the early Christians, like apologists today, can make the scripture say whatever they want it to say. Being this loosey-goosey you could pretty much take any section of the OT and explain why it's really all about Jesus.
Isiah later says that "the prophetess" has had his child, and thanks God for the children given him as "divine signs"...Does this mean that this is the young woman, that "Emmanuel" is also Isiah's child? If she was some sort of religious figure herself and their children were seen as some sort of divine omens, could this be evidence of some sort of divination sex ritual?
Yes she was a prophetess and Isaiah's wife. Isaiah calls the same child by another name. She calls him Immanuel because that child fulfills a certain purpose. Isaiah calls his son Mahershalalhasbaz (plunder hastens; spoil quickens). Isaiah 7:14 is not a biblical prophesy for Jesus birth 700 years after the fact. Why would a birth 700 years into the future bring comfort to king Ahaz when the enemy is literally at his gates?
Another good example of this is Solomon being named Jedidiah-which means beloved of the LORD-in 2 Samual 12:25. Hebrew names were given as a means to proclaim blessings on the child and the people.
Does this mean Jehovah's Witnesses are blessed! Matthew 6:9 Hallowed be your name. YHVH Yod Hey Vav Hey Jehovah's Witnesses prophesy Behold the Hand Behold the Nail. It's the sacred secret of the Tetragrammaton. YHVH! Yehovah! Jehovah! Jesus name means Jehovah is salvation. Emmanuel means Jehovah is with us.
@theophilussogoromo3000 1John 3:1 See what sort of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are. That is why the world does not know us, because it has not come to know him. 1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. Malachi 2:10 “Do we not all have one father? Was it not one God who created us? So why do we deal treacherously with one another. John 6:44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me. 46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father. 47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.
This is indeed how it is rationalized, but as you said, the prophecy of Immanuel was never about the messiah, heck, it wasn't even about Immanuel. Immanuel was the condition, not the result of the prophecy, the northern kingdom would be gone by the time that kid is of certain age. Matthew is retconning the prophecy to fit his own ideas.
Also, the Emmanuel beginning and end of Matthew are the bookends of a Chiasm, the center of which is Jesus walking on water - not unlike the “spirit of God over the surface of the deep” in Genesis - and his command in the face of his disciples fear to “fear not; it is I,” ego eimi. So the structure of Matthew points toward the authors belief that Jesus is manifesting God’s presence!
Jesus' name, like his hometown of Nazareth, are both good evidence of historicity: If he were completely made up, then the storytellers could have just said, "His name was Emmanuel and he was born in Bethlehem, in accordance with the scriptures". The fact that they had to bend over using pretzel logic to make these things fit is actually good argument that these things WERE true and enough people knew about it at the time that they couldn't just lie about it...
None of what you wrote makes much sense. The stories in the Gospels are being written decades after the supposed death of Jesus. And written in places that were likely many miles from where Jesus and the disciples would have lived. I don't know who you think would be able to check the details on events that happened 40 to 70 years earlier in distant towns.
I want to invent a new prophecy for Harry Potter. This prophecy relies on a play on words involving a different name. Is this evidence for the historicity of Harry Potter?
Yeah all the Jesus "prophecies" are similar - either prophesying something else, or already "fulfilled" in context, or were never intended to be "prophecies" until they were retconned.
Confirmation bias. They already adopted the belief that Jesus is super cool and wonderful. Anything which has the mere appearance of validating the belief will be readily adopted.
I love the way apologist can claim that Isaiah was talking about jesus when it is really about king ahaz some 700 years before jesus getting a sign because of the two kings wanting to destroy them.
I think the prophecy is about one of Isaiah's sons per Isaiah 8.18. But the writers of the gospel of Matthew used the prophecy to demonstrate God is with us in Jesus. It is a strange high christology, lifted from an old testament context. Rare in the synoptic gospels but still there
Could also just be any child of a woman known to Ahaz. I mean the child doesn't play any role, it just says that before the child grows up, the enemies will be defeated. So it's a child known to Ahaz
And the name is just a sign given to Ahaz. It means God is with us, I.e. that God is with Ahaz. God basically says to Ahaz don't worry, before the child xy even can speak or knows the difference between good and bad your enemies will be defeated. I will help you. But God wasn't physically there and the child didn't play any role. Just like many Hebrew names are just signs. When God heard Ishmals mother, he said to call the child Ishmael (God hears). Why? Because God hears his believers. There is also the name Hezekiah (God is strength), why Hezekiah defeated his enemies mentioned in the torah by Gods help. Elyahu means He is God. It doesn't mean Elyahu is God
So to summarize: The original verse in Isaiah is talking about a contemporary event related to the Assyrian empire. 500 years later Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the verse from Isaiah and made several changes (or, theoretically, had a different version of the Hebrew), including making the verbs about the child's birth future tense and changing the Hebrew for "young woman" to a word which can mean "virgin." Then 200 to 300 years after that, Matthew changes the Greek text from "she will name" to "they will name." As a religious person (Jewish), I'm fine with Christians seeing the hand of God in this long process of transmission and translation (and retranslation), but I just ask them not to go around claiming that Isaiah 7:14 proves that the Hebrew Bible predicted the miraculous birth of Jesus.
The Jesus followers were a branch of judaism. They didn't begin to really distinguish themselves until after the synoptic gospels were written. They were using the same process of reinterpreting scripture to lend it new meaning to the current era that was already common in judaism at the time. So you're basically saying that it was fine when the jews you agree with were doing this reinterpreting but it's not fine when the jews you don't agree with do the reinterpreting. Seems like a bit of a double standard.
@@rainbowkrampus That is exactly the problem . Early Christian authors are using the same methods of interpretation which were perfectly acceptable at the time . But modern Jews and many critics of the Bible aren't familiar with these interpretative practices . So it looks like a Christian author is being deceptive while his audience would know and understand exactly what he is doing because they did it too
@@rainbowkrampus Early Christians left Judaism soon enough, but that's not really the point here. I don't think you read my comment very carefully. What part of "I'm fine with Christians seeing the hand of God in this long process of transmission" didn't you understand? But I ask you to reflect: do mainstream Christians see their reading of Isaiah as a "reinterpretation"? In fact, you have it quite backwards: I was appealing to Christians to see that their understanding of biblical prophecy is not the one correct one, whereas THEY insist it is.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Early Christians didn't leave Judaism . Modern Christians didn't leave Judaism . You are using the modern concept of Judaism and forcing it back into history . Christianity is a demonization of ancient Judaism . Just like the Pharisees Essenes Sadducees zealots and the Qumran community . " Judaism " was not monolithic in Jesus time and there were various differences . Christianity is no different Christians may be majority gentile ethnically . But they are Jewish theologically
@@ramadadiver8112 Not sure that they can be called "Jewish theologically" these days, or even shortly after the alleged time of "Jesus". "Jesus" was not their Messiah and could not possibly have been. The "God" of the Jews is NOT the "God" of the Christians, despite the efforts of Christians to tie them together.
Great questions! Barring any sidebars on the Lords name I would like to point out that Emmanuel indicates laity. The Lord was never enthroned. There is an process of renaming that the lord mentions that never gets touched base upon. So that and the fact that jubilee was directly inferred in the Lords service; points directly to an interruption that needs to be revealed and amended somehow. Imho.
Where can we learn more about this notion that the Gospel authors likely saw Jesus as divine name-bearer, rather than Jesus as literally God in the fleah? Also, is there a lot of academic consensus around that? It sounds like the most plausible way to interpret the passages exalting Jesus. But outside of Dan's content I don't recall hearing it argued with the same clarity.
Hey Dan long time fan for about a year now. I'm actually an atheist so naturally I disagree with you on matters of faith but I enjoy your content the most put of everyone atheist included. I was wondering if you were aware of someone's CZcams channel called council of trent? If so what do you think of someone of his views regarding his approach to forming arguments as an orthodox Christian? Where do you agree and differ? I hope this reaches you and perhaps inspires a response maybe in video form if you have the time.
Hey Dan, i remember you saying in another video that the nativity story in Luke was a later addition and that Luke likely originally started with his baptism. Can the same be said of Matthew's nativity?
3:55 if only logic & commonsense could be allowed to have a say-you cannot manifest the PRESENCE of someone you are not CONSUBSTANTIAL with (with even sharing The NAME)
Matthew was ‘deceived’ by a poor translation and his desire to have Jesus fulfil as many Old Testament prophecies as possible. Was he intentionally trying to deceive us? I don’t think it’s possible to know for sure.
The Jesus followers were engaged in a process called pesher, that is, reinterpreting scripture to make it relevant to the modern day. It was a foundational and accepted part of the Jesus movement just as it was a part of other jewish sects in and around the 1st century. It wasn't deception, it was standard practice. It only looks like deception looking back after a long period of developing a scriptural canon, thus freezing the text in place... sorta. As we've seen, people are more than happy to continue reinterpreting these texts in order to assert their political ideals today. So in a somewhat more limited sense, the standard practice never went away.
In original Hebrew Scripture Tanakh Isaiah 7:14 is not "virgin" in future tense. It says "young woman" in present tense. Also in Dead sea scrolls Isaiah scroll 200BCE. Excellent 👍 Ps: the original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy not the rest. No one has that original Septuagint. In fact this is a fast day of morning on orthodox Hebrew calendar 10th of Tevet. The later Lxx was put together by hellenists and apostates modified by Origen into the Christian version called "Old testament" later. תודה רבה שלום
Very interesting. Who forced the rabbis to translate it, and why? Dan and other scholars have mentioned the Septuagint, but iirc, none have told the story behind it.
@@Noneya5555this poster holds to Orthodox Jewish tradition as the absolute historical truth, he comes by and posts apologetic cope with some frequency
@@germanboy14 yes. However we have our history . Tenth of Tevet on Hebrew calendar a day of morning when 72 rabbis were forced to translate Hebrew Torah into koine Greek for Hellenist rulers then.
We've changed? Just like we've changed Yeshua's name? Deuteronomy 12:32, the Lord warned: "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "Every word of God proves true… Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." So is the whole bible a adding and taking away from the true word? Yeshua tell them. We have complicated the bible.
Dan, there is a lot of variation in translation of Matthew 21:7 on Bible websites. E.g. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. - NIV They brought the donkey and the colt to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it. - NLT They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. - NSV Would be very grateful if you can help with understanding this verse. For example, assuming the NSV translation is accurate, could the ‘them’ that Jesus sat on refer to the cloaks, the animals, or is the text explicitly referring to the donkey AND the colt?
I think it's obvious the writer messed up the verse in Zechariah, not understanding Hebrew parallelism. So your question is asking for commentary on an event that likely didn't happen. If it did happen, it's crazy to try and put Jesus on two animals, just go back to Mark. _When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it._ It's weird to try and make sense of a scene that didn't happen according to Mark, the earlier source, so just accept that Matthew was wrong. If you're unsure, just look at Luke: _They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it._ Or go to John, who simply omitted this mess. To assume that Mark and Luke are wrong, but the crazy account of straddling two animals (especially since once is an adult and one colt) makes no sense. Why do it? Especially since we can easily see that Matthew was just incorrectly inserting something from the OT.
@@boboak9168 He obviously "intended" to copy Zachariah so that Jesus would "fulfill" the "prophecy" found there. Any other interpretation is fanciful. Is it even physically possible to straddle a Donkey and a colt at the same time? Maybe if you're an Olympic gymnast. Are you saying you think someone can read the Greek text and find some workaround where in Greek a Donkey and a Colt really means just a foal? Or something weird like that? I think Matthew's intention is plain, obvious, and undeniable.
@@michaelsbeverly I follow your reasoning. No problem there. I have heard apologists say that the NSV translation is the way to go, and that the ‘them’ Jesus sat on was the cloaks, not both animals, because that would be ridiculous. Consequently I would really like an accurate translation of the verse, with a particular focus on if this apologetic is ruled out or plausible.
@@boboak9168 If you want an accurate translation, you'll have to go to someone who is highly qualified in the Greek. It's obvious that modern translations tend to "tweak" certain problematic verses. I have no idea if ChatGPT is accurate in Greek, but, when I've asked it questions about the Bible and then checked Biblegateway, it seems to accurately represent the versions (that I'm capable of reading, i.e. English). Here's ChatGPT's answer about these verses in Matthew: The passage you're referring to is found in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 21:1-7. This passage describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey and her colt. It is often discussed because of its unique depiction compared to the other Gospels. The Greek text of Matthew 21:1-7 reads as follows: Καὶ ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βηθφαγὴ πρὸς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν, τότε Ἰησοῦς ἀπέστειλεν δύο μαθητάς, λέγων αὐτοῖς· Πορεύεσθε εἰς τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθέως εὑρήσετε ὄνον δεδεμένην καὶ πῶλον μετ’ αὐτῆς· λύσαντες ἀγάγετε μοι. καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι, ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ Κύριος αὐτῶν χρείαν ἔχει· εὐθέως δὲ ἀποστελεῖ αὐτούς. Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιὼν· Ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται σοι πραΰς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου. πορευθέντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ καὶ ποιήσαντες καθὼς προσέταξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἤγαγον τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον, καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν. Here's a straightforward translation: As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. The passage cites a prophecy from the Old Testament, which Matthew interprets as being fulfilled in this event. The dual mention of a donkey and her colt has been the subject of various interpretations. Some scholars suggest that Matthew is emphasizing the fulfillment of prophecy (from Zechariah 9:9) in a literal sense, while others see it as a narrative device to underline Jesus' humility and his role as the peaceful Messiah. The seemingly odd detail of both a donkey and a colt may reflect an attempt to closely align the event with the specific wording of the prophecy. @maklelan could possibly tell us if the Greek from GPT is accurate. It sure is a great tool if it is, but not so much if it's not.
Which is important because? The gospel of Matthew is anonymous. If Mathias followed Jesus (yeshu[a]) then he would kniw the Aramaic or Hebrew Isaiah. But the writer of the gospel of Matthew is not aramaic, he certainly speaks and writes greek, and he is familiar with Jewish laws and customs. Type person 1. Mathias, tax collector in the village of Capernaum, galillee. Fluent in galilean aramaic, ability to write, probably able to sign name and write simple sentences. Written language of preference - aramaic.. still used in syria today. Rumors of a Hebrew gospel written by this person. lived between -10 and 90 CE (emphasis on the early and middle Type person 2. Anonymous, a greek writer, possible location, Asia minor or Africa, likely a member of a synagogue or a god fearer. lived between 20 and 120 CE (emphasis on the middle later part). Sources for The gospel of Matthew : Earliest - Q source - written between 45 and 68 CE, Greek (according to DRM) - Evion Gospel of Mark - written between 65 and 75 CE, Greek - Pauline leaning Chapters 1 and 2 - Nascent. Appear to use the greek idea concerning births of important people. - Literary creation, prologue.
For months I have come to understand, Yahweh or Jehovah as a lesser diety or even “the evil one”. After many many read scriptures that point in that direction. Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 82 help that understanding. I mean he is the total opposite of who Jesus was. Marcion also understood this. With that being said, I don’t think we should be calling the Son of Man Jesus because it means Jehovah saves or Yahweh saves. Because Yahweh/Jehovah is not doing anything he isn’t even the Father of Christ. El is. And EmmanuEL or ImmanuEL makes perfect sense. I mean Jesus never even calls himself Jesus but the Son of Man. He never calls his Father by name but Father. I think if I was really the son of Yahweh and my name was Jesus I be telling everyone, “hey call me Jesus, and my Father call him Jehovah”. So I would disagree with the fact Jesus should be his name. The Bible has been manipulated in ways to benefit the church. And there are some contradictions. There are even contradictions in the Genesis story. There are a lot of twists. Just how the Gnostics believe the Serpent was actually Immanuel. There is a lot I believe we need to understand. You are a smart man and I love your videos but please look into that.
Is this older construction, "the woman has conceived", in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah? I would check for myself, but my English DSS copy is nearly a hundred miles away at the moment.
it doesn't matter what translation you use . It doesn't matter what language you use . Mathew never claims or even hints that the child and woman in Isaiah 7-14 IS jesus and Mary
@@ramadadiver8112 Not sure what you mean. It sure sounds like Matthew is claiming that the virgin/child are Mary/Jesus. 20 The angel said to him, “Joseph, descendant of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife. She is pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus [He Saves], because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this happened so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet came true: 23 “The virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name him Immanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
can i ask further, since i have just checked isaiah 7:14 (ESV) and there it says shall conceive, not has conceived. is it mistranslation? or biased translation? can you provide the data which shows "has conceived" ?
The word used here for "shall conceive" is הָרֶה (harah) which is adjective "pregnant" Notice how it is translated in different verses of ESV: “Behold, you are *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael,c because the LORD has listened to your affliction (Genesis 16/11) About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral.c Moreover, she is *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* by immorality.”d And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned. As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah).”* And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.(Genesis 38/24-25) When men strive together and hit a *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine (Exodus 21/22) Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was *pregnant (הָרֶה harah),* about to give birth. And when she heard the news that the ark of God was captured, and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she bowed and gave birth, for her pains came upon her (1 Samuel 4/19) And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* .” (1 Samuel 11/5) At that time Menahem sacked Tiphsah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on, because they did not open it to him. Therefore he sacked it, and he ripped open all the women in it who were *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* (2 Kings 15/16) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin *shall conceive (הָרֶה harah)* and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7/14) In all other veses it was translated in present or past tense "is pregnant", "were pregnant", "am pregnant", "was pregnant", i.e. already conceived. Only in Isaiah 7/14 it's translated in future tense "shall conceive"
The word used here for "shall conceive" is הָרֶה (harah) which is adjective "pregnant" Let's see how it is translated in different verses of ESV: “Behold, you are *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael,c because the LORD has listened to your affliction (Genesis 16/11) About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral.c Moreover, she is *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* by immorality.”d And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned. As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah).”* And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.(Genesis 38/24-25) When men strive together and hit a *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine (Exodus 21/22) Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was *pregnant (הָרֶה harah),* about to give birth. And when she heard the news that the ark of God was captured, and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she bowed and gave birth, for her pains came upon her (1 Samuel 4/19) And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* .” (1 Samuel 11/5) At that time Menahem sacked Tiphsah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on, because they did not open it to him. Therefore he sacked it, and he ripped open all the women in it who were *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* (2 Kings 15/16) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin *shall conceive (הָרֶה harah)* and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7/14) In all other veses it was translated as "is pregnant", "were pregnant", "am pregnant", "was pregnant", i.e. woman conceived child. Only in Isaiah it's translated in the future tense "shall conceive"
I got a question. Is saying G*dd*mn taking the Lord's name in vain. I always thought that God is his title and YHWY is his name. So thankfully saying Y***damnit doesn't roll off the tongue.
In the Responsa of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, vol. 1:25, it is written that a Divine name in another language (other than Hebrew) is considered an attributive name, and therefore does not infringe the prohibition of mentioning God's Name in vain.
Of course. Joseph Campbell was even very much a part of the early Star Wars stories, and he was an expert in the commonalities of all religions and the Hero's Journey. So ironically enough, Star Wars was done that way to mimic religious stories.
Well if you read further into Isa you’ll see Jacob himself is the suffering servant who reincarnated continuously. The dream he was given along with the word he would be returning to that land meant he would be as an angel a returning messenger sent to Israel. Jacob himself is the suffering servant and is the child that was born and who will in the future be called those names. Moses was the only son called out of Egypt. Jeremiah also the suffering servant reincarnated. Jesus of course. And this collection of prophets are who is pictured in the saying ‘who will believe our report’ and why this singular servant suffers deaths’ as in plural. There’s only one person who can lay claim that the name Israel. It never was a nation of people who decided to call themselves after his servant Jacob. See 49 where the people are specifically addressed. Salvation depended on that suffering servant who has been slain since the foundation of that religion.
@@germanboy14an individual as well as the nation of Israel is mentioned in Isaiah 52:13- 53:12 . As the servant! Jesus was that suffering servant of the Servant nation Israel of God : his chosen people. The Lamb of God will return as the Lion of Judah: world evens are lining up for this to happen very soon! Maybe within you're lifetime. Get ready to see God's truth he hid in the Old Testament from haSatan and used his rebellion against him in bringing God's Atonement to all mankind not just to his chosen people Israel!
@@germanboy14No multiple times it’s singular and it’s only your presuppositions that assume all Israel. Haven’t you read 48 where he addresses the ‘descendants of Jacob who are called Israel’ and then proceeds to rebuke them? Or why do you ignore 49 where it says he will raise up Israel to gather Israel? It’s all singular and you ignore the tenses. God only has one son at a time and Moses was the son called out of Egypt before the exodus we can’t verify ever happened either. You got this from the rabbis but without that preconceived notion the scriptures don’t at all support your view no matter how many rabbis you have insisting otherwise. Isaiah knew there wasn’t a child conceived so he finds a prophetess and they have a child. Nothing changes and people still try to fulfill prophecies themselves. Fact is that destruction of 185k never happened and at least Isaiah didn’t invent the subsequent myths. Hezekiah’s son didn’t fulfill it either and there was peace in Israel during his life idolatrous reign. The Assyrians recorded the truth and did in fact conquer Jerusalem making his son a vassal. You’re being deliberately lied to by those rabbis.
*Prophecy not fulfilled* So if you strip the prophecy down to the least significant part and change the meaning from Named to Significance (not entirely unreasonable, since names in the Hebrew Bible often imply the significance of the person) prophecy is fulfilled? The prophecy was of a *sign to Achaz,* so to be fulfilled, Achaz had to see it. That is one way we know that the Hebrew preceded the Greek and Betulah did not mean Virgin - you can’t see virginity. The only reasonable exception would have been if the Betulah was Achaz’ wife, in which case the prophecy was also not fulfilled by Jesus. The context is a war and “God with us,” seems to mean “God is on our side in this war.” That is a different meaning from Matthew’s Jesus’ meaning. As Dan noted, in the Hebrew the pregnancy was in progress. It is consistent with most of the data that “the Betulah,” not “a betulah,” was Achaz’ wife. (Hezekiah was also not named Emmanuel, but he was portrayed as being on YHWH’s side.)
In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. No temple, no Messiah.
In writings outside of the bible there are around 18 different people named Jesus that are recorded. They are obviously very different, but when everyone is going by a first name only it is very easy to cross those stories over or mis-attribute events.
No, Jesus was a common name. I went to a museum in Denmark, and they had gravestones from the time of Jesus with the name Jesus carved on them. They told me that finding gravestones with that name is not at all uncommon, nor was the name at the time. It was as common as it is in Mexico now I guess.
Nope. Since the original meaning comes from the Ot. The name is just a sign that God would defeat the enemies of King Ahaz. So nothing says Jesus is Yhwh and he used the verse because of the false VIRGIN claim. There are many names in Hebrew which are just digns. E.g. Ishmael means God hears. That doesn't mean Ishmael is God in human form😂. Elyahu means he is God. That doesn't mean he is God Bart Ehrman: All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end. . Also Bart Ehrman; The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. *the sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
@@germanboy14 You mean how Israel and Judah etc were under occupation of the Roman empire . Bart has missed the parallelism which is a form of prophecy. Mathew is writing in a time were Rome just invaded and sacked Israel and Jerusalem Mathew is drawing parallels. Not misunderstanding the context
@@germanboy14 In other words . Mathew already knows Isaiah 7. 14 happened . He read it . He's drawing parallels between the child that is born to Jesus And Jerusalem being occupied by a foreign power .
@ramada no. The unknown author applied the prophesy on Jesus. Early church fathers did the same. There is also no parallelism. Jesus even was pro Rome, did not care about the occupation and even supported Cesar.
The meaning of the Son of David is that he is his only begotten son according to the spirit, not the flesh. Yahweh is the Shining One, David, the Morning Star and the light of the world. The Son of David is the lamp of the light of the Father. David is your king who will be raised up for you. Blessed is the kingdom of our Father David that is to come! (Mar 11:10 NABO) Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father (1Co 15:24 NABO) "Gods though you be... Yet like any mortal you shall die; (Psa 82:6-7 NABO) the one who ascended far above all the heavens themselves (Eph 4:10 NABO) (To a galaxy far, far, away, so to speak.) never to return to corruption (Act 13:34 NABO) The Son of David destroys all power, rule, and authority, 1Cor 15:25. In him, you have someone who can relate to you through his sacrifice. In David, the Cornerstone of Adam’s (the Christ), work of salvation, you have someone you can relate to through his salvation. In his name this man stands before you healed. He is 'the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.' (Act 4:10-11 NABO) The Son himself will (also) be subjected to the “One” who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:28 NABO) No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (1Jo 4:12 NABO) God is Spirit (Joh 4:24 NABO) No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is at (your) Father's side, has revealed him. (Joh 1:18 NABO) there are, to be sure, many "gods" and many "lords", yet for us there is one God, the Father, (1Co 8:5-6 NABO)
Spoken like a true apologist, who will twist-to-make-fit. The dude's name turned out to be Jesus, not Emmanuel, and whatever Emmanuel means, or whatever Jesus said last, is besides the point. The so-called prophecy (not a prophecy since the woman had already conceived) was never fulfilled. Much like all other "prophecies", the ones that were indeed spoken as prophecies.
The gospel authors were big into retrofitting but not very good at it.
I heard that the gospel writers used a lot of motifs that weren't prophesies
He said it was fulfilled through Jesus having God's power and having God being with them because of Jesus. With Emmanuel meaning God with us.
They were only bad at it according to modern hermeneutics standards but very good using Jewish exegesis.
That's an understandable and reasonable seeming appraisal of the authors proficiency in the art science of mythcraft
... from an analysis of the text
contextualized with broad deference granted to the academic consensus...
If you had access to their knowledge of the source materials, the historic events that brought about
the project of the construction of scriptures, and lastly... understanding of the depth and complexity of the of the layers of priorty stratications that were all held in mind...
When you see these things , it's not a debate of whether they were good at it... they were among the great masters of syncretism, all things cryptic, the human psyche, and anything else useful for effective governance at the late Bronze/Early Iron Age.
@@Highspergamy
.
The gospel authors are masters of the pen but not synchronism.
Christianity when it began was the most exclusive religion to ever exist . Denying the god's of other religions existance or calling them demons .
With that attitude . Early Christians would not associate Jesus with a demon .
They would not synchronise Jesus with a non existing being or a demon as far as they are concerned but they will use the language , concepts and ideas present in the culture they lived .
Because everyone does that
I’d like to see some discussions regarding all the prophecies that Christians claim Jesus fulfilled. I’ve never seen one that was very good.
Yes, I've always found the NT quotes verses of the OT in places where it doesn't seem to apply.
Day of Pentecost, they quote Joel.
Joel doesn't talk about speaking in tongues.
He does talk about God's Spirit falling upon people, which did supposedly happen on Pentecost. But Joel said the sun and moon would turn red, and there are no signs in the sky on Pentecost.
That Joel passage seems like quite a stretch.
Just compare every Ot quote in the Nt with the actual Ot text. Either misquoted with added words or out of context and sometimes even made up Ot references. E.g. that the Messiah has to suffer, will die and be raised on the 3rd day. Nowhere it says this😂
@@germanboy14 Jusst like any modern day apologist. The tradition goes back pretty much to the start.
@@KaiHenningsen 👍
Robert J. Miller's "Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy" is a handy compendium of all these thorny questions.
Matthew working from a poor translation (the Septuagint) caused other problems. My personal favorite is in 21:7 where Matthew doesn't understand the Hebrew synthetic parallelism in Zechariah 9:9 and thinks it refers to two donkeys not one, so of course has to have Jesus planking across two animals at once, Jackass-style, as he rides in to town.
what's funny is Mathews use of Zachariah . Is closer to the Hebrew not the greek
That one really gives away Matthew's game ey
Has anyone made a wiki or similar that cross-references Dan's videos with the scriptures that they discuss? It would be nice to be able to search for what Dan says about, say, Isaiah 7 and get a list of videos like this one in response.
It could be extended to other Bible scholars who make social media videos. Seems like a useful resource.
This sound like a very interesting project!!!
@@robertolara1343 - I know how to do it, but I can't spare the thousands of man-hours it would take.
I am inclined to undertake that actually
Biblewiki? That would be a very cool thing
@@BradyPostma Should not take thousands of man hours for one person. That's the point of a wiki... Many people do the work.
Emmanuel aside glad to see Dan’s beard is coming back in.
Priorities.
Focus on the outside of the cup.
It sort of reminds me of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn had a lot of different names and titles.
Tolkien was a very devout guy and took plenty of inspiration from the Bible.
Lord of the Rings. Christianity is a central theme in J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional works about Middle-earth, but always a hidden one. This allows the book to be read at different levels, and its meaning to be applied by the reader, rather than forcing a single meaning on the reader. J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic from boyhood, and he described The Lord of the Rings in particular as a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work; it contains numerous themes from Christian theology.
Probably because lord of the rings are inherently a Christian movies .
You should check out inspiring philosophies video on lord of the rings
There isn't a letter J in Aramaic or Hebrew.
Yeshua come back
Bart Ehrman:
All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end.
Also Bart Ehrman:
The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. The sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
Does the author (or authors) of Isaiah say anything else about the child Emmanuel, other than his birth and infancy will have something to do with the invading kings ceasing their invasion?
@@Noneya5555 i don't think so. Only two explicit verses.
@@germanboy14 OK, thanks. It just seems odd that the author(s?) of Isaiah would ho to the trouble of mentioning the child, if his only purpose was to show the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy. Unless Emmanuel was meant to serve as a metaphor for something?
@@Noneya5555 the name is just a sign given to Ahaz. It means God is with us, I.e. that God is with Ahaz. God basically says to Ahaz don't worry, before the child xy even can speak or knows the difference between good and bad your enemies will be defeated. I will help you. Just like many Hebrew names are just signs. When God heard Ishmals mother, he said to call the child Ishmael (God hears). Why? Because God hears his believers. There is also the name Hezekiah (God is strength), why Hezekiah defeated his enemies mentioned in the torah by Gods help. Elyahu means He is God. It doesn't mean Elyahu is God
@@germanboy14 That's both interesting and informative. Thanks for the explanation.
this episode has answered my curiosity about why jesus is not named emmanuel yet still considered to had been fulfulling the prophecy. thanks Dan!
What was fulfilled? Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy and sign given to Ahaz from God of Israel about the two kingdoms in the north waring against Southern Kingdom Judah. Has nothing to do with a supposed messiah being born
Sounds like the early Christians, like apologists today, can make the scripture say whatever they want it to say.
Being this loosey-goosey you could pretty much take any section of the OT and explain why it's really all about Jesus.
Or anyone else for that matter.
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518 God is that you?
@@michaelsbeverly
Don't be so naive to assume only Christians do this m critics of Christianity do it too because they have an agenda .
Isiah later says that "the prophetess" has had his child, and thanks God for the children given him as "divine signs"...Does this mean that this is the young woman, that "Emmanuel" is also Isiah's child? If she was some sort of religious figure herself and their children were seen as some sort of divine omens, could this be evidence of some sort of divination sex ritual?
Yes she was a prophetess and Isaiah's wife. Isaiah calls the same child by another name. She calls him Immanuel because that child fulfills a certain purpose. Isaiah calls his son Mahershalalhasbaz (plunder hastens; spoil quickens). Isaiah 7:14 is not a biblical prophesy for Jesus birth 700 years after the fact. Why would a birth 700 years into the future bring comfort to king Ahaz when the enemy is literally at his gates?
Excellent as always!!!
Another good example of this is Solomon being named Jedidiah-which means beloved of the LORD-in 2 Samual 12:25. Hebrew names were given as a means to proclaim blessings on the child and the people.
Does this mean Jehovah's Witnesses are blessed! Matthew 6:9 Hallowed be your name. YHVH Yod Hey Vav Hey
Jehovah's Witnesses prophesy
Behold the Hand Behold the Nail.
It's the sacred secret of the Tetragrammaton. YHVH! Yehovah! Jehovah! Jesus name means Jehovah is salvation. Emmanuel means Jehovah is with us.
@strappedfatman7858 well I don't know if they're blessed or not. I was just pointing out the customs of the naming of Hebrew children.
@theophilussogoromo3000
1John 3:1 See what sort of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are. That is why the world does not know us, because it has not come to know him.
1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Malachi 2:10 “Do we not all have one father? Was it not one God who created us? So why do we deal treacherously with one another.
John 6:44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me. 46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father. 47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.
This is indeed how it is rationalized, but as you said, the prophecy of Immanuel was never about the messiah, heck, it wasn't even about Immanuel. Immanuel was the condition, not the result of the prophecy, the northern kingdom would be gone by the time that kid is of certain age. Matthew is retconning the prophecy to fit his own ideas.
Also, the Emmanuel beginning and end of Matthew are the bookends of a Chiasm, the center of which is Jesus walking on water - not unlike the “spirit of God over the surface of the deep” in Genesis - and his command in the face of his disciples fear to “fear not; it is I,” ego eimi. So the structure of Matthew points toward the authors belief that Jesus is manifesting God’s presence!
Interesting! Thanks for sharing this info.
The Bible is like an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Manual
explain
Both are full of mythology, yes. However one makes sense and the other doesn't. Now let me go finish my campaign.
Jesus' name, like his hometown of Nazareth, are both good evidence of historicity: If he were completely made up, then the storytellers could have just said, "His name was Emmanuel and he was born in Bethlehem, in accordance with the scriptures". The fact that they had to bend over using pretzel logic to make these things fit is actually good argument that these things WERE true and enough people knew about it at the time that they couldn't just lie about it...
None of what you wrote makes much sense. The stories in the Gospels are being written decades after the supposed death of Jesus. And written in places that were likely many miles from where Jesus and the disciples would have lived. I don't know who you think would be able to check the details on events that happened 40 to 70 years earlier in distant towns.
I want to invent a new prophecy for Harry Potter.
This prophecy relies on a play on words involving a different name.
Is this evidence for the historicity of Harry Potter?
Scratch that one off the list.
Yeah all the Jesus "prophecies" are similar - either prophesying something else, or already "fulfilled" in context, or were never intended to be "prophecies" until they were retconned.
I have no problem with Matthew using Pesher or Midrash or whatever.. but I don't understand why Christians are impressed by these types of passages. .
Confirmation bias.
They already adopted the belief that Jesus is super cool and wonderful.
Anything which has the mere appearance of validating the belief will be readily adopted.
I love the way apologist can claim that Isaiah was talking about jesus when it is really about king ahaz some 700 years before jesus getting a sign because of the two kings wanting to destroy them.
I think the prophecy is about one of Isaiah's sons per Isaiah 8.18. But the writers of the gospel of Matthew used the prophecy to demonstrate God is with us in Jesus. It is a strange high christology, lifted from an old testament context. Rare in the synoptic gospels but still there
Could also just be any child of a woman known to Ahaz. I mean the child doesn't play any role, it just says that before the child grows up, the enemies will be defeated. So it's a child known to Ahaz
And the name is just a sign given to Ahaz. It means God is with us, I.e. that God is with Ahaz. God basically says to Ahaz don't worry, before the child xy even can speak or knows the difference between good and bad your enemies will be defeated. I will help you. But God wasn't physically there and the child didn't play any role. Just like many Hebrew names are just signs. When God heard Ishmals mother, he said to call the child Ishmael (God hears). Why? Because God hears his believers. There is also the name Hezekiah (God is strength), why Hezekiah defeated his enemies mentioned in the torah by Gods help. Elyahu means He is God. It doesn't mean Elyahu is God
So to summarize: The original verse in Isaiah is talking about a contemporary event related to the Assyrian empire. 500 years later Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the verse from Isaiah and made several changes (or, theoretically, had a different version of the Hebrew), including making the verbs about the child's birth future tense and changing the Hebrew for "young woman" to a word which can mean "virgin." Then 200 to 300 years after that, Matthew changes the Greek text from "she will name" to "they will name."
As a religious person (Jewish), I'm fine with Christians seeing the hand of God in this long process of transmission and translation (and retranslation), but I just ask them not to go around claiming that Isaiah 7:14 proves that the Hebrew Bible predicted the miraculous birth of Jesus.
The Jesus followers were a branch of judaism. They didn't begin to really distinguish themselves until after the synoptic gospels were written.
They were using the same process of reinterpreting scripture to lend it new meaning to the current era that was already common in judaism at the time.
So you're basically saying that it was fine when the jews you agree with were doing this reinterpreting but it's not fine when the jews you don't agree with do the reinterpreting.
Seems like a bit of a double standard.
@@rainbowkrampus
That is exactly the problem . Early Christian authors are using the same methods of interpretation which were perfectly acceptable at the time . But modern Jews and many critics of the Bible aren't familiar with these interpretative practices .
So it looks like a Christian author is being deceptive while his audience would know and understand exactly what he is doing because they did it too
@@rainbowkrampus Early Christians left Judaism soon enough, but that's not really the point here. I don't think you read my comment very carefully. What part of "I'm fine with Christians seeing the hand of God in this long process of transmission" didn't you understand? But I ask you to reflect: do mainstream Christians see their reading of Isaiah as a "reinterpretation"? In fact, you have it quite backwards: I was appealing to Christians to see that their understanding of biblical prophecy is not the one correct one, whereas THEY insist it is.
@@KingoftheJuice18
Early Christians didn't leave Judaism .
Modern Christians didn't leave Judaism .
You are using the modern concept of Judaism and forcing it back into history .
Christianity is a demonization of ancient Judaism . Just like the Pharisees Essenes Sadducees zealots and the Qumran community .
" Judaism " was not monolithic in Jesus time and there were various differences . Christianity is no different
Christians may be majority gentile ethnically . But they are Jewish theologically
@@ramadadiver8112 Not sure that they can be called "Jewish theologically" these days, or even shortly after the alleged time of "Jesus". "Jesus" was not their Messiah and could not possibly have been. The "God" of the Jews is NOT the "God" of the Christians, despite the efforts of Christians to tie them together.
O come O come Emm- *checks notes* Yeeeeeeshuaaaaaa
Great questions! Barring any sidebars on the Lords name I would like to point out that Emmanuel indicates laity. The Lord was never enthroned. There is an process of renaming that the lord mentions that never gets touched base upon. So that and the fact that jubilee was directly inferred in the Lords service; points directly to an interruption that needs to be revealed and amended somehow. Imho.
Where can we learn more about this notion that the Gospel authors likely saw Jesus as divine name-bearer, rather than Jesus as literally God in the fleah?
Also, is there a lot of academic consensus around that?
It sounds like the most plausible way to interpret the passages exalting Jesus. But outside of Dan's content I don't recall hearing it argued with the same clarity.
Hey Dan long time fan for about a year now. I'm actually an atheist so naturally I disagree with you on matters of faith but I enjoy your content the most put of everyone atheist included. I was wondering if you were aware of someone's CZcams channel called council of trent? If so what do you think of someone of his views regarding his approach to forming arguments as an orthodox Christian? Where do you agree and differ? I hope this reaches you and perhaps inspires a response maybe in video form if you have the time.
Plze ,if you have time, check out Peter Ruckman... i believe he would be of interest for you 😅
@@Brian-vk6tz is there a specific video you had in mind?
Wow, thanks! I've had this question for years! lol
Hey Dan, i remember you saying in another video that the nativity story in Luke was a later addition and that Luke likely originally started with his baptism.
Can the same be said of Matthew's nativity?
3:55 if only logic & commonsense could be allowed to have a say-you cannot manifest the PRESENCE of someone you are not CONSUBSTANTIAL with (with even sharing The NAME)
Wow! Im confused on this one point. Are you saying here that weve been deceived? That this Hebrew prophecy was fulfilled in someone, not in Jesus?
Matthew was ‘deceived’ by a poor translation and his desire to have Jesus fulfil as many Old Testament prophecies as possible. Was he intentionally trying to deceive us? I don’t think it’s possible to know for sure.
The Jesus followers were engaged in a process called pesher, that is, reinterpreting scripture to make it relevant to the modern day.
It was a foundational and accepted part of the Jesus movement just as it was a part of other jewish sects in and around the 1st century.
It wasn't deception, it was standard practice.
It only looks like deception looking back after a long period of developing a scriptural canon, thus freezing the text in place... sorta. As we've seen, people are more than happy to continue reinterpreting these texts in order to assert their political ideals today. So in a somewhat more limited sense, the standard practice never went away.
Well, religion is fundamentally dishonest so the author of Matthew was being no more dishonest than, say Jim Bakker (or Jim Jones).
In original Hebrew Scripture Tanakh Isaiah 7:14 is not "virgin" in future tense.
It says "young woman" in present tense.
Also in Dead sea scrolls Isaiah scroll 200BCE.
Excellent 👍
Ps: the original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy not the rest.
No one has that original Septuagint.
In fact this is a fast day of morning on orthodox Hebrew calendar 10th of Tevet.
The later Lxx was put together by hellenists and apostates modified by Origen into the Christian version called "Old testament" later.
תודה רבה שלום
Very interesting. Who forced the rabbis to translate it, and why? Dan and other scholars have mentioned the Septuagint, but iirc, none have told the story behind it.
And the original is lost or maybe never existed. There was also not one standardized Lxx version, but many Greek versions👍
@@Noneya5555this poster holds to Orthodox Jewish tradition as the absolute historical truth, he comes by and posts apologetic cope with some frequency
@@germanboy14 yes.
However we have our history .
Tenth of Tevet on Hebrew calendar a day of morning when 72 rabbis were forced to translate Hebrew Torah into koine Greek for Hellenist rulers then.
@@germanboy14 Also the original Josephus in Aramaic is missing...lost or may never have existed..
We've changed? Just like we've changed Yeshua's name?
Deuteronomy 12:32, the Lord warned: "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "Every word of God proves true… Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."
So is the whole bible a adding and taking away from the true word?
Yeshua tell them.
We have complicated the bible.
Dan, there is a lot of variation in translation of Matthew 21:7 on Bible websites. E.g.
They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. - NIV
They brought the donkey and the colt to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it. - NLT
They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. - NSV
Would be very grateful if you can help with understanding this verse. For example, assuming the NSV translation is accurate, could the ‘them’ that Jesus sat on refer to the cloaks, the animals, or is the text explicitly referring to the donkey AND the colt?
I think it's obvious the writer messed up the verse in Zechariah, not understanding Hebrew parallelism.
So your question is asking for commentary on an event that likely didn't happen.
If it did happen, it's crazy to try and put Jesus on two animals, just go back to Mark.
_When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it._
It's weird to try and make sense of a scene that didn't happen according to Mark, the earlier source, so just accept that Matthew was wrong.
If you're unsure, just look at Luke:
_They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it._
Or go to John, who simply omitted this mess.
To assume that Mark and Luke are wrong, but the crazy account of straddling two animals (especially since once is an adult and one colt) makes no sense.
Why do it? Especially since we can easily see that Matthew was just incorrectly inserting something from the OT.
@@michaelsbeverly I want to understand what the author of Matthew most likely intended to say.
@@boboak9168 He obviously "intended" to copy Zachariah so that Jesus would "fulfill" the "prophecy" found there.
Any other interpretation is fanciful.
Is it even physically possible to straddle a Donkey and a colt at the same time?
Maybe if you're an Olympic gymnast.
Are you saying you think someone can read the Greek text and find some workaround where in Greek a Donkey and a Colt really means just a foal? Or something weird like that?
I think Matthew's intention is plain, obvious, and undeniable.
@@michaelsbeverly I follow your reasoning. No problem there.
I have heard apologists say that the NSV translation is the way to go, and that the ‘them’ Jesus sat on was the cloaks, not both animals, because that would be ridiculous.
Consequently I would really like an accurate translation of the verse, with a particular focus on if this apologetic is ruled out or plausible.
@@boboak9168 If you want an accurate translation, you'll have to go to someone who is highly qualified in the Greek.
It's obvious that modern translations tend to "tweak" certain problematic verses.
I have no idea if ChatGPT is accurate in Greek, but, when I've asked it questions about the Bible and then checked Biblegateway, it seems to accurately represent the versions (that I'm capable of reading, i.e. English).
Here's ChatGPT's answer about these verses in Matthew:
The passage you're referring to is found in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 21:1-7. This passage describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey and her colt. It is often discussed because of its unique depiction compared to the other Gospels.
The Greek text of Matthew 21:1-7 reads as follows:
Καὶ ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βηθφαγὴ πρὸς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν, τότε Ἰησοῦς ἀπέστειλεν δύο μαθητάς,
λέγων αὐτοῖς· Πορεύεσθε εἰς τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθέως εὑρήσετε ὄνον δεδεμένην καὶ πῶλον μετ’ αὐτῆς· λύσαντες ἀγάγετε μοι.
καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι, ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ Κύριος αὐτῶν χρείαν ἔχει· εὐθέως δὲ ἀποστελεῖ αὐτούς.
Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος,
Εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιὼν· Ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται σοι πραΰς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου.
πορευθέντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ καὶ ποιήσαντες καθὼς προσέταξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
ἤγαγον τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον, καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν.
Here's a straightforward translation:
As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,
saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
“Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”
The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them.
They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.
The passage cites a prophecy from the Old Testament, which Matthew interprets as being fulfilled in this event. The dual mention of a donkey and her colt has been the subject of various interpretations. Some scholars suggest that Matthew is emphasizing the fulfillment of prophecy (from Zechariah 9:9) in a literal sense, while others see it as a narrative device to underline Jesus' humility and his role as the peaceful Messiah. The seemingly odd detail of both a donkey and a colt may reflect an attempt to closely align the event with the specific wording of the prophecy.
@maklelan could possibly tell us if the Greek from GPT is accurate.
It sure is a great tool if it is, but not so much if it's not.
Jesus isn't an Aramaic name. Yeshua is, Yehoshua is probably more pertinent to the time of the prophecy. It's quite a common name at that point.
Which is important because?
The gospel of Matthew is anonymous. If Mathias followed Jesus (yeshu[a]) then he would kniw the Aramaic or Hebrew Isaiah. But the writer of the gospel of Matthew is not aramaic, he certainly speaks and writes greek, and he is familiar with Jewish laws and customs.
Type person 1. Mathias, tax collector in the village of Capernaum, galillee. Fluent in galilean aramaic, ability to write, probably able to sign name and write simple sentences. Written language of preference - aramaic.. still used in syria today. Rumors of a Hebrew gospel written by this person. lived between -10 and 90 CE (emphasis on the early and middle
Type person 2. Anonymous, a greek writer, possible location, Asia minor or Africa, likely a member of a synagogue or a god fearer. lived between 20 and 120 CE (emphasis on the middle later part).
Sources for The gospel of Matthew :
Earliest - Q source - written between 45 and 68 CE, Greek (according to DRM) - Evion
Gospel of Mark - written between 65 and 75 CE, Greek - Pauline leaning
Chapters 1 and 2 - Nascent. Appear to use the greek idea concerning births of important people. - Literary creation, prologue.
But was the government upon his shoulder?
For months I have come to understand, Yahweh or Jehovah as a lesser diety or even “the evil one”. After many many read scriptures that point in that direction. Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 82 help that understanding. I mean he is the total opposite of who Jesus was. Marcion also understood this. With that being said, I don’t think we should be calling the Son of Man Jesus because it means Jehovah saves or Yahweh saves. Because Yahweh/Jehovah is not doing anything he isn’t even the Father of Christ. El is. And EmmanuEL or ImmanuEL makes perfect sense. I mean Jesus never even calls himself Jesus but the Son of Man. He never calls his Father by name but Father. I think if I was really the son of Yahweh and my name was Jesus I be telling everyone, “hey call me Jesus, and my Father call him Jehovah”. So I would disagree with the fact Jesus should be his name. The Bible has been manipulated in ways to benefit the church. And there are some contradictions. There are even contradictions in the Genesis story. There are a lot of twists. Just how the Gnostics believe the Serpent was actually Immanuel. There is a lot I believe we need to understand. You are a smart man and I love your videos but please look into that.
Is this older construction, "the woman has conceived", in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah? I would check for myself, but my English DSS copy is nearly a hundred miles away at the moment.
k98 etc: I have not heard that the Isaiah scroll is different in this respect. May Dr Kipp Davis or Rabbi Tovia Singer has something on this for you.
Isaiah 7:14 states that his NAME will be Emmanuel.
I looked at a bunch of translations, and "will conceive" is almost always future tense. Is this translated incorrectly?
Just check the dead sea scrolls, the art scroll tanakh and the Septuagint
it doesn't matter what translation you use . It doesn't matter what language you use .
Mathew never claims or even hints that the child and woman in Isaiah 7-14 IS jesus and Mary
@@ramadadiver8112 Not sure what you mean. It sure sounds like Matthew is claiming that the virgin/child are Mary/Jesus.
20 The angel said to him, “Joseph, descendant of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife. She is pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus [He Saves], because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this happened so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet came true: 23 “The virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name him Immanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
@@mjt532
How can Mathew claim the child is jesus when he knows the child is called Emanuel
@@mjt532 I have noticed for a long time that specialists get trained in a specific field and adopt the paradigms of it but lack a bit of common sense
can i ask further, since i have just checked isaiah 7:14 (ESV) and there it says shall conceive, not has conceived. is it mistranslation? or biased translation? can you provide the data which shows "has conceived" ?
The word used here for "shall conceive" is הָרֶה (harah) which is adjective "pregnant"
Notice how it is translated in different verses of ESV:
“Behold, you are *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)*
and shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,c
because the LORD has listened to your affliction (Genesis 16/11)
About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral.c Moreover, she is *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* by immorality.”d And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned. As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah).”* And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.(Genesis 38/24-25)
When men strive together and hit a *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine (Exodus 21/22)
Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was *pregnant (הָרֶה harah),* about to give birth. And when she heard the news that the ark of God was captured, and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she bowed and gave birth, for her pains came upon her (1 Samuel 4/19)
And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)*
.” (1 Samuel 11/5)
At that time Menahem sacked Tiphsah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on, because they did not open it to him. Therefore he sacked it, and he ripped open all the women in it who were *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* (2 Kings 15/16)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin *shall conceive (הָרֶה harah)* and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7/14)
In all other veses it was translated in present or past tense "is pregnant", "were pregnant", "am pregnant", "was pregnant", i.e. already conceived. Only in Isaiah 7/14 it's translated in future tense "shall conceive"
The word used here for "shall conceive" is הָרֶה (harah) which is adjective "pregnant"
Let's see how it is translated in different verses of ESV:
“Behold, you are *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)*
and shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,c
because the LORD has listened to your affliction (Genesis 16/11)
About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral.c Moreover, she is *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* by immorality.”d And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned. As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah).”* And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.(Genesis 38/24-25)
When men strive together and hit a *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine (Exodus 21/22)
Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was *pregnant (הָרֶה harah),* about to give birth. And when she heard the news that the ark of God was captured, and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she bowed and gave birth, for her pains came upon her (1 Samuel 4/19)
And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)*
.” (1 Samuel 11/5)
At that time Menahem sacked Tiphsah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on, because they did not open it to him. Therefore he sacked it, and he ripped open all the women in it who were *pregnant (הָרֶה harah)* (2 Kings 15/16)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin *shall conceive (הָרֶה harah)* and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7/14)
In all other veses it was translated as "is pregnant", "were pregnant", "am pregnant", "was pregnant", i.e. woman conceived child. Only in Isaiah it's translated in the future tense "shall conceive"
I got a question. Is saying G*dd*mn taking the Lord's name in vain. I always thought that God is his title and YHWY is his name. So thankfully saying Y***damnit doesn't roll off the tongue.
In the Responsa of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, vol. 1:25, it is written that a Divine name in another language (other than Hebrew) is considered an attributive name, and therefore does not infringe the prohibition of mentioning God's Name in vain.
BRUH > is there even a God for real?
So the bible was retconned, like star wars?
Of course. Joseph Campbell was even very much a part of the early Star Wars stories, and he was an expert in the commonalities of all religions and the Hero's Journey. So ironically enough, Star Wars was done that way to mimic religious stories.
Does this mean that we can expect to see Jarjar the Baptist then?@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518
The prophecy in Isaiah isn't about jesus there are no prophecies about jesus in the "old Testament"
Full name was Jesus E. Of Nazareth, a.k. the Christ. It was later found that the E stands for Emmanuel.
Well if you read further into Isa you’ll see Jacob himself is the suffering servant who reincarnated continuously. The dream he was given along with the word he would be returning to that land meant he would be as an angel a returning messenger sent to Israel.
Jacob himself is the suffering servant and is the child that was born and who will in the future be called those names. Moses was the only son called out of Egypt. Jeremiah also the suffering servant reincarnated. Jesus of course. And this collection of prophets are who is pictured in the saying ‘who will believe our report’ and why this singular servant suffers deaths’ as in plural.
There’s only one person who can lay claim that the name Israel. It never was a nation of people who decided to call themselves after his servant Jacob. See 49 where the people are specifically addressed. Salvation depended on that suffering servant who has been slain since the foundation of that religion.
The servant is Israel as multiple times mentioned in the torah.
@@germanboy14an individual as well as the nation of Israel is mentioned in Isaiah 52:13- 53:12 . As the servant! Jesus was that suffering servant of the Servant nation Israel of God : his chosen people.
The Lamb of God will return as the Lion of Judah: world evens are lining up for this to happen very soon!
Maybe within you're lifetime. Get ready to see God's truth he hid in the Old Testament from haSatan and used his rebellion against him in bringing God's Atonement to all mankind not just to his chosen people Israel!
@@germanboy14No multiple times it’s singular and it’s only your presuppositions that assume all Israel. Haven’t you read 48 where he addresses the ‘descendants of Jacob who are called Israel’ and then proceeds to rebuke them? Or why do you ignore 49 where it says he will raise up Israel to gather Israel? It’s all singular and you ignore the tenses. God only has one son at a time and Moses was the son called out of Egypt before the exodus we can’t verify ever happened either.
You got this from the rabbis but without that preconceived notion the scriptures don’t at all support your view no matter how many rabbis you have insisting otherwise.
Isaiah knew there wasn’t a child conceived so he finds a prophetess and they have a child. Nothing changes and people still try to fulfill prophecies themselves. Fact is that destruction of 185k never happened and at least Isaiah didn’t invent the subsequent myths. Hezekiah’s son didn’t fulfill it either and there was peace in Israel during his life idolatrous reign. The Assyrians recorded the truth and did in fact conquer Jerusalem making his son a vassal. You’re being deliberately lied to by those rabbis.
Cool story. You should write a novel.
@@jerryhogeweide5288 the servant is plural and adressed as singular.
Jehovah's word is so unclear isn't' it? Almost as if he is not omni anything.
*Prophecy not fulfilled*
So if you strip the prophecy down to the least significant part and change the meaning from Named to Significance (not entirely unreasonable, since names in the Hebrew Bible often imply the significance of the person) prophecy is fulfilled?
The prophecy was of a *sign to Achaz,* so to be fulfilled, Achaz had to see it. That is one way we know that the Hebrew preceded the Greek and Betulah did not mean Virgin - you can’t see virginity. The only reasonable exception would have been if the Betulah was Achaz’ wife, in which case the prophecy was also not fulfilled by Jesus.
The context is a war and “God with us,” seems to mean “God is on our side in this war.” That is a different meaning from Matthew’s Jesus’ meaning.
As Dan noted, in the Hebrew the pregnancy was in progress. It is consistent with most of the data that “the Betulah,” not “a betulah,” was Achaz’ wife. (Hezekiah was also not named Emmanuel, but he was portrayed as being on YHWH’s side.)
That's about Isaiah's son not Jesus
Right. All they did was copy and paste
Just admit Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Matthew 1:23
In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. No temple, no Messiah.
I can believe that someone will indeed make something like that up. They are saying Trump was chosen by God after all. Silly people.
@@LittleBitofHopeToo2518 Standard Judaism has nothing to do with Trump.
Sure, if you wanna be a bigot and pretend like other forms of judaism are lesser than.
@@rainbowkrampus There is no Judaism without Maimonides.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I mean, I already agreed that you're a bigot. I didn't need further demonstration.
Was Jesus a unique name, as in noone was named this for over 700 yeas? I know a few now....
In writings outside of the bible there are around 18 different people named Jesus that are recorded. They are obviously very different, but when everyone is going by a first name only it is very easy to cross those stories over or mis-attribute events.
@Wertbag99 There was also a Bishop Lucifer which i found amusing. I think Alexandria.
No, Jesus was a common name. I went to a museum in Denmark, and they had gravestones from the time of Jesus with the name Jesus carved on them. They told me that finding gravestones with that name is not at all uncommon, nor was the name at the time. It was as common as it is in Mexico now I guess.
Wouldnt a natural reading with the meaning of Emanuel not suggist that mathew is saying yhwh himself is amongst his people .
@@MrMortal_Ra the end of the gospel ? I'm talking about Mathews use of Emanuel l in Isaiah 7
Nope. Since the original meaning comes from the Ot. The name is just a sign that God would defeat the enemies of King Ahaz. So nothing says Jesus is Yhwh and he used the verse because of the false VIRGIN claim. There are many names in Hebrew which are just digns. E.g. Ishmael means God hears. That doesn't mean Ishmael is God in human form😂. Elyahu means he is God. That doesn't mean he is God
Bart Ehrman:
All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end.
.
Also Bart Ehrman;
The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. *the sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
@@germanboy14
You mean how Israel and Judah etc were under occupation of the Roman empire .
Bart has missed the parallelism which is a form of prophecy.
Mathew is writing in a time were Rome just invaded and sacked Israel and Jerusalem
Mathew is drawing parallels. Not misunderstanding the context
@@germanboy14
In other words . Mathew already knows Isaiah 7. 14 happened . He read it .
He's drawing parallels between the child that is born to Jesus
And Jerusalem being occupied by a foreign power .
@ramada no. The unknown author applied the prophesy on Jesus. Early church fathers did the same. There is also no parallelism. Jesus even was pro Rome, did not care about the occupation and even supported Cesar.
The meaning of the Son of David is that he is his only begotten son according to the spirit, not the flesh. Yahweh is the Shining One, David, the Morning Star and the light of the world. The Son of David is the lamp of the light of the Father. David is your king who will be raised up for you.
Blessed is the kingdom of our Father David that is to come! (Mar 11:10 NABO)
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father (1Co 15:24 NABO)
"Gods though you be... Yet like any mortal you shall die; (Psa 82:6-7 NABO)
the one who ascended far above all the heavens themselves (Eph 4:10 NABO) (To a galaxy far, far, away, so to speak.)
never to return to corruption (Act 13:34 NABO)
The Son of David destroys all power, rule, and authority, 1Cor 15:25. In him, you have someone who can relate to you through his sacrifice. In David, the Cornerstone of Adam’s (the Christ), work of salvation, you have someone you can relate to through his salvation.
In his name this man stands before you healed. He is 'the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.' (Act 4:10-11 NABO)
The Son himself will (also) be subjected to the “One” who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:28 NABO)
No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (1Jo 4:12 NABO)
God is Spirit (Joh 4:24 NABO)
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is at (your) Father's side, has revealed him. (Joh 1:18 NABO)
there are, to be sure, many "gods" and many "lords", yet for us there is one God, the Father, (1Co 8:5-6 NABO)
Son of David just means to be of his blood. 😂
"Every knee shall stiffen" Rigor Mortis 3:16
Wrong respectfully
no it's not wrong, youre just coping real hard for your false religion 🤣
Spoken like a true apologist, who will twist-to-make-fit. The dude's name turned out to be Jesus, not Emmanuel, and whatever Emmanuel means, or whatever Jesus said last, is besides the point. The so-called prophecy (not a prophecy since the woman had already conceived) was never fulfilled. Much like all other "prophecies", the ones that were indeed spoken as prophecies.
Yes and Mathew knew Jesus name wasn't Emanuel . He literally uses the two names and n ver once claims they are the same person