What is clear...”in context” is that the way modern translators have divided the sections with chapters and numbers don’t necessarily correspond with the verses and subject matter. Prophecies in Isaiah over lap each other and can’t always be said to be in context with one another as opposed to reading Genesis or Kings. The style is much like that of reading Proverbs or Ecclesiastes where proverbial admonitions don’t flow necessarily in context with one another.
The prophetic style in Isaiah often resembles a pattern where a present problem is being addressed, followed by a near term prophecy entertwined with a much longer term prophecy .
When I read Isaiah 9:6, it juts right out of the context, abruptly changes the subject of the chapter and declares that a son is given who is called “Wonderful, Counscellor, THE MIGHTY GOD....”(a heretical view according to you) Indeed 9:6 redirects the context of the chapter to the wonderful thing God is going to do, despite the evils that had befallen Israel in the present.
Isaiah 7:14 is another context “redirector”...”a virgin bearing a son” which is prophetic in the near term as well as for a more distant time. As for your contention that the Hebrew term alma doesn’t mean ‘virgin’ many scholars including Jewish scholars better than you and me most certainly state that the term “alma” means “young woman of virginal state”. Some state while alma can certainly mean just ‘young woman’ you would almost always understand that when that term was used, the girl in question was almost certainly a virgin, not having had sex with a man. I expected that you would bring the term alma “controversy” up because your whole point of view goes up in flames should alma be understood as a virgin.
To whom was the psalmist referring when he wrote “The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand” or when the Psalmist Quoting God as declaring”Thou art my beloved son, this day have I BEGOTTEN THEE!”?
You like to argue “context” but even the issues of context have their problems. You hold the view that God would never take on a form or be represented by one and yet we have the Ark of the Covenant in which the Shekina presence of God sat between the two Cherubim. This Ark was understood to represent the very presence of God among the people. Even barring that example, the notion of God remaining locked away and invisible except thru tablets of stone(that God forced Moses to rewrite by the way after Moses had broken the originals) could very well cause a person to view the OT with the closed contextuality that you view it. The temple veil to you will always close off the Holy of Holies from the common man and you would never dare enter it and your raison d’etre is defined by Mount Sinai’s gloom, smoke and flame.
The living Christ changes the way I see the contextuality of scriptures, admittedly coloring it just as your view of God colors your view of scripture. I view Christ and Holy Spirit and the Father as one God. The temple veil for me was ripped in twain when God in Flesh pour out his blood for me as a perfect Ram sacrifice for all sin for all men for all time. Having been cleansed by His blood I can now approach the Holy of Holies which now has been made approachable. Indeed God implores all men to do so...not to kill us but to give us life, a bit of that Shekinah glory that sat between the Cherubim on the Ark so that he might write his laws on our inward hearts; not merely on tablets of stone. God would make each of his children Living Arks who bear his name and his living presence.
Yes, the prophetic style in Isaiah is challenging but it doesnt give the church license to make up its own doctrine. The rendering of verses still have to be handeled according sound biblical principals.
Trying to make Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin birth is not sound doctrine. Betulah means virgin in Hebrew, not alma. 4 other times the word Virgin is found in Isaiah. All 4 are betulah. So, clearly, when Isaih wants to get across the point that a virgin is being discussed, he knows which word to use for virgin...Betulah. From the time of Isaiah until the church...The Jewish people NEVER rendered that word "virgin".
Second, If you insist on alma meaning virgin, that leaves you in a untenable position. That means that there have been two virgin births! Two sinless people born. Two begotten by god the HS. Two of everything implied by this virgin birth. So, apprently there is nothing too unique about this alleged vigin birth, it has happened before. Strange it was never reported in scripture or in any Jewish writings.
or when the Psalmist Quoting God as declaring”Thou art my beloved son, this day have I BEGOTTEN THEE!”?
Pslam 2 is David speaking of himself. Also there are other instances of Israel and Solomon.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt.
Israel is G-d's first born son.
1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
Solomon is also named as G-d's son.
You hold the view that God would never take on a form or be represented by one and yet we have the Ark of the Covenant in which the Shekina presence of God sat between the two Cherubim.
Yes...the shekina is not G-d. The Shekina has no form.
the notion of God remaining locked away and invisible except thru tablets of stone(that God forced Moses to rewrite by the way after Moses had broken the originals) could very well cause a person to view the OT with the closed contextuality that you view it.
G-d Himself tells us what to believe. Why do you insist on making Him into something He is not?
Deut 4:10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.” 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,
You saw NO FORM OF ANY KIND. Do not become corrupt and make an image of ANY SHAPE...whether like a man...or anything created in heaven or on earth.
So, what does the church do? Gives G-d a form. NO FORM! what does the church do? Gives G-d a shape...of a man. G-d says DONT MAKE ANY SHAPE...any shape. The church needs to stop putting words in G-ds mouth and like the mormons, creating doctrine out of thin air. G-d says no form. Take Him at His word! The more you try to create doctrine the more you make G-d out to be a deceiver, a liar, duplicitous and untrustworthy. G-d forbid. G-ds NO FORM revelation was closed at Mt Sinai. He gave the law....and revealed his formless nature at the time...FOREVER. For the church to say 1500 years later....Here is a NEW testament. New salvation program New view of G-d...a messiah who is a god-man hybrid...100%man and 100%god...nowhere to be found in the Jewish scriptures...is wrong and no different than Joseph smiths claims of what Christianity "really" means. Do you like it when the Mormons tell you what your scriptures mean? Now you know how we Jews feel. (Not saying this with anger mind you)
Beautiful!
Part 2: Isaiah 9 again is a verse that like many others has been tampered with by the church. Read this:
The living Christ changes the way I see the contextuality of scriptures, admittedly coloring it just as your view of God colors your view of scripture.
And therein lies the problem. You are starting your spiritual journey with the belief in a new testament and then backtracking into the Jewish scriptures trying to find support for NT doctrine.
I hold the same view as my forefathers going back 1500 years before Jesus. All messiahs must pass the test of the Jewish scriptures requirements for messiahs.
As I pointed out before, per the sriptures:
Human Sacrifice is forbidden. Jesus was a human.
Human vicarious atonement is forbidden.
There is not one verse saying the messiah will be a once for all time blood sacrifice. Not one.
There is not one verse where G-d is saying: I am G-d...I have a son. He is me. He will be a sin sacrifice.etc etc. Something so important and not one statement by G-d about it. Certainly at Sinai G-d would have told us he is 3-n-1. But no. He says One. No Form.
There is not one scripture saying messiah will have to come twice to get it done. Not one. No second chance. No do-over.
There is not one verse that says: You must accept messiah by faith. Not one.
There is not one scripture saying faith in messiah is required for salvation. not one.
There is not one verse that says the messiah will prove himself by being miracle worker or a ressurected person. Not one.
There is not one verse that says the messiah will complete the law for us and do away with it. Not one
There is not one verse that says messiah will be perfect and sinless. Not one.
There is not one verse that says messiah will be an eternal being sitting on the throne of David forever. Not one.
I could go on...but it is obvious. The Jewish messiah in no way is the NT messiah...born out of Grecco-Roman mythology, not the Jewish scriptures.