A question

DavidC wrote: I don't think I can handle the mathematics, Mishmish. I flunked both Al-Jew-bra and Analytic Jew-ometry.

Ouch!

BMZ wrote: Let me do a switcheroo on you. The Jewish Scripture: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" The child was never named Immanuel. The mother was supposed to call the child Immanuel but SHE DID NOT!

Strange, isn't it?  No Jew can tell you who was called "Immanuel" and there is no evidence that anyone was.  Neither can the Jews tell us who the woman was, some say it was Isaiah's wife and others think it is Ahaz.

Why didn't Mary call Jesus "Immanuel," "God with us?"

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"�which means, "God with us." NIV

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"�which means, "God with us." �which means, "God with us." NKJV

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. KJV

Notice it doesn't say that Mary will call Jesus "Immanuel."  It says they will call him "Immanuel."

Here comes a little copying and pasting:

People and groups in the OT were often getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.

• Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)

• Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue.

• If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!

• And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this.

This is just not generally considered a problem:

"There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meq� hJmw`n oJ qeov", �God with us� (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation�which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). �They� who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel��Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age� (28:20)�to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, �Matthew,� 80�82).

I mentioned this to Andalus:  According to Hebrew usage a name does not represent a title but a characterization, as in Isaiah 1:26 and 9:6.  The name "Immanuel" shows that Jesus really was "God with us."

And since you requested it, here is my answer for the "child."

Let's say that an angel came to your mother before you were born and said she should call you Bill and she does.  Let's say that she is told that they will call you "the best baseball player of the year."  The term "the best baseball player of the year" is not your given name because your given name is Bill.  But "the best baseball player of the year" is how you will be described.  It is the moniker what you will be known by.

Maybe this article sheds some light on the subject:

The Septuagint was probably the first translation in Greek. It dates from the Third century B.C. and was written by Jews in Alexandria. It Was on this text that the New Testament was based. It remained authoritative until the Seventh century A.D. The basic Greek texts in general use in the Christian world are from the manuscripts catalogued under the title Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican City and Codex Sinaiticus at the British Museum, London. They date from the Fourth century A.D.

At the beginning of the Fifth century A.D., Saint Jerome was able to produce a text in latin using Hebrew documents. It was later to be called the Vulgate on account of its universal distribution after the Seventh century A.D.

For the record, we shall mention the Aramaic version and the Syriac (Pesh*tta) version, but these are incomplete.

All of these versions have enabled specialists to piece together so-called 'middle-of-the-road' texts, a sort of compromise between the different versions. Multi-lingual collections have also been produced which juxtapose the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic and even Arabic versions. This is the case of the famous Walton Bible (London, 1667). For the sake of completeness, let us mention that diverging Biblical conceptions are responsible for the fact that the various Christian churches do not all accept exactly the same books and have not until now had identical ideas on translation into the same language. The Ecumenical Translation of the Old Testament is a work of unification written by numerous Catholic and Protestant experts now nearing completion[5] and should result in a work of synthesis.

Thus the human element in the Old Testament is seen to be quite considerable. It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years.

(If anyone is interested in reading more, you can click on this link.)

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/3old.htm

God's Peace and Blessings to All.

DavidC wrote: I don't think I can handle the mathematics, Mishmish. I flunked both Al-Jew-bra and Analytic Jew-ometry.

I don't think math is extremely important for interfaith. You actually need Jew-do and Jew-jit-su...