John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[Hiddenthings]

All that is clear from Hebrews is that the priesthood follows with the office of king. The timing is not specific here.

Acts 13 provides a stronger argument.

But let me repeat myself, as neither you nor @dak seems to have heard what I said. The Bible can say that Jesus glorification, adoption... whatever-you-want-to-call-it... was at His resurrection... or His baptism... and that doesn't negate the other position. Both can be true simultaneously. Hebrew thought allows for it.

There are a few issues with Hebrews 5:5 you may have discounted.

Christ could not enter the true Holy of Holies until the veil was rent, both the literal temple veil at his death and, more importantly, the symbolic veil of his flesh (change of nature!). He could not ascend into heaven prior to his resurrection, and it would be impossible for him to enter the heavenly sanctuary before being glorified.

Hebrews 10:19–20 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh…

Dak is fully aware that this is the case.

 

[Hiddenthings]

No - how does that foreshadow Christ?

Psalm 40:6–8 6 In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering
you have not required. 7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: 8 I delight to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart.”

Beware with looking at the meaning of the word open Wick - once you understand how the Apostle used this teaching you cannot unlearn it. It's when the Servant Son became a Son of the God with Power!

And if dak had the slightest of understanding of this Law he should be able to piece the facts together!

 

[Hiddenthings]

As for the ongoing discussion since I last replied, that concerning the immersion: it is seven steps, that is, seven plunges according to the scripture, (2Kngs 5:14), and remember also what was said about the seven steps in the Bezae version of Acts, (now also deleted from the modern version of Acts), concerning the spiritual death of Peter, foretold by the Master in John 21:18-19, which was fulfilled in Acts 12:3-11. The miqweh, (mikveh) is always supposed to have seven steps. However the immersion of Yohannei was only six plunges divided into two parts: the first three plunges, (then comes the trial and testing in the desert by the Tempter), and then the second three plunges if the one immersed returns to Yohannei with the Spirit yet abiding and remaining upon him, (John 1:32-33, meaning the one immersed has overcome, having passed through the time of trial and testing). The seventh plunge is later, and is the immersion into death, (the crucifixion at Golgotha, in the physical, concerning the Meshiah), and this immersion is not witnessed by the same immerser, (it was obviously not Yohannei the Immerser because he had been beheaded). These seven plunges are the one complete immersion: therefore our immersion into Meshiah is an immersion into his death, (Rom 6:3-4), not physical but spiritual because his Testimony is Spirit and Life, (John 6:63).

Using typology to link Old Testament ritual immersion, John the Baptist’s baptism, and Christ’s crucifixion/resurrection as a unified symbolic process of spiritual cleansing and participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is interesting, but what does it actually prove?

@Wick Stick it's clearly written “He raised him up from the dead” it's the verb anastesen, repeated from verse 33, here specifically refers to the Lord’s resurrection to immortality (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54).

John 6:39 – "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

John 6:40 – "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:44 – "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:54 – "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

When we are raised, it is through his resurrection to life. When we become sons with power, we share in the same eternal life that was granted to him, a life that will also be given to us.

If you remove God granting him immortality (life), then the foundation for all of this in him collapses.

 

[Hiddenthings]

John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father (for Eternal Life) except through me.”

Regarding Hebrews 5:5, its meaning is actually quite straightforward, yet the vast majority of Christians, perhaps over 90% misunderstand it.

When Jesus was raised, he became the Logos of God, for this is where God placed access to His eternal life (His Spirit Nature). In his resurrection, Christ was made the Son of God with Power, fully sharing in divine nature as His Father raised Him with His Own Glory.

No matter what Dak posts, this reality cannot be denied.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I’m noticing that the struggle and tension between the three of us seems almost symbolic of the broader theological conflicts in the world today. Getting believers to engage with the actual facts is incredibly difficult, yet these teachings were once regarded as the “milk of the Word" - why is there not greater understanding in us?

When the author in Hebrews penned our entrance into the Holy of Holies he showed how it was achieved... "By a New and Living Way Opened for Us Through the Curtain, That Is, His Body (flesh): This way is “new” in both its means and effects. By “living,” the author means truly effective or enduring, in contrast to the now obsolete and ineffective rituals of the past. Though offered as a sacrifice and put to death, Jesus was raised to eternal life, he NOW “ever liveth” (Hebrews 7:25).

This new way passes “through the curtain” that once separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the sanctuary. The author draws rich symbolism from this, identifying the curtain with Christ’s “body” (literally “flesh”). At the crucifixion, the veil was torn from top to bottom by God, not men (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). This tearing symbolized direct access to God’s presence, accomplished through Christ’s sacrificial death - the Victory over Sin's Flesh (Romans 8:1-3; Heb 2.

Though not explicitly stated, the author implies that the tearing of Christ’s flesh in the crucifixion mirrors the temple veil being torn. Through His death, Christ opened the way for all believers to approach God directly (Ephesians 2:14–18).

The elephant in the thread is this: why? Why did God need to tear Christ’s flesh? What was inherently “wrong” with his flesh that required such a tearing?

Christians often resort to all sorts of theological reasoning, suggesting he had two natures in order to preserve the idea of hypostasis and duality. Yet we both know that explanation doesn’t hold.

Answer the question why God needed to tear his flesh and you will find the answer to his true Sonship (with Power).

 

[dak]

@Wick Stick, more resources to add to my previous post:

Gospel of the Ebionites, a Gospel harmony including Matthew and Luke: it begins with the immersion account, (missing first two chapters).

The Gospel of the Ebionites extracted from Epiphanius

The Gospel of the Ebionites on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

The Gospel of the Ebionites

The Gospel of the Ebionites on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Gospel of the Nazoreans

Gospel of the Nazoreans from Throckmorton

The Gospel of the Nazoreans on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

A lengthy article concerning the Psalm 2:7 decree originally having been in Matthew and Luke using critically important patristic evidence from their own testimonies and arguments.

Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

www.jesuswordsonly.org

Without vowel pointing both netzer and natzar are written with the same Hebrew letters, נצר, (and there was no Hebrew pointed text in the first century). It is curious but true that there are certain forms of natzar that give us very close approximations of both city or town names found in the NT writings, but that is only because natzar is a verb, (verb conjugations come into play), while netzer is a noun. More specifically natzar, to watch, guard, keep, etc., has a form, נצורי, which is Natzurei or Natzorei. The Matthew passage does not use Nazarene but rather says, ναζωραιος κληθησεται, "he shall be called a Nazoraios". This form generally means preserve(d) and is seemingly employed in the sense of resurrection in the following passage, which informs the observant reader that the Meshiah would be a preserved one, a Natzorei, (Greek ναζωραιος, (Nazoraios)), preserved by the Father Himself, (v.8).

Isaiah 49:5-9 KJV
5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved [נצורי, natzorei] of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

Nazoraios, (ναζωραιος), in Matthew 2:23, no doubt came from the Gospel of the Nazoreans. The Natzorei of Yisrael were apparently preserved in "Abraham's Bosom" until Matthew 27:51-53.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Nazoraios, (ναζωραιος), in Matthew 2:23, no doubt came from the Gospel of the Nazoreans. The Natzorei of Yisrael were apparently preserved in "Abraham's Bosom" until Matthew 27:51-53.

Let’s be perfectly clear, dak, the phrase “Abraham’s Bosom” appears only in one section of Scripture, and it is connected to a Pharisaic teaching about the state of the dead. The term is widely found in rabbinic literature, which is precisely why the Master referenced it, to expose and make use of their own false doctrine against them.

Scripture tells us that Abraham is dead and buried, awaiting the resurrection, exactly as Hebrews affirms.

11:39 And these all (Abraham) were commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. 11:40 For God had provided something better for us, so that they (Abraham) would be made perfect together with us Heb 11:39–40.

@Wick Stick We still don’t have a clear answer from Dak on how his “eternal Son” became the Anointed One. What’s a bit ironic is that when he was defending his earlier behavior, he communicated clearly. But when he shifts into this scholarly persona, his posts become much harder to follow.

And looking at his latest post, does he believe the dead (undead) are currently in “Abraham’s bosom”? Has he taken elements from Hebrew mythology and mistaken teachings from his own tradition and blended them into a kind of personal gospel?

He’s lost in the weeds, obsessed with minutiae while the bigger truth escapes him.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick how are you going? We have covered a lot of ground and I'm wondering are you digesting in the background or moved on? Hope you are well in the Lord regardless.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick how are you going? We have covered a lot of ground and I'm wondering are you digesting in the background or moved on? Hope you are well in the Lord regardless.

Haha I'm a bit overwhelmed, tbh.

I generally don't post much over the weekends (I spend them with my family). I came back on a Monday to SO many posts. And both you and Dak are... complicated. Y'all's posts tend to require a bunch of external reading.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Haha I'm a bit overwhelmed, tbh.

I generally don't post much over the weekends (I spend them with my family). I came back on a Monday to SO many posts. And both you and Dak are... complicated. Y'all's posts tend to require a bunch of external reading.

Being overwhelmed isn't necessarily negative, if it leads you to a clearer and truer understanding in the end.

For more than 30 years I’ve pressed against traditional Christian doctrine, and my conclusions haven’t come quickly or lightly. I’ve searched diligently for a pre-existent, eternal Son in Scripture, and to this point, I simply have not found him there.

I’m genuinely surprised that dak hasn’t recognized these truths, given his heritage. His background gives him such a strong foundation for understanding Yahweh, almost like having the best seat in the house. So it leaves me wondering where this idea of an “eternal Son” entered his thinking, because it certainly wasn’t from those original teachings.

 

[Wick Stick]

Without vowel pointing both netzer and natzar are written with the same Hebrew letters, נצר, (and there was no Hebrew pointed text in the first century). It is curious but true that there are certain forms of natzar that give us very close approximations of both city or town names found in the NT writings, but that is only because natzar is a verb, (verb conjugations come into play), while netzer is a noun. More specifically natzar, to watch, guard, keep, etc., has a form, נצורי, which is Natzurei or Natzorei. The Matthew passage does not use Nazarene but rather says, ναζωραιος κληθησεται, "he shall be called a Nazoraios". This form generally means preserve(d) and is seemingly employed in the sense of resurrection in the following passage, which informs the observant reader that the Meshiah would be a preserved one, a Natzorei, (Greek ναζωραιος, (Nazoraios)), preserved by the Father Himself, (v.8).

Isaiah 49:5-9 KJV
5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved [נצורי, natzorei] of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

Nazoraios, (ναζωραιος), in Matthew 2:23, no doubt came from the Gospel of the Nazoreans. The Natzorei of Yisrael were apparently preserved in "Abraham's Bosom" until Matthew 27:51-53.

I am fond of pointing out that the vowel points that were added by the Masoretes ought to be ignored.

One of the main purposes they had for adding vowel points was to EXCLUDE any reading of the text that was too... Christian. So, the vowel points are, at a baseline, anti-Christian.

Secondly, the vowel points remove all ambiguity from the text. That isn't a good thing. Hebrew often uses ambiguity purposefully - to remove it is to strip the text of meaning.

I don't doubt that "preserved" is an intended meaning, as you say above. I find it equally likely that Nazarene (from Nazareth) is also intended - a surface reading there to satisfy those who are not seeking for extra meaning.

 

[Wick Stick]

This is a difficult question to answer without offering a plethora of links to be studied, (and a lot of study and reading time). The so-called church fathers, those with firsthand involvement concerning this matter, (Jerome, Eusebius, and two or three others), made a mess of this whole thing by coming up with at least four different Gospel accounts that are intermingled, mistaken by name or incorrectly named by them, and so on, to the point that we now have evidence for a Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew", a "Gospel of the Hebrews", a "Gospel of the Nazoreans", and a "Gospel of the Ebionites", and possibly one more unknown account mixed in among these four that are either known or at least mentioned in the patristic writings, (though which one is which is now in a state of confusion, and there is probably a reason for the confusion, that is, whenever subterfuge is at play).

For starters I offer the following commentary on the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews:

The Gospel of Hebrews from Throckmorton and Barnstone

The Gospel of the Hebrews on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Note also where it begins: Matthew 3:13.

This took a little reading. I would suggest that Throckmorton's theory on the origination of Matthew is not widely accepted. Scholars mostly don't think that Matthew was based on a 'gospel of the Hebrews,' instead theorizing that it is some combination of material borrowed from Mark (Markan priority), a passion narrative, and a collection of sayings and parables.

That notwithstanding... Everyone does seem to agree that the current Gospel of Matthew is a mish-mash of sources. It would make sense to put a divide at 3:13, with the verses before and after belonging to different sources.

That doesn't necessarily mean that chapters 1-2 are late additions.

On the contrary, those first chapters show a harmony of purpose with the rest of the book. Four times in those chapters the author appeals to "this was in fulfillment" of OT prophecies. The rest of the book uses this same appeal repeatedly. Presenting Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy is Matthew's reason for writing.

Another argument for an early date for this section... Matthew's genealogy seems to be aware of 1Enoch's prophecy that the Messiah would arrive in the 7th "week" of generations. It structures itself as three "double-weeks" making Jesus the beginning of week 7. Enoch's reach seems to have been limited. Italy, Greece, and half of Anatolia don't ever seem to know it existed, and it's barely quoted even in the 2nd century by those who have a copy. A reference to this "lost" book points to an early date, and a writer that is indeed familiar with Hebrew.

In that passage from the Protoevangelium Maryah is informed by the Malak of YHWH that she will retain seed from the Logos of the Most High, the Logos-Word of YHWH, the Logos-Word the Father.

Pay close attention to what she disputes in her heart/mind within herself about this statement, and how the Malak of YHWH responds to her internal questioning:

Fear not, Maryah, for you have found favor before the Absolute Master of all, you shall retain [seed] from His Logos: but having heard this, Maryah disputed within herself, saying, Shall I conceive by YHWH Elohim the Living and bring forth the same as every woman brings forth?
3 And the Angel of YHWH said to her, Not in that manner, Maryah, (G3779 ουτως "in this/that way/manner).

The birth being spoken of here is clearly not intended to be understood as a physical birth: it is expounded and is understood according to the teaching of the Meshiah in the parable of the sower. This One born of the virgin is spiritual, and is inward, and cannot be the physical son who is the opener of the matrix.

The one who physically opens the matrix is the Meshiah, born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3), who is the offspring of the union of Yoseph and Maryah, born in the days of the census of Quirinius, in the year 6-7AD, (Luke 2:1-7). This is why the Luke infancy narrative is so different from the Protoevengelium/Matthew infancy narrative: they are literally two different births. In the first birth both Yoseph and Maryah are born from above, in the same manner as it is taught even for us in the Gospel accounts.

Interesting. Do you know of any canonical verses that suggest a regeneration for Mary or Joseph?

Good, we are therefore on the same page regarding this also, (I just wanted to make sure).
The point now, which I wish to make, is this:

Immediately following the tenth commandment we read the following statement.

Exodus 20:18-19 KJV
18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

The underlined portion above is the true origin for the name Immanuel, which Yeshayah the Prophet no doubt received from the passage with an understanding by way of the Spirit of the Father upon him, so he was given the name Immanuel from both the Word of the Father, (the Torah), and the Logos-Word of the Father, (the Son, Immanuel).

The underlined portion from the Hebrew text:

ואל־ידבר עמנו אלהים

But let not speak immanu Elohim = But let not speak with us Elohim.

This therefore could not have been "Jesus", (as a lot of Trinitarians say).

Moreover Elohim spoke the Ten Commandments through Mosheh because the Spirit of the Father was upon him. All that is necessary is to follow the text from the end of Exodus 19 into the beginning of Exodus 20 without regard to the chapter break now having been inserted into modern Bibles.

Exodus 19:24-20:1
24 And the LORD said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them.
25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
01 And God spake all these words, saying,

Elohim, the Son and the Spirit of the Father, spoke through Mosheh the man of Elohim, and gave the Ten Commandments: and apparently the voice of Mosheh was altered, and thundered with the power of Elohim as the Spirit spoke through him, and the people feared greatly, so much so that they thought they were about to die.

This cannot have been "Jesus", but it was indeed the eternal Logos-Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, even at His right hand side.

View attachment 72752

I'm not so sure about that. I have my own theories about Moses and the whole Mt Sinai debacle. But that's probably a little far afield for this topic.

 

[dak]

I am fond of pointing out that the vowel points that were added by the Masoretes ought to be ignored.

One of the main purposes they had for adding vowel points was to EXCLUDE any reading of the text that was too... Christian. So, the vowel points are, at a baseline, anti-Christian.

Secondly, the vowel points remove all ambiguity from the text. That isn't a good thing. Hebrew often uses ambiguity purposefully - to remove it is to strip the text of meaning.

I don't doubt that "preserved" is an intended meaning, as you say above. I find it equally likely that Nazarene (from Nazareth) is also intended - a surface reading there to satisfy those who are not seeking for extra meaning.

What you say cannot be overstated: it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. The Masoretes indeed resurrected the language; but they resurrected it into their own Pharisaic image. The entire pointing apparatus is essentially a Pharisee commentary embedded within the Hebrew text. They did not even separate the text according to their own fathers who first rendered the unseparated Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint, (Kohanim rendered the Torah Portions first, beginning about c. 285 BC).

 

[dak]

Interesting. Do you know of any canonical verses that suggest a regeneration for Mary or Joseph?

I seriously doubt the early RCC would allow any such thing to survive.

However, do you suppose Yeshayah the Prophet had physical intercourse with the Prophetess in 8:1-4? I do not believe that to be the case: therefore how did she conceive and bring forth a son? Would it not be by way of the Word of YHWH through Yeshayah to the Prophetess?

What is the name of her son by the Word of YHWH? Maher-Shalal-Chashbaz, and the first letters of each word are mem-shin-chet, and this is not an anointed one, (Meshiach has the yod/yud), but rather it is the actual anointing, (Mashach, Mishchah, Moshchah).

If there were a Hebrew nomen sacrum it would be מ̅ש, (and Meshiah would still also have the same nomen sacrum in Hebrew), but in Greek this would be Chrisma, the anointing, (1 John 2:20-27), and the nomen sacrum in Greek would be Chi-Rho, that is, Χ̅Ρ.

Do you see what is happening? There are now at least three meanings for the Greek nomen sacrum Χ̅Ρ, (Christos, Chrestos, and Chrisma), and all of them are legitimate interpretations of that single nomen sacrum. The early church, who enforced their interpretation of the nomen sacrum, have limited the meaning to a single definition and have hidden incredibly important information from the people, almost exactly as the Masoretes did to their own Pharisaic minded people throughout the entire Tanak by way of their commentary embedded into the text via their pointing system.

 

[Wick Stick]

I seriously doubt the early RCC would allow any such thing to survive.

However, do you suppose Yeshayah the Prophet had physical intercourse with the Prophetess in 8:1-4? I do not believe that to be the case: therefore how did she conceive and bring forth a son? Would it not be by way of the Word of YHWH through Yeshayah to the Prophetess?

Yes, I very much think that Isaiah took the "virgin" to bride and to bed. He seems to have gone to some trouble to put it on record that he had done so:

Isaiah 8:2-3 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived and bare a son.

Thayer's:

Note that had Isaiah not done so, the woman would have been executed for adultery.

What is the name of her son by the Word of YHWH? Maher-Shalal-Chashbaz, and the first letters of each word are mem-shin-chet, and this is not an anointed one, (Meshiach has the yod/yud), but rather it is the actual anointing, (Mashach, Mishchah, Moshchah).

If there were a Hebrew nomen sacrum it would be מ̅ש, (and Meshiah would still also have the same nomen sacrum in Hebrew), but in Greek this would be Chrisma, the anointing, (1 John 2:20-27), and the nomen sacrum in Greek would be Chi-Rho, that is, Χ̅Ρ.

Do you see what is happening? There are now at least three meanings for the Greek nomen sacrum Χ̅Ρ, (Christos, Chrestos, and Chrisma), and all of them are legitimate interpretations of that single nomen sacrum. The early church, who enforced their interpretation of the nomen sacrum, have limited the meaning to a single definition and have hidden incredibly important information from the people, almost exactly as the Masoretes did to their own Pharisaic minded people throughout the entire Tanak by way of their commentary embedded into the text via their pointing system.

Beyond any doubt the whole episode is meant to be a type of the Messiah. But it also served its original function - as a sign provided to King Ahaz in the days of Isaiah.

 

[dak]

Yes, I very much think that Isaiah took the "virgin" to bride and to bed. He seems to have gone to some trouble to put it on record that he had done so:

Isaiah 8:2-3 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived and bare a son.

Thayer's:
View attachment 73116
Note that had Isaiah not done so, the woman would have been executed for adultery.

Beyond any doubt the whole episode is meant to be a type of the Messiah. But it also served its original function - as a sign provided to King Ahaz in the days of Isaiah.

We disagree on this particular matter, but that's okay, however I'll stick to the interpretation of those who rendered the Hebrew into the LXX here.

Isaiah 8:3 OG LXX
3 και προσηλθον προς την προφητιν και εν γαστρι ελαβεν και ετεκεν υιον και ειπεν κυριος μοι καλεσον το ονομα αυτου ταχεως σκυλευσον οξεως προνομευσον

Again, en-gastri, the stomach, from consuming the Word, not the matrix which is employed for physical childbirth. And again also, etekev is from tikto, plant life and plant life reproduction: decidedly so as per the connection with other prophetic metaphors such as Tzemach-Branch, Netzer-Shoot/Branch, Sheresh-Root, etc., etc.

 

[dak]

PS: @Wick Stick

Liddell-Scott Lexicon

Under Roman Numeral III. of the earth, bear, produce,.......
Under Roman Numeral IV. metaph., (metaphorical), generate, engender, produce, “λέγω τὴν χώρην λιμὸν τέξεσθαι”

“λέγω τὴν χώρην λιμὸν τέξεσθαι” ~ I say that the parched (hungry) field τέξεσθαι

Metaphorical:
The Seed of the Sower is the Logos-Word of Elohim, Luke 8:11.
The soil of the heart is the adamah (planting)soil of the field and of the earth.

 

[Hiddenthings]

We disagree on this particular matter, but that's okay, however I'll stick to the interpretation of those who rendered the Hebrew into the LXX here.

Isaiah 8:3 OG LXX
3 και προσηλθον προς την προφητιν και εν γαστρι ελαβεν και ετεκεν υιον και ειπεν κυριος μοι καλεσον το ονομα αυτου ταχεως σκυλευσον οξεως προνομευσον

Again, en-gastri, the stomach, from consuming the Word, not the matrix which is employed for physical childbirth. And again also, etekev is from tikto, plant life and plant life reproduction: decidedly so as per the connection with other prophetic metaphors such as Tzemach-Branch, Netzer-Shoot/Branch, Sheresh-Root, etc., etc.

@Wick Stick I wonder if dak also thinks Hosea’s command from God was meant to be allegorical.

Some interpreters hold that Isaiah's prophecy has two fulfillments, a near-term birth during Ahaz’s time and the ultimate fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah. They argue the prophecy must have held immediate relevance for Ahaz (as you do), yet they also acknowledge the New Testament’s authoritative interpretation pointing to Christ. Therefore, they conclude that the initial fulfillment occurred either through Isaiah’s son or Ahaz’s son, while Christ represents the complete and final fulfillment of the prophecy.

I’ve come to appreciate not only the idea of dual fulfillments in Scripture, but also the possibility of three, something that becomes evident in the “my messenger” prophecy in Malachi.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Out of curiosity, are there any ancient Jewish commentaries (Targums, Midrashim, etc.) that mention a name change from Immanuel to Hezekiah?

 

[Wick Stick]

We disagree on this particular matter, but that's okay, however I'll stick to the interpretation of those who rendered the Hebrew into the LXX here.

Isaiah 8:3 OG LXX
3 και προσηλθον προς την προφητιν και εν γαστρι ελαβεν και ετεκεν υιον και ειπεν κυριος μοι καλεσον το ονομα αυτου ταχεως σκυλευσον οξεως προνομευσον

Again, en-gastri, the stomach, from consuming the Word, not the matrix which is employed for physical childbirth. And again also, etekev is from tikto, plant life and plant life reproduction: decidedly so as per the connection with other prophetic metaphors such as Tzemach-Branch, Netzer-Shoot/Branch, Sheresh-Root, etc., etc.

It isn't my intention to empty the spiritual meaning of the passage by insisting on the physical one. However, I'm concerned you might be doing the converse - emptying the literal meaning to uphold the spiritual one.

I think we can have both.

But yeah... to have a physical child, physical σπέρμα is required, not just a spiritual seed.