[SeekAndFind]

I completely agree. Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53 are perfect examples of Christians making morons of themselves to prove a point. Denying the PLAIN MEANING, they appear to be grasping at straws.

Here's the question I want to ask -- how has Isaiah 7:14 been TRADITIONALLY understood by Israelites and Jews HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Jesus was born ? Has it been understood simply as a reference to a historical figure in the past, or has there been a tradition of understanding this to also have a double meaning to refer to the future Messiah ?

[Tzfat]

Here's the question I want to ask -- how has Isaiah 7:14 been TRADITIONALLY understood by Israelites and Jews HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Jesus was born ?

Ahh. A very good question, and one that recognizes that the starting point for discussion has to predate the rise of Christianity.

The eariest "commentary" on TaNaKh are Targums. The earliest is late First Century. By then Christianity understanding of Isaiah 7:14 was well publicized (as well as its tendancy toward belligerence, see Martyr's "Dialog With Trypho the Jew").

This is where the "intertestament" works are so valuable. Sadly, they are as unacceptable to Jewish ears as the LXX. If you want the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 7:14, you already have it in the LXX. It was about a miraculous birth. Why? Because that is a very Jewish thing. Isaac, Jacob, Hannah, etc.

Consider this: if the Almighty had wanted to arm Christians with "definitive proof" in order to beat up Jews, He would not have had Isaiah write the word ALMA. But He did. So what conclusion does that bring to you?