Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

 

[Harmonious]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

If I could offer a suggestion...

While I'm not a Christian, and I agree with you 100% on this topic, there is something I don't believe you have considered.

It doesn't matter what text-centered faith is being discussed. If you start from the premise "Doesn't it bother you that you're wrong?", it isn't conducive to receiving an answer; you've decided you have the facts, and no one is looking for a fight they aren't going to win. Or rather, no one is looking for a fight where it is obvious that you don't share their beliefs, and any argument is going to end with "but you're wrong."

I've gone around and around with this type of thing discussing slavery, or any other commandment that someone else has found distasteful. The person who starts such a thread isn't actually interested in discussing what I believe or why I believe it. It's all about "I've picked something in your faith that is highly indefensible, so aren't you going to try to defend your belief?"

I'm sorry, but I don't think you will be getting many Christian takers.

 

[fallingblood]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

We can look at it in a different way. Matthew reinterpreted a Hebrew story for his time. The idea was that everything in the Hebrew scriptures pointed to the Messiah. So Matthew took a story that was already circulating, searched the scriptures, and then put the two together in order to justify the story with the Bible.

Also, it wasn't really this story that grew up into the Christmas. More so, all holidays are made-up, so I don't get that point. But really, Christmas probably still would have come about without this narrative.

Finally, many acknowledge that this story is more myth than fact. And people are fine with that. It doesn't take away from the truth that is being told.

 

[CG Didymus]

If I could offer a suggestion...

I'm sorry, but I don't think you will be getting many Christian takers.

I think you're right. It is just that the Christians that push for a very literal reading of the Hebrew and the Christian Bible aren't being consistent. Several times I've had my Fundamentalist friends say, "you can't cherry-pick" verses out of context.

The claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is extremely powerful. If it were a true prophecy, how could anyone, especially a Jew, deny that Jesus is, indeed, the true messiah. I bought into it. Wow, a virgin birth? That's an incredible sign! I let my mind not notice the problem. I thought the problem was with the Jews and their misinterpreting their own Scriptures, until I asked the Jews. That's when I first read Isaiah in context.That is when I got inadequate and dodging the point kind of answers from Christians. I think that's why a lot of ex-Christians are now atheists, because they didn't get straight answers.

There is an element of not questioning and not doubting one's own particular truth in Christianity. If we had doubts about our truth it was becausethe adversary, the devil was trying to trick and confuse us. However, it was perfectly all right to utterly destroy the foundational beliefs of another religion or even another denomination of Christianity to prove our way was the right way.

I wish Bible-believing Christians could tell me why it doesn't bother them. But, I think to go with pat answers, or simply ignore the problem, or keep doubts locked away safely in the back of their heads is understandable. Why? Because their version of believing in Jesus is working for them.

I know what it was like. I loved being a Christian, to have the confidence that you have the one and only truth. My problem was, I always hated having to believe that all other religions were false. That proved my Christian downfall. I looked for loopholes in a literal, Fundamentalist view of Christianity and found them. For me, the out of context use of Isaiah in Mathew was a really big one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The idea was that everything in the Hebrew scriptures pointed to the Messiah.

It's a really dumb idea. :yes:

 

[Green Kepi]

Not all Christians agree that this is in reference to Jesus.

First of all, the baby talked about here is only a sign...not a redeemer. God is the "redeemer" (verse 17). The King James Version incorrectly translates the word "almah", meaning girl or young woman, not virgin. The Hebrew word "betulah" appears nowhere in this text.

Jesus was never named Immanuel. This chapter is predicting an event that was supposed to occur and be seen by King Achaz who lived 100's of years before Jesus. The sign is meant to convince Ahaz that he shouldn't worry about the two invading armies.

This cannot be Jesus...because it states that there will be a time period that the child will not be able to refuse evil. Jesus was without sins...the verse 16 cannot apply to Him....

 

[CG Didymus]

Not all Christians agree that this is in reference to Jesus.

First of all, the baby talked about here is only a sign...not a redeemer. God is the "redeemer" (verse 17). The King James Version incorrectly translates the word "almah", meaning girl or young woman, not virgin. The Hebrew word "betulah" appears nowhere in this text.

Jesus was never named Immanuel. This chapter is predicting an event that was supposed to occur and be seen by King Achaz who lived 100's of years before Jesus. The sign is meant to convince Ahaz that he shouldn't worry about the two invading armies.

This cannot be Jesus...because it states that there will be a time period that the child will not be able to refuse evil. Jesus was without sins...the verse 16 cannot apply to Him....

I agree. So why did Mathew quote this verse? My point is to show that the accepted books aren't literal, infallible, and God's word, but more like man's word about God and what we want our God to be.

I really do know the power and beauty of believing whole-heartedly. When I believed without question, I did feel as though I had the spirit of God living within me. It lasted 3 months. Lust was my downfall, or not really lust, it was an admiration of the beauty of the opposite sex. Okay! It was lust! Once I couldn't be a "perfect" Christian, I went down the slippery slope of questioning all the assumed truths about God, Jesus, and the Bible that I had been taught.

I know a lot of my Christian friends had doubts and put them into the back of their minds. That is why I'm asking this question about Mathew taking the verse from Isaiah out of context, because it should bother Christians. I think their is a bigger and better way to believe, but if we don't have the guts to question our "traditional" beliefs we will go nowhere.

 

[Green Kepi]

Since Isaiah is not taking about Jesus and Mary being a virgin and since Jesus was not called Immanuel...this quote by Matthew cannot apply to Jesus. I personally believe that Matthew is just saying that Jesus' birth was like this in Isaiah. However, Mary was a virgin because Matthew 1:25 says she was. There is nothing wrong with questioning...look at Thomas...he questioned and the Lord didn't 'get down on him' for that....

 

[Poisonshady313]

I personally believe that Matthew is just saying that Jesus' birth was like this in Isaiah.

When you consider Matthew 1:22, how can you believe that?

Matthew screwed up. He either didn't know any better, or he did know better and he lied.

 

[Green Kepi]

I can believe "that" since 'the prophet' was not speaking of Jesus (as I'd mentioned before). All I am saying is that Matthew is saying that Jesus' birth would be "something like" the young woman in Ahaz's example....

 

[Harmonious]

I can believe "that" since 'the prophet' was not speaking of Jesus (as I'd mentioned before). All I am saying is that Matthew is saying that Jesus' birth would be "something like" the young woman in Ahaz's example....

Which still makes one scratch their head.

A young woman was pregnant, and when the child was at a certain age, the war would be over.

How does that presage anything about what it would have been like when Jesus was born?

It's a logical problem in Matthew, I understand.

 

[Shermana]

When you consider Matthew 1:22, how can you believe that?

Matthew screwed up. He either didn't know any better, or he did know better and he lied.

Or someone added it in later. We see evidence that the geneologies don't exactly match up among Church Father quotations for one thing. Matthew is most likely a later (perhaps gentilized) version of the "Gospel to the Hebrews" used by the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and this could have very well been interpolated, since we don't know exactly when Matthew was finalized.

 

[Green Kepi]

Or someone added it in later. We see evidence that the geneologies don't exactly match up among Church Father quotations for one thing. Matthew is most likely a later (perhaps gentilized) version of the "Gospel to the Hebrews" used by the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and this could have very well been interpolated, since we don't know exactly when Matthew was finalized.

So very true...however, please don't lay all the blame on us Gentiles. Jeremiah 8:8 says you guys did it too. Heck...we don't even have copies of any of the original writings...so, how can we be so stick with all these different versions we do have...?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I can believe "that" since 'the prophet' was not speaking of Jesus (as I'd mentioned before). All I am saying is that Matthew is saying that Jesus' birth would be "something like" the young woman in Ahaz's example....

I know the prophet wasn't speaking of Jesus.

Matthew seems to have thought otherwise.

I don't know how you jump from "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" to "something like".

It's like you're re-writing Matthew to make it more convenient for you.

 

[Green Kepi]

I know the prophet wasn't speaking of Jesus.

Matthew seems to have thought otherwise.

I don't know how you jump from "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" to "something like".

It's like you're re-writing Matthew to make it more convenient for you.

Simple...(for me)...God was the Redeemer in the Old Scriptures and now Jesus is the Redeemer in the New Testament....

 

[Shermana]

Matthew seems to have thought otherwise.

I'd say the redactor to Matthew thought otherwise.

 

[sincerly]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

CGD, 1Cor.10:6,11, states this: "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted."----"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Those Principles given in those written scriptures were NOT just filling up pages of "non-sequitur" nonsense, but were for persons of all ages to live a life in agreement with HIS Principles. Moses's instructions were to "Obey and Live".

That which had its beginning in Gen.2;15 is still being fulfilled. All the "details" of the Plan were NOT given nor could it be expected from a GOD who is "LONG-SUFFERING". Those were added as the need for them became evident.---Just as Amos stated.(3:7), "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets".

Matthew was a faithful disciple/Apostle of Jesus for 3 1/2 years and it is written that the disciples acknowledged that Jesus was, indeed, the expected Messiah and SON OF GOD prior to the crucifixion.
The "Gospel of Mathew" wasn't written until about 70 A.D. or 40 yrars after the resurrection.
Matthew was in that "upper Room" when Jesus appeared to them and unfolded the Prophecies to their "understanding" as seen in Luke 24:27,44-48. "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. ........And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things."

I have no doubts concerning the Scriptures. They are true. Matthew understood and wrote a true "GOOD NEWS"/"TIDINGS" concerning the events.
He wrote the parable seen in (21:33-41),also.

Believe what-so-ever you choose.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'd say the redactor to Matthew thought otherwise.

I really like the redactor idea. I can easily believe that several people had their hands on the writing and compiling of Mathew. Who were his sources. Who was his editor? God? How many drafts did he go through until he said, "Okay, let's publish!" Did someone come in later and add a few "clarifying" verses? There is reasonable doubt, and a lot is at stake.

Fundamentalist Christians need it to be literally true, but here I am barely at the beginning of his story, and I have a problem. It "literally" doesn't add up. How many more misquotes are there? Instead of hijacking Judaism, and nullifying it, I would've preferred if Christians said, "You know Judaism has a few good points. Let's make a new religion loosely based on it, but much easier."

But no (a John Belushi "But no") The Law? Gone. The Sabbath? Gone. The Jewish Feasts? Gone. Christians gutted Judaism. I've seen the verses that said things like the Law and the Sabbath will be forever, or for all your generations. Isn't that literal?

My brain hurt trying to preach Jesus to Jews. I gave up and finally asked, "Okay, why don't you believe. He's your messiah?" I shouldn't have asked. I was in blissful Christian ignorance. Now look at me, I'm a spiritual basket case. (Not literally. I'm exaggerating. And, thank you all. I'm learning a lot.)

 

[Shermana]

I've seen the verses that said things like the Law and the Sabbath will be forever, or for all your generations. Isn't that literal?

I have yet to ever get a straight answer when I ask a Christian if they think God was a filthy liar when he said "To the thousandth generation".

Jesus most clearly taught nothing less than law obedience. What most Christians do is pervert and twist the heck out of what Jesus said into something that doesn't fit the context whatsoever. And they fail to recognize that if Jesus broke even one Law, he wouldn't be so "sinless" as they claim. This is why many Apologetic sites make a big point of attacking this widespread fallacy that Jesus himself abrogated the Law while alive, and instead turn it into an issue that he only abrogated when he died (Which is equally fallacious).

And then there's the whole book of Acts chapter 15 issue, which I also believe is interpolated.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Simple...(for me)...God was the Redeemer in the Old Scriptures and now Jesus is the Redeemer in the New Testament....

That has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.