Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

Ingledsva said:

They were told to ask for a sign. Thus he was told to go into the Prophetess. She birthed Emmanuel as a SIGN. His name = God is with us. A sign for them and the warring people.

7:1 tells us we are talking about Isaiah and Ahaz.
7:10-13 tells us God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Azah feels this would be an imposition.

7:14 tells us THEN God gives AHAZ a sign - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin/maiden shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.

NOTE - the sign is for Ahaz and Isaiah!!!!! NOT SOME FUTURE DATE, OR PEOPLE!

8:1 Here he is told to record concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. His ceremonial name.

8:3 He wrote - And I (Isaiah)went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz (Fast to the plunder, swift to the prey.)

8:8 Tells us HE, EMMANUEL.

8:18 Here ISAIAH tells us HE and his CHILDREN are for SIGNS, just as it says up in 7:13-14 and 8:3!

Isa 8:18 Behold, I (Isaiah) and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Isa 7:8 even gives us a time - ...,and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

If you look up Emmanuel in a Strong's, for instance, it will tell you Emmanuel is the name of Isaiah's son - also called Mahershalalhashbaz - Isa 8:3!

*

Click to expand...

There are no verses that say this.

First of all it does not say that Isiah will be given the sign only Ahaz. Secondly the sign is given to Ahaz but not one that he wants but one that God chooses and therefore it is not necessary for the sign to be directly pertininent to Ahaz.

There is no connection between this name and Immanuel.

That is what Mahershalalhashbaz is. However Immanuel is not named as a son of Isaiah. One must obsevere that one son is named but Immanuel isn't. I would expect if he were a son of Isaiah that he would be named as one just as his other son was.

I believe this is a separate prophecy before the sign.

I believe an attribution by Stong does not trump the word of God.

Muffled said:

INANNA - WOW! An oldie. What verse and number?
8:8 & 8:10.

Click to expand...

Again - This is Isaiah's son Immanuel, - nicknamed Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 8 is about him, - Verse one tells us so.

Even your Strong's will tell you this. H4122 & H6005

Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a maiden/virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This sign is for AHAZ whom is with ISAIAH - during this WAR, - not for some people 700 years later. They use BOTH name during THIS WAR.

*
Isa 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Isa 8:5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Isa 8:6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

Isa 8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

Isa 8:9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

Isa 8:10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

Immanuel means - God is with us - because he was a sign, to Isaiah (Isaiah's son) and the troops, that they would triumph.

Isa 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Mahershalalhashbaz and Immanuel are only used twice each in this WAR story, where God gives a sign - saying to go into the women - and the result is the SIGN = Immanuel - Mahershalalhashbaz.

*

Let me ask you this : ... what is your faith based on ? Jesus ? God ? Mathew ? The Pope ?...
Men are not perfect, not even the apostles... so why does your faith crumble upon such a little thing ? The bible is a compendium of books written mostly by men. But sometimes men are witness of extra ordinary things or events.
Have you ever seen a sport match directly and disagreed with the radio comments on the events ? Does it diminished in any way the experience ? When you are a fan, you have a natural tendency to exagerate the facts. But sometimes the Event is greater than your exagerations.

To me the Christian religion has woven Jesus' story into the old testament, just to make it fit, which would be easy to do.

psychoslice said:

To me the Christian religion has woven Jesus' story into the old testament, just to make it fit, which would be easy to do.

Click to expand...

It was, if anything, the other way around.

Muffled said:

There are no verses that say this.

First of all it does not say that Isiah will be given the sign only Ahaz. Secondly the sign is given to Ahaz but not one that he wants but one that God chooses and therefore it is not necessary for the sign to be directly pertininent to Ahaz.

There is no connection between this name and Immanuel.

That is what Mahershalalhashbaz is. However Immanuel is not named as a son of Isaiah. One must obsevere that one son is named but Immanuel isn't. I would expect if he were a son of Isaiah that he would be named as one just as his other son was.

I believe this is a separate prophecy before the sign.

Click to expand...

I still see, you are ignoring the whole sign for about the war against Israel and Aram, in favour of mangling one verse.

It's no wonder I don't take Christianity seriously, when we have some Christians cherry-picking verses, and twisting it so you can say "Jesus". Talk about desperation, and blind faith.

Jesus didn't write any part of the gospel, and I doubt that he gave an account of his birth to the author, especially when the author didn't witness Mary's pregnancy nor Jesus' birth, and that it differed greatly from Luke's gospel.

I am not saying that the gospel of Luke is the correct version. They both sound "made up".

Matthew, or whoever actually wrote this gospel, can quote whatever he like, but that doesn't mean his interpretation is correct, especially when he ignore the context of the whole chapter in Isaiah's.

Ingledsva said:

Again - This is Isaiah's son Immanuel, - nicknamed Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 8 is about him, - Verse one tells us so.

Even your Strong's will tell you this. H4122 & H6005

Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a maiden/virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This sign is for AHAZ whom is with ISAIAH - during this WAR, - not for some people 700 years later. They use BOTH name during THIS WAR.

*
Isa 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Isa 8:5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Isa 8:6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

Isa 8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

Isa 8:9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

Isa 8:10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

Immanuel means - God is with us - because he was a sign, to Isaiah (Isaiah's son) and the troops, that they would triumph.

Isa 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Mahershalalhashbaz and Immanuel are only used twice each in this WAR story, where God gives a sign - saying to go into the women - and the result is the SIGN = Immanuel - Mahershalalhashbaz.

*

Click to expand...

Please highlight the name Immanuel in this verse for me:
Isa. 81 ¶ And Jehovah said unto me, Take thee a great tablet, and write upon it with the pen of a man, For Maher-shalal-hash-baz;

I can see wher you might make a big deal out of the "you" here but there is nothing in the verse that justifies a big deal. For instance I can tell you that I am giving you a sign that I saw a deer run across the raod in fron of me but that does not mean that a deer is going to run across the road in front of you. Again prophets were given signs of things to come with long lead times for their fulfillment so the gift of a sign does not guarantee immediate fulfillment.

I believe this is not part of the meaning but unjustified assumption on your part.

Psychoslice said "To me the Christian religion has woven Jesus' story into the old testament, just to make it fit, which would be easy to do."

I believe the writers wrote with the aid of the Holy Spirit and were not weaving anything into the propehcies that was not there.

gnostic said:

I still see, you are ignoring the whole sign for about the war against Israel and Aram, in favour of mangling one verse.

It's no wonder I don't take Christianity seriously, when we have some Christians cherry-picking verses, and twisting it so you can say "Jesus". Talk about desperation, and blind faith.

Jesus didn't write any part of the gospel, and I doubt that he gave an account of his birth to the author, especially when the author didn't witness Mary's pregnancy nor Jesus' birth, and that it differed greatly from Luke's gospel.

I am not saying that the gospel of Luke is the correct version. They both sound "made up".

Matthew, or whoever actually wrote this gospel, can quote whatever he like, but that doesn't mean his interpretation is correct, especially when he ignore the context of the whole chapter in Isaiah's.

Click to expand...

I believe I am not ignoring it but am giving it the due inferences it deserves.

I believe not being able to see should cause one to want to become a Christian so he could see.

I don't believe I am doing any of that.

I believe you have ignored the whole chapter in Isaiah.

Muffled said:

I believe you have ignored the whole chapter in Isaiah.

Click to expand...

Your dishonesty has been noted.

Since I have started contributing to this topic here, I've done everything I can in pointing out the sign relating to the war in Isaiah's and Ahaz's time in ISAIAH 7:1, all the way to the last verse, as well as that of the next chapter - Isaiah 8.

So for you to state that I have been ignoring the whole chapter, only confirmed that I can't trust what you say.

All you are doing is attempting to validate Matthew's flawed reinterpretation of Isaiah's single verse (7:14), which ignored the rest of the sign given in 7:15-17.

The sign in 7:14-17 is very similar to that of 8:3-4, and only dishonest Christians (and that would included whoever author of the gospel) would ignored that chapters 7 and 8.

Muffled said:

I believe I am not ignoring it but am giving it the due inferences it deserves.

Click to expand...

Which mean, you are ignoring the chapter and the complete sign.

The child born to the young woman (7:14) is linked to the two kings (Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel) in 7:16, and how the king of Assyria would intervene in the war (7:17). This event should happened when the boy reach a certain age, hence -

Isaiah 7:15-16 said:

15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

Click to expand...

The importance of the sign is - "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted" - when the boy reached the age of being to distinguish good from bad and eat honey and curds, and not because the son wrongly interpreted that he will be born from Virgin.

This sign relates to the war in 2 Kings 16:5-9 and 2 Kings 15:29.

Clearly the other part of sign (7:15-17) doesn't relate to jesus, which would mean Immanuel in 7:14 have nothing to do with Jesus too.

Muffled said:

Please highlight the name Immanuel in this verse for me:
Isa. 81 ¶ And Jehovah said unto me, Take thee a great tablet, and write upon it with the pen of a man, For Maher-shalal-hash-baz;

I can see wher you might make a big deal out of the "you" here but there is nothing in the verse that justifies a big deal. For instance I can tell you that I am giving you a sign that I saw a deer run across the raod in fron of me but that does not mean that a deer is going to run across the road in front of you. Again prophets were given signs of things to come with long lead times for their fulfillment so the gift of a sign does not guarantee immediate fulfillment.

I believe this is not part of the meaning but unjustified assumption on your part.

Click to expand...

Maher-shalal-hash-baz; is the ceremonial name of Immanuel.

The whole section takes place at the same time, during a war, in which they were told to ask for a sign from God that the tide would change. Immanuel - God is with us - is that sign. It has nothing to do with some future Jesus.

Isaiah tells us he and his children are for SIGNS from YHVH.

Even a Strong's will give this basic information. You can also Google it.

*

Ingledsva said:

Maher-shalal-hash-baz; is the ceremonial name of Immanuel.

The whole section takes place at the same time, during a war, in which they were told to ask for a sign from God that the tide would change. Immanuel - God is with us - is that sign. It has nothing to do with some future Jesus.

Isaiah tells us he and his children are for SIGNS from YHVH.

Even a Strong's will give this basic information. You can also Google it.

*

Click to expand...

I believe this is not a highlight of the name Immanuel but an unsubstantiated equating of the name Maershala hash baz with Immanuel. That equating can't be found in that verse so where do you think you find it.

gnostic said:

Your dishonesty has been noted.

Since I have started contributing to this topic here, I've done everything I can in pointing out the sign relating to the war in Isaiah's and Ahaz's time in ISAIAH 7:1, all the way to the last verse, as well as that of the next chapter - Isaiah 8.

So for you to state that I have been ignoring the whole chapter, only confirmed that I can't trust what you say.

All you are doing is attempting to validate Matthew's flawed reinterpretation of Isaiah's single verse (7:14), which ignored the rest of the sign given in 7:15-17.

The sign in 7:14-17 is very similar to that of 8:3-4, and only dishonest Christians (and that would included whoever author of the gospel) would ignored that chapters 7 and 8.


Which mean, you are ignoring the chapter and the complete sign.

The child born to the young woman (7:14) is linked to the two kings (Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel) in 7:16, and how the king of Assyria would intervene in the war (7:17). This event should happened when the boy reach a certain age, hence -


The importance of the sign is - "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted" - when the boy reached the age of being to distinguish good from bad and eat honey and curds, and not because the son wrongly interpreted that he will be born from Virgin.

This sign relates to the war in 2 Kings 16:5-9 and 2 Kings 15:29.

Clearly the other part of sign (7:15-17) doesn't relate to jesus, which would mean Immanuel in 7:14 have nothing to do with Jesus too.

Click to expand...

I assure you that I honestly believe what I said.

I believe you think that means you have considered the whole chapter but I find your view lacking.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premise is false.

I believe you are attributing things to me that I am not doing. I am looking at the passage and understanding what it says in lihgt of the fact that the Paraclete has informed Matthew of its meaning.

I have not ignored anything so your conclusion is false. I honestly have investigated all that has been said.

I believe you have misquoted the verse Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, ...
It does not say "when" as you say but "before."

I beleive people say this when they can't prove their point. I clearly see it differently.

Muffled said:

I assure you that I honestly believe what I said.

I believe you think that means you have considered the whole chapter but I find your view lacking.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premise is false.

I believe you are attributing things to me that I am not doing. I am looking at the passage and understanding what it says in lihgt of the fact that the Paraclete has informed Matthew of its meaning.

I have not ignored anything so your conclusion is false. I honestly have investigated all that has been said.

I believe you have misquoted the verse Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, ...
It does not say "when" as you say but "before."

I beleive people say this when they can't prove their point. I clearly see it differently.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the fact that the whole sign (7:14-17) relate to the child being born in Ahaz's and Isaiah's time, when Israel and Aram had already attack Judah and were attacking the capital (Jerusalem), in Isaiah 7:1, and the sign that indicated that fairly soon Assyria will be the one who will attack both Israel and Aram, hence 7:15-16 indicate it will happened shortly before the child know the difference good and evil.

The sign indicate the child's birth (son to young woman) is the same child in verses 15 &16, therefore the fulfilment of the complete sign is imminent and Immanuel is contemporary to Isaiah, not to 1st century BCE Herod the Great.

But we know the identity of the child Immanuel as being the son of Isaiah and prophetess - Maher-shalal-hash-baz - because of the similar sign given in Isaiah 8:2-4. Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The birth of son, Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz the boy reaching a certain age, will indicate the end of hostilities towards Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah.

In fact, Immanuel again is mentioned in Isaiah 8, in relation to Rezin and Pekah and to the king of Assyria, actually indicated further just how far remove Immanuel is to Jesus:

Isaiah 8:6-8 said:

6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before[c] Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Click to expand...

And again in 8:9-10, with "God is with us":

Isaiah 8:9-10 said:

9 Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed;
gird yourselves and be dismayed!
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.[d]

Click to expand...

This child (Immanuel) has nothing to do with Jesus, because jesus had nothing to do with the two kings - in verses 7:1-9 & 7:16 - and nothing to do with the king of Assyria - in Isaiah 7:18 & 7:19-25.

The whole point of the sign relate to the war in Judah in Isaiah's time not of Herod's time.

That's what Matthew 2 is ignoring. And that's what you are ignoring. The sign in Isaiah doesn't relate to Jesus if you read all of Isaiah 7 along with Isaiah 8.

gnostic said:

You are ignoring the fact that the whole sign (7:14-17) relate to the child being born in Ahaz's and Isaiah's time, when Israel and Aram had already attack Judah and were attacking the capital (Jerusalem), in Isaiah 7:1, and the sign that indicated that fairly soon Assyria will be the one who will attack both Israel and Aram, hence 7:15-16 indicate it will happened shortly before the child know the difference good and evil.

The sign indicate the child's birth (son to young woman) is the same child in verses 15 &16, therefore the fulfilment of the complete sign is imminent and Immanuel is contemporary to Isaiah, not to 1st century BCE Herod the Great.

But we know the identity of the child Immanuel as being the son of Isaiah and prophetess - Maher-shalal-hash-baz - because of the similar sign given in Isaiah 8:2-4. Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The birth of son, Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz the boy reaching a certain age, will indicate the end of hostilities towards Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah.

In fact, Immanuel again is mentioned in Isaiah 8, in relation to Rezin and Pekah and to the king of Assyria, actually indicated further just how far remove Immanuel is to Jesus:

And again in 8:9-10, with "God is with us":


This child (Immanuel) has nothing to do with Jesus, because jesus had nothing to do with the two kings - in verses 7:1-9 & 7:16 - and nothing to do with the king of Assyria - in Isaiah 7:18 & 7:19-25.

The whole point of the sign relate to the war in Judah in Isaiah's time not of Herod's time.

That's what Matthew 2 is ignoring. And that's what you are ignoring. The sign in Isaiah doesn't relate to Jesus if you read all of Isaiah 7 along with Isaiah 8.

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is evidence to support that concept so I am not ignoring something because it just is not there.

I believe there is no "shortly" in the text.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise because the premise is false.

I believe there is no such verse that states that so your knowledge comes from your own conjuring imagination.

I believe your reasoning here is flawed but it is incomplete so I can't tell where it is flawed. Are you saying that there is a direct tie of Immanuel to those people. In other words that God is tied up in those people so He can't do anything else? I don't believe that to be true.

I beleive this is the null hypothesis which means you would have to prove that Jesus must have something to do with the two kings.

I don't believe that can be proven.

I believe at this point you are just repeating things that you have not proven.

Muffled said:

I don't believe there is evidence to support that concept so I am not ignoring something because it just is not there.

I believe there is no "shortly" in the text.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise because the premise is false.

I believe there is no such verse that states that so your knowledge comes from your own conjuring imagination.

I believe your reasoning here is flawed but it is incomplete so I can't tell where it is flawed. Are you saying that there is a direct tie of Immanuel to those people. In other words that God is tied up in those people so He can't do anything else? I don't believe that to be true.

I beleive this is the null hypothesis which means you would have to prove that Jesus must have something to do with the two kings.

I don't believe that can be proven.

I believe at this point you are just repeating things that you have not proven.

Click to expand...

Actually he is correct as you have been shown before.

The whole story surrounds Isaiah, in a war they appear to be losing.

THEY are told to ask for a sign.

God gives them a sign.

The other is told to RECORD THE SIGN and EVENTS,- not a future prophecy.

Isaiah is told to go into the Temple Virgin/Maiden - and she conceives.

The other records the events.

The special child of Isaiah and the Temple Virgin/Maiden is named Immanuel - meaning God is with us - a special SIGN from God.

Even Christian texts like Strong's will tell you Immanuel is Isaiah's son.

The whole story takes place during ONE war - and that is obvious when you start looking at the text before - and after - the birth story.

*

Muffled said:

I don't believe there is evidence to support that concept so I am not ignoring something because it just is not there.

Click to expand...

Everything is there, in that chapter, and that sign relates to that chapter, and nothing in that chapter relates to the sign being the "messiah". You, and Christians like you, have gone off-script as Matthew or whoever the gospel author was.

The sign is relating to the war, to Ahaz's contemporaries.

The same war is given in Isaiah 8 too, with a similar sign and outcome. Chapters 7 & 8 are talking about the same, so the child born as a sign of how Assyria will ruin the lands (Aram and Israel) of TWO KINGS (Rezin and Pekah) does implied that the child of 2 chapters are one and the same - the son of Isaiah - Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

And to top it all up, Isaiah revealed that Isaiah and his sons were the sign of imminent things to come (8:18):

Isaiah 8:18 said:

18 See, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Click to expand...

How do you deny this verse?

It is not there for you because you are ignorantly biased, because you refused to look at those chapters as they are written in those 2 chapters.

I am neither Jewish, nor Christian, but even I can see that Jews interpretation to Isaiah 7's sign don't relate to Jesus, because it was never about the messiah; it was about a war that Ahaz thought he was losing, and the sign was that pretty soon, Assyria will get involved in the war., and that's what the sign about.

The child is really not important, but the event to come , will happen when the son reach a certain age:

Isaiah 7:14-17 said:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Click to expand...

Isaiah 8:3-4 said:

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

Click to expand...

The important part of the signs is in red and in blue.
In red are the indication of WHEN it will happen, and in blue, are WHAT and HOW it will happen, the event.

No where in the 2 chapters, state that will grow up to be an adult, teach, perform miracles and raise from the dead.

No where in the 2 chapters to indicate that the son born will is a literal god or son of god, which Christians believe in. To Jews, such idea god become a man, or being the son of god, is sacrilege.

You are wrong. Matthew (or whoever is the gospel author) and his and your interpretations are wrong.

Muffled said:

I assure you that I honestly believe what I said.

I believe you think that means you have considered the whole chapter but I find your view lacking.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premise is false.

I believe you are attributing things to me that I am not doing. I am looking at the passage and understanding what it says in lihgt of the fact that the Paraclete has informed Matthew of its meaning.

I have not ignored anything so your conclusion is false. I honestly have investigated all that has been said.

I believe you have misquoted the verse Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, ...
It does not say "when" as you say but "before."

I beleive people say this when they can't prove their point. I clearly see it differently.

Click to expand...

Don't let them ruffle you.

They are presenting a slant of the situation just as they are confused at the matter.

Matthew never said that the birth of Jesus was foreshadowed by Immanuel and it matters not whether he was or he wasn't once we have compared other scripture which shows the purpose of the Messiah's being born to regenerate the spirit in the heart of the people and furnish them a release from their bondage. (A similar purpose for Immanuel's birth in Isaiah's day regardless of the different setting.)

Matthew may well have simply used a writer's prerogative (or the angel that spoke a speaker's prerogative) being as this child would serve a similar purpose unto the people in their day, unrelated to Isaiah's day in any way but by the waning hope of the people needing boosting by some sort of a sign from God that God was yet with them.

Like I said, Don't let them stir you as we readily can understand that they have their reasons for desiring to see it the way they do.

Let us not get caught in the same rut of seeing only one angle when there are more angles than they represent which also should be considered.

Their musing is just what people do when they do not really understand something and it is not only quite normal but also is common to us all.

Mountain_Climber said:

Matthew never said that the birth of Jesus was foreshadowed by Immanuel and it matters not whether he was or he wasn't once we have compared other scripture which shows the purpose of the Messiah's being born to regenerate the spirit in the heart of the people and furnish them a release from their bondage. (A similar purpose for Immanuel's birth in Isaiah's day regardless of the different setting.)

Matthew may well have simply used a writer's prerogative (or the angel that spoke a speaker's prerogative) being as this child would serve a similar purpose unto the people in their day, unrelated to Isaiah's day in any way but by the waning hope of the people needing boosting by some sort of a sign from God that God was yet with them.

Click to expand...

In other words, those who persistently distorted Isaiah 7:14 claiming that is prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus may well have been wrong.

After 57 pages, I suppose that this level of (begrudging) consensus is about the best we can hope for. Good job.

Jayhawker Soule said:

In other words, those who persistently distorted Isaiah 7:14 claiming that is prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus may well have been wrong.

After 57 pages, I suppose that this level of (begrudging) consensus is about the best we can hope for. Good job.

Click to expand...

The interpreters of Matthews words have been wrong in many ways. Men do tend to over-read into such texts.