Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Sort of irrelevant, anyone can have biases that might make them believe something false. Midrash would be just as biased to it's agenda as any Christian perspective, etc., if we employ that logic.

The problem is that Christian perspective in the case of Matthew 1:22-23 is that both Matthew and Christian in general are cherry picking a verse (and only just one verse) in Isaiah 7, thereby ignoring 3 other relevant verses in that sign, so that they can justify Jesus' miraculous virgin birth.

I am neither Jew nor Christian, but even I can see that Matthew have deliberately misquoted the verse, and changing the meaning of the sign as being a prophecy of the messiah (which is clearly not), so they can declare:

"It's a MIRACLE!"
​

To my mind, it is one of the character flaws that some of the Christians have. They only see that Jesus is their messiah, and nothing else matter, and that's bias. It is bias, especially when they ignored the whole chapter in favor of just one tiny verse that they can twist out-of-context.

CG Didymus is not just about that one verse, but the whole chapter. It is about how one verse is related to the surrounding text. And when you look at verse 14, along with 15, 16 and 17, you will see why the sign was given in the first place, when it will take place.

Both translations - JPS and NRSV - clearly indicated the young woman was already pregnant...and when she do give birth, not only shall she called him Immanuel (7:14, 8:3), but that before the boy knows the difference between right and wrong (7:16, or before the boy could say "my mother" or "my father", 8:4), the matter of Israel and Aram besieging Jerusalem (7:1) will be settled by the King of Assyria (7:16-17, and in 8:4).

I don't see why it is so hard to understand this.

It is also not hard to see that Matthew had relied on the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, hence the change from almah (young woman) to parthenos (virgin). The sign is not about a virgin giving birth to a son, but how old the son will be, before the situation that began at 7:1 changed in favor of Judah over Ahaz's enemies. That's the real sign.

All it take is to read chapter 7 and chapter 8 of Isaiah, to see and know what Matthew have quoted and claim, to be untrue...or only true, if they (Christians) rely on Matthew's gospel alone in interpreting the sign of the original passage.

 

[InChrist]

So were the people who worshiped the golden calf.

I like that response! And it is a good reminder that anyone is vulnerable to deception and falling into idol worship like the Israelites. The difference is that the first Jewish believers in Christ (unlike the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf) knew the scriptures and Jesus personally, so they could compare Christ to God’s Word. That is the reason testing everything according to the scriptures is so important.

You say that because you already come from a position that what they say is correct. If you bothered to read a little bit of context... in some cases, even just one sentence before or after a given verse, you might notice that certain Christian claims regarding old testament prophecies don't add up.

I have read the sentences before and after and the whole books of the OT and the NT and taken as a whole it adds up perfectly as God’s progressive revelation concerning the promised Messiah.

Or, they deliberately ripped verses out of context to sell a story to people who wouldn't know any better (i.e. the non-Jewish early Christians).

Except that the apostles like Peter and others first spoke to Jewish listeners and showed from the prophetic scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. If their story didn’t line up it could have been easily refuted and stopped in its tracks by those who knew the scriptures, but it wasn’t.

Such as?

[/quote]

There are prophecies which say Messiah would suffer for the sins of the people, then there are those which say He would conquer Israel’s enemies, rule and reign from David’s throne and bring peace. I believe these two different descriptions and scenarios concerning the Savior indicate two distinct purposes and comings.

 

[Desert Snake]

The problem is that Christian perspective in the case of Matthew 1:22-23 is that both Matthew and Christian in general are cherry picking a verse (and only just one verse) in Isaiah 7, thereby ignoring 3 other relevant verses in that sign, so that they can justify Jesus' miraculous virgin birth.

The problem is that it may very well imply a virgin birth, I think it might.

I am neither Jew nor Christian, but even I can see that Matthew have deliberately

Nope, if untrue it could be an honest mistake actually.

To my mind, it is one of the character flaws that some of the Christians have. They only see that Jesus is their messiah, and nothing else matter, and that's bias. It is bias, especially when they ignored the whole chapter in favor of just one tiny verse that they can twist out-of-context.

Like I said, there are to my mind at least errors in Judaism interpretations also, it's not exclusive to Christians.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I like that response! And it is a good reminder that anyone is vulnerable to deception and falling into idol worship like the Israelites. The difference is that the first Jewish believers in Christ (unlike the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf) knew the scriptures and Jesus personally, so they could compare Christ to God’s Word. That is the reason testing everything according to the scriptures is so important.

Those who worshiped the golden calf personally heard God speak the first two of the ten commandments (y'know... the ones against idolatry). Didn't stop them from doing the wrong thing. Similarly, those who knew Jesus personally did the wrong thing by believing in him.

I have read the sentences before and after and the whole books of the OT and the NT and taken as a whole it adds up perfectly as God’s progressive revelation concerning the promised Messiah.

No, it doesn't.

Except that the apostles like Peter and others first spoke to Jewish listeners and showed from the prophetic scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. If their story didn’t line up it could have been easily refuted and stopped in its tracks by those who knew the scriptures, but it wasn’t.

Or it was, at which point they started preaching to non-Jews who didn't know any better.

There are prophecies which say Messiah would suffer for the sins of the people,

:no:

then there are those which say He would conquer Israel’s enemies, rule and reign from David’s throne and bring peace.

:yes:

I believe these two different descriptions and scenarios concerning the Savior indicate two distinct purposes and comings.

You are mistaken.

 

[gnostic]

The problem is that it may very well imply a virgin birth, I think it might.

:yes: it is indeed a "virgin birth"...but only in Matthew 1, context-wise; but not in Isaiah 7.

No matter how you look at Isaiah 7, the virgin birth don't fit into the chapter.

To me, Matthew had misquoted Isaiah 7:14.

The messiah don't also fit into the chapter. Nothing in the chapter (Isaiah 7) say that the child will be the "anointed one", king, high priest or prophet.

The sign is about the changing tide: when the boy reach a certain age born to an almah, the outcome for Judah that the king of Assyria would save Ahaz's kingdom from Aram and Israel.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by disciple
Sort of irrelevant, anyone can have biases that might make them believe something false. Midrash would be just as biased to it's agenda as any Christian perspective, etc., if we employ that logic.

The problem is that Christian perspective in the case of Matthew 1:22-23 is that both Matthew and Christian in general are cherry picking a verse (and only just one verse) in Isaiah 7, thereby ignoring 3 other relevant verses in that sign, so that they can justify Jesus' miraculous virgin birth.

I am neither Jew nor Christian, but even I can see that Matthew have deliberately misquoted the verse, and changing the meaning of the sign as being a prophecy of the messiah (which is clearly not), so they can declare:

"It's a MIRACLE!"​

​

Hi gnostic, Yes, your following three words reveal the position from which you have been concluding your opinion----"To my mind".
As stated at the bottom of your posts---"Myths", therefore, your bias.

The Scriptures did have a starting point---Genesis 1:1. That position was prior to any distinctive groups of peoples. In fact, the scriptures declare that to the Creator GOD, one person is just as accepted in HIS view as any other.
ALL persons were declared as needing to be "Reconciled to GOD" and GOD had made a plan by which that reconciliation could be a reality. That was revealed to Adam and Eve(Gen3:15)---in the "seed of the woman". That "one verse" was the "prophecy" which was further elucidated in Isa.7:14(one verse) and fulfilled as seen in Matt.1:23. YES, it was, indeed, a miraculous birth.

Matthew didn't take anything "out of context". The Angel explained to Joseph God's plan and the why.
Matt.16:15-16, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ(Messiah), the Son of the living God."

John 6:67-69, "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,(Messiah) the Son of the living God. "

Jesus is the same promised "seed of the woman" foretold in Genesis and seen in Isa.7:14.

As you wrote, "Why is that hard to understand?"
Isaiah's child, as seen in (Isaiah 8:18),is the one you keep insisting is the future "Virgin's" of (7:14).

Both translations - JPS and NRSV - clearly indicated the young woman was already pregnant...and when she do give birth, not only shall she called him Immanuel (7:14, 8:3), but that before the boy knows the difference between right and wrong (7:16, or before the boy could say "my mother" or "my father", 8:4), the matter of Israel and Aram besieging Jerusalem (7:1) will be settled by the King of Assyria (7:16-17, and in 8:4).

"Already pregnant"? None of the other translations are contradictory. Joseph was informed of the prophetic use of the womb of Mary for the bringing forth in "humanity" the Saviour of the world.---Just as written by Matthew many years after the fact, as seen and acknowledged above.

The Roman Empire wasn't under any threat from any other Nation at that time.(The birth of Jesus).
However, that doesn't diminish the fact that Isa.7:14 pointed to the "fullness of time" accomplishment for/of Jesus' Birth---at the proper time in earth's history.​

It is also not hard to see that Matthew had relied on the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, hence the change from almah (young woman) to parthenos (virgin). The sign is not about a virgin giving birth to a son, but how old the son will be, before the situation that began at 7:1 changed in favor of Judah over Ahaz's enemies. That's the real sign.

All it take is to read chapter 7 and chapter 8 of Isaiah, to see and know what Matthew have quoted and claim, to be untrue...or only true, if they (Christians) rely on Matthew's gospel alone in interpreting the sign of the original passage.

Gnostic, sexual impurity wasn't tolerated by GOD among HIS People. That is what you are implying. Whether "almah" or "parthenos" Females(and males) of the people of GOD were to remain "chaste" until marriage.----the "twain shall by one flesh".

 

[sincerly]

Those who worshiped the golden calf personally heard God speak the first two of the ten commandments (y'know... the ones against idolatry). Didn't stop them from doing the wrong thing. Similarly, those who knew Jesus personally did the wrong thing by believing in him.

The first part is correct, but the second part is false. Those Jews who had the "Oracles given to them from Sinai" rejected Jesus as the Prophets had prophesied and the people fulfilled ant HIS Coming. The "non-Jews" were given the banquet meal which the refused by the initial "called to partake".

Except that the apostles like Peter and others first spoke to Jewish listeners and showed from the prophetic scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. If their story didn’t line up it could have been easily refuted and stopped in its tracks by those who knew the scriptures, but it wasn’t.

No, it doesn't.

Or it was, at which point they started preaching to non-Jews who didn't know any better.

At this point, the Jewish leaders had rejected the sound advice of Gamaliel who warned: Acts 5:38-39, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. "".
Fast forward to Acts15 and 24, The Pharisees and Scribes were still rejecting the truths the OT Scriptures taught.

There are prophecies which say Messiah would suffer for the sins of the people,

:no:

Isa.53 is GOD's testimony that you are in error. Believe as you choose! The question put to the people by Pilate is still a valid one----"What shall I do with Jesus"?

 

[gnostic]

Matthew didn't take anything "out of context". The Angel explained to Joseph God's plan and the why.

Yes, the angel did explain to Joseph why he shouldn't leave the pregnant Mary (Matthew 1:20-21), BUT IT WASN'T THE ANGEL who quoted Isaiah 7:14 verse. Matthew was the one who quoted this verse (Matthew 1:23), not the angel...not unless you think the angel and Matthew are the one and same.

Did you notice the two DOUBLE-QUOTE?

The 1st double-quote started in verse 20, when the angel started to speak, then it ended at the end of verse, with the 2nd DOUBLE-QUOTE. That's the length of the angel's advice to Joseph.

If the angel had quoted from Isaiah 7:14, why didn't the angel use Hebrew instead of the Greek translation? Joseph, Jesus and Matthew are supposed to be Jews, right? And Isaiah was Jewish, wasn't he? And the text was originally written in Hebrew, right?

And the angel said he (Joseph) was to name the child - JESUS (Matthew 1:21), not "Immanuel", in which Matthew quoted from Isaiah 7:14.

Get yourself a new pair of glasses, and learn how to read in English...particularly pay attention to full-stop, comma, double-quote, etc. :foot:

That "one verse" was the "prophecy" which was further elucidated in Isa.7:14(one verse) and fulfilled as seen in Matt.1:23. YES, it was, indeed, a miraculous birth.

Again, you fail to take into account the COMPLETE SIGN (Isaiah 7:14-17); the sign in which, when the child reach a certain age (7:16), Assyria (7:17) will rid of Israel and Aram that have besieged Jerusalem (back in Isaiah 7:1), Ahaz's enemies will trouble Judah no more (7:16-17).

Do you really not see Isaiah 7:1 and 7:14-17?
Are you so willfully blind and ignorant that you will ignore the entire chapter for a single verse? A verse that has no relevancy to the Messiah in any way.
​

You've failed to read the whole chapter, so YES, you are taking the single verse out-of-context, as Matthew had.

And why did Isaiah used the name Immanuel, again (in Isaiah 8: with regards to the sign of Isaiah and his sons (Isaiah 8:18)?

ALL persons were declared as needing to be "Reconciled to GOD" and GOD had made a plan by which that reconciliation could be a reality. That was revealed to Adam and Eve(Gen3:15)---in the "seed of the woman". That "one verse" was the "prophecy" which was further elucidated in Isa.7:14(one verse) and fulfilled as seen in Matt.1:23. YES, it was, indeed, a miraculous birth.

Again, you are taking a single verse out-of-context.

I see nothing about reconciliation in Genesis 3:15, but enmity between humans and serpents or snakes. I seriously don't see how Genesis 3:15 relate to Isaiah 7 or Matthew 1.

You're trying to build a palace out of an ant-hill. Seeing what you want to see, reading into thing that are not there.

Look, sincerly. I am not saying that Jesus' birth is not miraculous if it is true. Yes, I can read both Matthew 1 & 2 and Luke 1 & 2, and understand (and believe) they both say that Mary had conceived the child through the Holy Spirit. I actually understand the Christian concept of the virgin birth, and why it is important. Nevertheless, Matthew did misuse Isaiah 7:14, through misinterpreting it.

And all I see from you is defending your position (and Matthew's), but given what both chapters say in Isaiah 7 & 8, I have to say you're wrong.

Anyone with half-a-brain can see that chapter 7 has nothing to do with the messiah or Jesus, especially when you consider all the verses in the sign, and not just one verse.

 

[CG Didymus]

By your standards of recognizing prophecy, Moshe Shulman's rooster is the Messiah.

Qumran.ORG: Humour - Messianic rooster?

Sincerly, InChrist and others. We can't forget the Holy Rooster. Verses can be manipulated to mean whatever you want. Sure, Jesus is awesome. Sure, he has changed your life. Something as vague as Gen 3:15 can mean anything. If you want it, take it. Was it historically a prophecy of the Messiah? Was Isaiah 7:14 known to the Jews as a prophecy for their Messiah? I don't think so. Why wouldn't Jewish scholars have a list, "These are the prophecies the Messiah must fulfill." Or, did they? And, did Jesus fulfill them?

Christianity moved further and further away from what Judaism taught. Are you sure it was the same God telling both stories? Look what happened with this new religion. It became the Catholic Church. Did the Catholics come up with more stories to embellish virgin birth narratives? Yes they did. Mary and the Immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven, and her perpetual virginity. Do you believe them? Why not? Because it doesn't line up with Scripture? How about the one about Peter? Was he the "rock" on which the church was to be built? The early Christians thought so. Or, did they misquote, misinterpret and change words to get to that belief? It looks like Christians do make up stories.

What about all those Jews that followed this new religion? They believed Jesus was their true Messiah. They believed Paul and the gospels. They followed the succession of leadership from Peter to the Bishops of Rome. Where did this "new" church take them? Was that part of the prophecy? The religion built on the teachings of the Messiah was to have its headquarters in Rome? Once the "Messiah's" Church got established, what did that Roman Church look like? Should the Jews have converted to it? Or, did this new church look like a perversion of God's truth?

It's easy for Protestant Christians to look back and think that now they have it right. They cut the BS out of Christianity. They take only the Bible. But that is what I'm questioning, not taking things out of context is a basic requirement for developing your beliefs isn't it? Did Catholics misuse the Scriptures to gain power? What about all Christians, including the Protestants? Is Jesus the Messiah? Did he fulfill the prophecies? He definitely didn't bring peace. How can I judge if he's true or not? Because he was born of a virgin? It wasn't even a prophecy that the Jews were looking for. It sounds like an after-the-fact manufactured prophecy. I don't know; I'm going to check out this rooster.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Matthew didn't take anything "out of context". The Angel explained to Joseph God's plan and the why.

Yes, the angel did explain to Joseph why he shouldn't leave the pregnant Mary (Matthew 1:20-21), BUT IT WASN'T THE ANGEL who quoted Isaiah 7:14 verse. Matthew was the one who quoted this verse (Matthew 1:23), not the angel...not unless you think the angel and Matthew are the one and same.

The angel Gabriel and Matthew were well identified.

Jesus, after the Resurrection, met with the Disciples in the upper room(as is recorded in Luke 24:27, 44-48) and made these statements.
"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."

Gnostic, Matthew was one of those in that upper room and he recorded the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as we see and read in that "Gospel".

While you choose to fault it and have assigned "myth" to the Scriptures, I see and understand the validity of it all ; also, Yes(with Matthew), Jesus is/was the "Immanuel"("God with us") and Saviour of HIS people.

 

[gnostic]

While you choose to fault it and have assigned "myth" to the Scriptures, I see and understand the validity of it all ; also, Yes(with Matthew), Jesus is/was the "Immanuel"("God with us") and Saviour of HIS people.

No one is questioning whether Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 about Jesus' miraculous birth or Mary's miraculous conception. I understand very well, the theme (and plot) of Jesus' birth is about one of miracles, from both gospels. That's not really in question, in this topic.

The topic is about Isaiah 7 and whether Matthew (or whoever was the real author) had taken the verse out of context or not.

This topic is more about literary interpretation and literal analysis of the text in question (Isaiah 7), not about the validation of your belief. You can believe whatever you want.

Just for a moment, you forget about Jesus and Mary, and just read Isaiah 7 on its own.

1. What do you think is the theme of Isaiah 7?
2. What is chapter 7 about?
3. And just think for a moment, how do the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 relate to the rest of chapter?
4. How do the sign relate to Ahaz? Is the sign related to Ahaz and his kingdom?

When you can do that, then you will understand why I don't see how Isaiah 7:14 can be related to Mary or Jesus, without twisting the words to fit your belief.

When I first read Matthew's gospel (as a teenager), I actually didn't question Matthew's claim and quote. I didn't think to back-trace his quote, to Isaiah 7. I used to believe the Christian interpretations of the whole bible, because I lived in the neighborhood, surrounded by Christians, as well as by my older sister. I thought Matthew was correct.

But I'm older than now, and when I read any literature (not just the bible) I tried to trace back to the sources. I not only tried to understand the context of the quote, but where that quote from. This came from experience of reading translations of ancient and medieval literature, and researching various primary sources.

Sure, I don't always understand what I am reading, especially if the text go through symbolic metaphors or cryptic allegories (like part of Daniel or Revelation for examples). But in this case, with Isaiah 7, I understand quite well, and I am more than fairly certain that Matthew have misused and misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14, especially when Matthew failed to quote the complete sign (7:14-17).

What I find strange (and not at all surprising) is that you seemed to always verses 15, 16 and 17. You always skip over these verses as if they have no relevancy in understanding the context of chapter 7.

Why do you do that? Are you afraid to examine the complete sign?

 

[CG Didymus]

No one is questioning whether Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 about Jesus' miraculous birth or Mary's miraculous conception. I understand very well, the theme (and plot) of Jesus' birth is about one of miracles, from both gospels. That's not really in question, in this topic.

The topic is about Isaiah 7 and whether Matthew (or whoever was the real author) had taken the verse out of context or not.


When I first read Matthew's gospel (as a teenager), I actually didn't question Matthew's claim and quote. I didn't think to back-trace his quote, to Isaiah 7. I used to believe the Christian interpretations of the whole bible, because I lived in the neighborhood, surrounded by Christians, as well as by my older sister. I thought Matthew was correct.

Are you afraid to examine the complete sign?

I couldn't have said it better. No, literally, if I could have I would have. When I tried to be a Christian, I listened to all the preachers and teachers. I never ever heard the whole story. I don't remember ever hearing the name "Ahaz" or the two rival kingdoms. I never heard of the problem of "dual prophecy". I didn't take a critical look at what I had been told was the truth until four years later, when I started to doubt. Four years of studying mainly the NT with only a few selected verses or chapters in the Hebrew Bible. Did I ever believe 100% in a world-wide flood? Did I ever believe 100% that Moses had a walking stick that could turn into a snake? Did I ever question that there was a spirit being that was totally evil and could be essentially everywhere at the same time tempting people? I wondered and put it in the back of my mind because I was taught that to doubt was the devil trying to mess with you. But I did start doubting.

I wondered, if Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, and it was all prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, why were so many Jews refusing to believe in him? Verse after verse of mistranslated, misquoted, misinterpreted and taken out of context Scriptures. Who is lying? Or, to give Paul and the gospel writers the benefit of the doubt, who bent the truth enough to lean toward Jesus. Matthew, or whoever wrote the gospel, was easy pickings.

I have nothing against the good that Christianity can do for people and the world. But, if they are not Scripturally rock solid, then how are they different than any other religion? All religions can do good. But when any one religion thinks it is the only way, it better be able to prove it. Unfortunately, several religious groups think they are the only way. For me, it's the extreme literal view of any of the religions that is dangerous. I think extreme religious views have given birth to extreme reactions against it, from other religions and from those that wish religion would just go away.

My friends are Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Islamic, Catholic and Protestant, but none of them push their religion. It's more like it's what they grew up with. It's what gave them a good moral background, but they respect the other persons religion for being able to do the same for the other person. I know extreme Christianity thinks all non-saved people are going to hell. So it's great that you want to convince me of your truth. But before you convince me, you'll have to prove it with more than mythical sounding stories of God/men being born of a virgin.

 

[sincerly]

A young woman bearing a child is no sign. Young women having children is an everyday event. A virgin bearing a child on the other hand is a miraculous sign which only God could accomplish.

That's right. A virgin birth would be miraculous. So what happened in Isaiah's time? Was there a virgin then? Christians are either stuck with a dual prophecy problem, or that there wasn't any fulfillment in Isaiah's time. Then, Christians still have to explain how the rest of the "sign" has anything to do with Jesus. They can't. They have to ignore it. How strange is it that the non-Christians are supporting the use of the whole of the chapter, and the Christians are taking just one part of it. And, somehow convince themselves they are right.

Hi CG D, YES, I agree with you and 'In Christ' in "A virgin bearing a child on the other hand is a miraculous sign which only God could accomplish." That is what Isa.7:14 is concerning.
""""So what happened in Isaiah's time?"""" Both houses of Israel were in rebellion against GOD. Judah less so---if there is such.
The kingdom of Israel wanted to crush Judah and set up a king there(probably--from Persia Ezra 4:7) In Isa.7:7+, GOD said it wouldn't "come to pass". Also, within 65 years Ephraim would be broken/no longer a people and Pekah would be head of Syria. Therefore, GOD said, vs.9, in effect, ask a sign if you do not believe and your kingdom will not be established. As the activities recorded in 2Kings16 onward and 2Chron.28--29 add to the information, Ahaz didn't believe; Thusly, the Sign was given by GOD. (Isa.7:14) The "land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
Thus, the heading into the Babylonian Captivity. In which, GOD still directs the affairs of mankind--setting up and tearing down of kingdoms and Governments. Dan.9:24 is seen the "finishing of the transgression"; along with the the setting up of the kingdom of GOD which will last forever.----That "Miraculous Birth."

Isaiah's son by the prophetess is the "son" who fulfills the prophecy . "(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."

Christians lose their legitimacy by trying to force this and other verses into their "proofs". Sorry, I know belief in Jesus can change lives, but so can any religion. Christianity is absolutely dependent on the New Testament being truthful. How can I trust it with such glaring manipulations of the Hebrew Scriptures?

CG D, The same message that is in Matt.1:23 is seen in Luke 1:34-35
Matt.26:56 is consistent with Matt.1:22.
"But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled".

Nothing has to be "forced"---all a person has to do is understand the prophets messages rather than the "myths" some claim.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
While you choose to fault it and have assigned "myth" to the Scriptures, I see and understand the validity of it all ; also, Yes(with Matthew), Jesus is/was the "Immanuel"("God with us") and Saviour of HIS people.

No one is questioning whether Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 about Jesus' miraculous birth or Mary's miraculous conception. I understand very well, the theme (and plot) of Jesus' birth is about one of miracles, from both gospels. That's not really in question, in this topic.

The topic is about Isaiah 7 and whether Matthew (or whoever was the real author) had taken the verse out of context or not.

Hi Gnostic. I read what you have written, but it doesn't compute.
The "Virgin Birth" is definitely the topic/theme and a "prophetic sign". Also, a miraculous Birth.

This topic is more about literary interpretation and literal analysis of the text in question (Isaiah 7), not about the validation of your belief. You can believe whatever you want.

One can believe whatever one chooses----true, but the "interpretation of the scriptures" which are stated to be the messages from the living Creator GOD, is NOT based upon the "literary interpretation and literal anylasis" assigned by the Bias of the poster-----and one readilly sees your acknowledgement of the BIBLE----"Myth".

Just for a moment, you forget about Jesus and Mary, and just read Isaiah 7 on its own.

Gnostic, notice Isa.1:1, "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

In that message/vision, there is hope in the( vss.18-20), "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it]. "

The whole picture begins at Genesis 1:1 and ends with Rev.22:21 Ahaz was just one king that lead the people astray.
It is Isaiah's son, Mahershalalhashbaz(In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey) that fulfills the prophecy.
In Fulfilling Isa.61:1-2, Jesus stopped reading after "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."(Luke4:17-21)

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, notice Isa.1:1, "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Clearly, you can't even do a simple task of just reading Isaiah 7, ON ITS OWN. I didn't ask you to read Isaiah 1.

Or from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.

I only asked to read Isaiah 7 - just CHAPTER 7 - and considered the context of the whole chapter in context with the sign given in verses 14-17 - AND NOTHING ELSE.

I ask you to analyse chapter 7: to read the chapter and how the verses from 14 to 17 (the complete sign) is related to the event in chapter 7 (Ahaz, Ahaz's enemies, and the attack upon Jerusalem).

You remind me of guy I used to study with at uni. The subject was programming in C and C++. It should be obvious that he should do his assignment in C or C++ language. He is very intelligent, but he got a BIG FAT F.

Do you want to know why he failed his assignment?

Because he did his assignment in Assembly language.

It doesn't meet most of the requirements in the project; the language he had to use was C, not assembly language.

You are like this guy. You don't listen.

Isn't that 'bias"?

 

[gnostic]

When I tried to be a Christian, I listened to all the preachers and teachers. I never ever heard the whole story. I don't remember ever hearing the name "Ahaz" or the two rival kingdoms. I never heard of the problem of "dual prophecy".

When I read the gospel of Matthew in my late teen and early 20s, I took it at face value, this verse from Matthew (1:23) without question, because I didn't bother to check Isaiah 7. BTW, I did read book of Isaiah, but at that time, it just never occur to me that Matthew was wrong or the author misinterpret his source.

At that time, I didn't cross-reference any part that I had read, double check to see if any part of what I read do or don't match up.

Like you, I didn't look at the bible critically. I had accept the Christian interpretation.

Ever since I had started Timeless Myths website (which I had started in 1999), I had to do my own reading, my own researches, and I had to double-check what I've read, the context (of the chapters and passages) and the sources (both primary and alternatives). Starting this website also got me interested in reading religious literature.

Reading the bible again after all these years, as well as exploring other Judaeo-Christian literature (canonical and non-canonical) and pagan texts, I had looked at it with fresh eyes. It allowed me to challenge my previous interpretations (on the bible) of my youth. I think I understand the Bible better than I ever did before. I am not saying I know everything.

Sure, there are things I don't understand, and I guess some things will remain a mystery. That's why I ask questions in these forums, getting new ideas from other people. And it's why I contribute and share whatever I know or uncover.

I got a lot of surprises since I had joined RF. A lot my "revised" view on the bible, particularly relating to the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or OT), actually coincide with Jewish understanding of their scriptures (which sometimes differ from the Christian interpretations). So I don't think interpretation is so outlandish.

For instance, I no longer hold the view that Satan in the OT is the same as the NT Satan, aka Lucifer aka the Devil. I used to think as the Christians did (or do) that Satan of the OT was evil enemy of God. After revisiting the Book of Job, and all the "implied" references to Satan (such as the Serpent in Eden, or Isaiah 14) I realized that in Job, Satan is actually an angel working for God, not against him, and that Genesis 3 and Isaiah 14 had nothing to do with Satan.

Satan has changed during the inter-testimonial period, largely due to foreign influences (from the Persian Zoroastrianism and the Hellenistic Greek religions. And it is these influences that made Christianity different from Judaism of 6th century and earlier.

I have nothing against the good that Christianity can do for people and the world. But, if they are not Scripturally rock solid, then how are they different than any other religion? All religions can do good. But when any one religion thinks it is the only way, it better be able to prove it. Unfortunately, several religious groups think they are the only way. For me, it's the extreme literal view of any of the religions that is dangerous. I think extreme religious views have given birth to extreme reactions against it, from other religions and from those that wish religion would just go away.

My friends are Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Islamic, Catholic and Protestant, but none of them push their religion. It's more like it's what they grew up with. It's what gave them a good moral background, but they respect the other persons religion for being able to do the same for the other person. I know extreme Christianity thinks all non-saved people are going to hell. So it's great that you want to convince me of your truth. But before you convince me, you'll have to prove it with more than mythical sounding stories of God/men being born of a virgin.

I am not against Christianity, I am just no longer blinded by their interpretations of the scriptures, nor do I take what I read at face value or be bound by their views...if that make any sense to you.

 

[Muffled]

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 beleive the fact that it doesn't say redeemer is irrelevant.

This is oft stated but the reality is that a young girl is a virgin in a society where sex outside of marriage is against the law.

This has more to do with the meaning of the name than an actual name. It means God with us. That is what Jesus is. Besides called may not necessarily mean named as Jesus was called a Nazarene because He came from Nazareth.

The sign and the event are two different things. God never says that the events are the sign.

This is metaphoric and simply means old enough to be able to make choices for himself because society believes children are not mature enough to make choices.

 

[Muffled]

:yes: it is indeed a "virgin birth"...but only in Matthew 1, context-wise; but not in Isaiah 7.

No matter how you look at Isaiah 7, the virgin birth don't fit into the chapter.

To me, Matthew had misquoted Isaiah 7:14.

The messiah don't also fit into the chapter. Nothing in the chapter (Isaiah 7) say that the child will be the "anointed one", king, high priest or prophet.

The sign is about the changing tide: when the boy reach a certain age born to an almah, the outcome for Judah that the king of Assyria would save Ahaz's kingdom from Aram and Israel.

Matthew does not give the reference but simply says "spoken by the Lord through the prophet." I beleive references to Isa 7 are footnotes in the Bible put there by scholars responsible for footnotes.

I believe Jesus is Immanuel. That makes Him a fit.

I beleive it is irrelevant whether it says that or not.

I believe that is specualtive since there is no correlating evidence to support the concept.

 

[gnostic]

This has more to do with the meaning of the name than an actual name. It means God with us. That is what Jesus is. Besides called may not necessarily mean named as Jesus was called a Nazarene because He came from Nazareth.

Jesus was never named "Immanuel". In Joseph's dream, the angel told him he was to name Mary's son - Jesus (Matthew 1:21):

21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

The name Immanuel appeared in relation to the event in Isaiah 7:1, when Ahaz's enemies were besieging:

In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it.

Isaiah 7:16 indicate before the child know right and wrong, the war would have ended, like Green Kepi said.

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.

The sign mean more than just the meaning of the name "God with us". Have you consider Isaiah 8, where the name reappeared again in 8:8, in relation to Judah, their enemies (Aram and Israel) and Assyria (Isaiah 8:1-18).

When you read Isaiah 8:1-18, you will see that it is related to chapter 7, but it is revealed that Isaiah's own son is the sign:

1 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,”[a] 2 and have it attested[b] for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 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.

Do you not see how Isaiah 8:4 is so similar to that of Isaiah 7:16-17?

And do you not see the similarity between 8:3 and 7:14?

Isaiah 8:18 stated that Isaiah and his children were the signs.

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.

It is not a coincidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

'In Christ' in "A virgin bearing a child on the other hand is a miraculous sign which only God could accomplish." That is what Isa.7:14 is concerning.
Isaiah's son by the prophetess is the "son" who fulfills the prophecy . "(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."

To be consistent in the dual prophecy, both kids would have to be born of a virgin wouldn't they? I've never heard anyone claim that any child in Isaiah's time, for any sign or prophecy, was born of a virgin. However, in Jesus' time was virgin births that unusual? That was what great humans were--half human and half god. So maybe a virgin birth, in those days, was "normal" and not "miraculous for a great leader?