Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Fletch]

Hi CG D, Yes, since a Messiah has been looked forward to from Genesis 3:15 and from A GOD that is to be Believed.

Hi Sincerely,
Who was the child of the serpent?

Was "the woman" Eve in Genesis 3 or Mary?

thanks,
Fletch

 

[roger1440]

Hey Roger 1440,
There are several sites listing "prophecies" fulfilled by Jesus. This one lists 44. Click on the underlined "Prophesies Jesus fulfilled to go to their site. Here is the first 10.A virgin birth based on Isaiah 7:14 is one of them. You're the first Christian I've heard that doesn't say it was a prophesy. But either way, it was a sign for King Ahaz and was fulfilled in his time not some 700 years later.

It doesn’t surprise me. Some of the early Church fathers believed the Jews did not know how to interpret the Torah. One even went as far as saying the Torah is a Christian book not a Jewish book.

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth… The Epistle of Barnabas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas
​

Some of the early Christians were on the right track but went in the wrong direction. It’s not that the Torah was written for Christians. The problem is the Gospel message was not intended for Gentiles. The Jews were the targeted audience. The Gospel of Mathew was written for a strictly Jewish audience. It uses Jewish themes, concepts and theology that most Gentiles did not understand or were not familiar with. The Gospel is broken down into five sections. It is a kind of mini Torah. Jesus is the embodiment of the nation of Israel. Just as the Jews move through the Torah, Jesus moves through this Gospel. Reading this Gospel as such now makes sense of Mathew’s nine fulfillments mentioned in this Gospel. The Jews never accepted this Gospel as scripture because God is not redundant. He does not stutter. The question now comes up, who then is the Messiah? According to this Gospel, Jesus is the nation of Israel and Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore the nation of Israel is its own Messiah. Coincidently, this story parallels the Wizard of Oz. In the story the wizard told the scare crow he always had a brain, the tin man always had heart and the lion always had courage. Dorothy always had the means to get back home. The point is the means to find salvation is much closer than most of us think.

 

[gnostic]

Latin was the native language of the Romans, Greek came to be the language spoken by the well-educated elite, as most of the literature studied by Romans was written in Greek according to Wikipedia.

Yes, I am well-aware of that part of Roman history, where the elite, or the noble (senatorial) and equite families had favored Greek over Latin in literature, which began in the 2nd century BCE. Latin became increasingly popular around mid-1st century BCE, and onward, but due to the Hellenistic kingdoms having spread Greek Koine throughout Alexander's former empire, Greek was still lingua franca of eastern part of the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE.

Quite frankly, I don't know why we are arguing over this.

 

[gnostic]

It is a kind of mini Torah. Jesus is the embodiment of the nation of Israel. Just as the Jews move through the Torah, Jesus moves through this Gospel.

The Jews never accepted this Gospel as scripture because God is not redundant. He does not stutter. The question now comes up, who then is the Messiah? According to this Gospel, Jesus is the nation of Israel and Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore the nation of Israel is its own Messiah.

That's rather far-fetched, don't you think?

Israel was never meant to be the messiah, nor vice versa.

Reading this Gospel as such now makes sense of Mathew’s nine fulfillments mentioned in this Gospel. The Jews never accepted this Gospel as scripture because God is not redundant.

:no: ...they have never accept (Matthew's) gospel because Jesus never fitted into the requirement of messiah.

A) The messiah doesn't even exist in the Torah. There are no messianic prophecy in the Torah. Strictly speaking, the Torah only comprised of books that were attributed to Moses (from Genesis to Leviticus; the Deuteronomy was clearly written in 7th or 6th century BCE). Don't confuse the Torah with the entire Old Testament. The Old Testament is equivalent to the Tanakh, the Hebrew scriptures.

B) All of Matthew's quotes from the Old Testament, were each based on single verse, partial or whole verse, which he had interpreted to be "messianic", without reading and understanding verses that surround the quoted passage (Isaiah 7:14, for instance). But most of those quoted verses were not considered "messianic" by Jews. The Christians may see Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, the Jews don't. And the passages that Jews believed to be "messianic", Jesus had never fulfilled.

 

[roger1440]

That's rather far-fetched, don't you think?

Which of the many things I had mentioned do you find “far-fetched”? The Gospel of Mathew being a kind of mini Torah? Both the NIV and NKJ study Bibles mention that in the introduction to Mathew’s Gospel. I don’t believe it because I read it in two study Bibles, I believe because I can see it myself.

 

[gnostic]

Which of the many things I had mentioned do you find “far-fetched”?

:no: Not this "mini" Torah that I had found to be far-fetched.

What I found far-fetched is your claim that Jesus is "the embodiment of the nation of Israel".

I highly respect Jesus as a teacher of love and compassion, but there are too many claims that Christians like yourself have claimed, that I don't find in the gospels.

Particularly when people (including the gospel and epistle authors) make claim that Jesus had fulfilled such-and-such prophecies or signs, which he didn't or that he had fulfilled them in such a way that it is no longer in context with the prophetic passages.

 

[roger1440]

:no: Not this "mini" Torah that I had found to be far-fetched.

What I found far-fetched is your claim that Jesus is "the embodiment of the nation of Israel".

I highly respect Jesus as a teacher of love and compassion, but there are too many claims that Christians like yourself have claimed, that I don't find in the gospels.

Particularly when people (including the gospel and epistle authors) make claim that Jesus had fulfilled such-and-such prophecies or signs, which he didn't or that he had fulfilled them in such a way that it is no longer in context with the prophetic passages.

What do you think the author of Mathew meant when he wrote, “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son.”? (Mat 2:15)

 

[CG Didymus]

...:no: ...they have never accept (Matthew's) gospel because Jesus never fitted into the requirement of messiah.

A) The messiah doesn't even exist in the Torah. There are no messianic prophecy in the Torah. Strictly speaking, the Torah only comprised of books that were attributed to Moses (from Genesis to Leviticus; the Deuteronomy was clearly written in 7th or 6th century BCE). Don't confuse the Torah with the entire Old Testament. The Old Testament is equivalent to the Tanakh, the Hebrew scriptures.

B) All of Matthew's quotes from the Old Testament, were each based on single verse, partial or whole verse, which he had interpreted to be "messianic", without reading and understanding verses that surround the quoted passage (Isaiah 7:14, for instance). But most of those quoted verses were not considered "messianic" by Jews. The Christians may see Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, the Jews don't. And the passages that Jews believed to be "messianic", Jesus had never fulfilled.

In the early 70's, I joined the Baha'is for a few years. One of the "sign" or "prophesies" told to me by a well-meaning Baha'i was that even Jesus predicted the coming of Baha'u'llah when he said that he, Jesus, had many things to tell them but they couldn't bear them yet, but when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will lead them into all truth. Years later when I read Acts I understood that in context that verse was talking about the Holy Spirit. Out of context, the spirit of truth was used by the Baha'i to be speaking of their prophet. So who can't and who doesn't misquote other people's Scripture to justify or prove their own?

It is understandable that our Christian friends don't see it that way. But, ironically, they do the same thing when other religious groups misquote the NT. They cry "foul" and say "No, you can't take an isolated verse and build your doctrines and beliefs around it." Yet, they did that to the Jews and make you and I sound like we are evil people for not believing the Scriptures the way they see them? Wow.

 

[CG Didymus]

It doesn’t surprise me. Some of the early Church fathers believed the Jews did not know how to interpret the Torah. One even went as far as saying the Torah is a Christian book not a Jewish book.

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth… The Epistle of Barnabas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas
​

Barnabas was a big name in early Christianity. It's lucky that his epistle didn't make it into the canon. It would have made the NT a joke.
​

 

[gnostic]

What do you think the author of Mathew meant when he wrote, “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son.”? (Mat 2:15)

And you have completely ignored the rest of the original verse, as had Matthew. Typical Christian selective blindness, where you'd only see what you want to see.

Did you ever bother to cross-reference what the rest of the original verse had to say?

1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Matthew has only quoted half of that verse in Hosea 11:1. And that's a really important other half for Matthew to leave out.

From Hosea 11:1 to 11:4, it is written in the past, so these 4 verses.

Clearly, the first verse, is referring to the child as Israel, not Jesus, and clearly "and out of Egypt I called my son" is referring to the Israel in Exodus.

And the only eponym to Israel that I know of, is Jacob; the name was given to Jacob, not to Jesus. Jesus was never called "Israel" by any of his disciples, just as he was never called "Immanuel".

And did you bother to read the next couple of verses?

If you think the partial first referred to Jesus (Jesus=child=Israel), then should the next verse (11:2) also be about Jesus too.

But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.

Did you notice that I had emboldened in red, the word "they"?

I did this because of 2 factors:

1. Before, in Hosea 11:1, it is clearly referring Israel, as in all 12 tribes of Israel that left the land of Egypt (Exodus). BUT, verse 11:2 is referring to Israel, as in the northern kingdom of Israel, because of the reference to Ephraim in verse 11:3.*
2. And Jesus obviously isn't "they". And all the verbs that go with "they" (in hosea 11:2) are written in the past tense, hence not prophetic, including verses 1, 3 & 4.

So one for certain, this Matthew 2:15 verse or that Hosea 11:1 verse, they are neither messianic prophecy.

And another thing is that Luke's virgin birth story make no mention of them fleeing for their lives and living in exile in Egypt. In Luke's story, Herod is not even aware of the so-called child who would replace him as ruler, let alone a birth of a messiah.

If Jesus is Israel, then:

Did Jesus, like Israel, turn away from God (like in 11:2)?
Did Jesus, like Israel, worship the god Ba'al?
Did Jesus, like Israel, burn incense to images?​

If Jesus is the "embodiment of Israel" that is good, then likewise Jesus should also be the "embodiment of Israel" that had sinned too, hence "embodiment" of when Jesus/Israel is bad, like in Hosea 11:2, 11:12. And if you'd look at Hosea 11:12:

Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, Israel with deceit. And Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One

So, if Jesus is Israel, then did Jesus ever lie, use deceit or did ever unruly turn against god?

You can't apply a partial verse to Jesus, without applying the rest of verse to Jesus, or without applying other verses that follow it.

Like with verse Isaiah 7:14 (cf Matthew 1:23), Matthew had taken Hosea 11:1 out of context, in his partial quote of Hosea's passage.

 

[CG Didymus]

And you have completely ignored the rest of the original verse, as had Matthew. Typical Christian selective blindness, where you'd only see what you want to see.

Like with verse Isaiah 7:14 (cf Matthew 1:23), Matthew had taken Hosea 11:1 out of context, in his partial quote of Hosea's passage.

Selective blindness is real. When I was taught Christianity, my friends showed me all the verses. I never questioned them. I didn't read the verses in context until 3 years later. Then I had to make a choice, go on pretending that Christianity is based on Bible truth or investigate it and try to find out where it all came from, like the devil and hell and all the other supposed "truths" of the Bible. The virgin birth "myth" is only one of the road blocks for me in believing Christianity is true. I thank you for your knowledge and for taking the time to argue these points.

 

[gnostic]

Selective blindness is real. When I was taught Christianity, my friends showed me all the verses. I never questioned them. I didn't read the verses in context until 3 years later.

Ha! Try 19 or 20 years.

I lost interested in Christianity, when I was 20 or 21-year old, back in 1986 or 87. I was too busy with my studies in civil engineering at that time, and hadn't touch the bible from then till later...which will be explained below.

I had started my website (Timeless Myths) in 1999, but my interest in Abrahamic religions didn't start until a few years later. Between 2002 and 2006, I was exploring other religions, other than Christianity, like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Gnosticism, and some apocryphal literature, like the book of Jubilees, the Enochian literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And I didn't re-read Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1 & 2, until about a year (2005) just before I started another website - Dark Mirrors of Heaven in 2006 (the very year I had joined RF).

My interests in various religions, is because of their scriptural literature; I wasn't looking for a religion to follow, or to convert. I was mostly interested in the stories, not the faith or belief. Years of reading ancient and medieval literature with mythological themes, gave me experiences in interpreting religious scriptures. So context and understanding the themes of the stories, matters more to me than what I believe or what I don't believe.

Do you understand what I mean, Didymus?

 

[roger1440]

And you have completely ignored the rest of the original verse, as had Matthew. Typical Christian selective blindness, where you'd only see what you want to see.

Did you ever bother to cross-reference what the rest of the original verse had to say?



Matthew has only quoted half of that verse in Hosea 11:1. And that's a really important other half for Matthew to leave out.

From Hosea 11:1 to 11:4, it is written in the past, so these 4 verses.

Clearly, the first verse, is referring to the child as Israel, not Jesus, and clearly "and out of Egypt I called my son" is referring to the Israel in Exodus.

And the only eponym to Israel that I know of, is Jacob; the name was given to Jacob, not to Jesus. Jesus was never called "Israel" by any of his disciples, just as he was never called "Immanuel".

And did you bother to read the next couple of verses?

If you think the partial first referred to Jesus (Jesus=child=Israel), then should the next verse (11:2) also be about Jesus too.



Did you notice that I had emboldened in red, the word "they"?



I did this because of 2 factors:

1. Before, in Hosea 11:1, it is clearly referring Israel, as in all 12 tribes of Israel that left the land of Egypt (Exodus). BUT, verse 11:2 is referring to Israel, as in the northern kingdom of Israel, because of the reference to Ephraim in verse 11:3.*
2. And Jesus obviously isn't "they". And all the verbs that go with "they" (in hosea 11:2) are written in the past tense, hence not prophetic, including verses 1, 3 & 4.

So one for certain, this Matthew 2:15 verse or that Hosea 11:1 verse, they are neither messianic prophecy.

And another thing is that Luke's virgin birth story make no mention of them fleeing for their lives and living in exile in Egypt. In Luke's story, Herod is not even aware of the so-called child who would replace him as ruler, let alone a birth of a messiah.

If Jesus is Israel, then:

Did Jesus, like Israel, turn away from God (like in 11:2)?
Did Jesus, like Israel, worship the god Ba'al?
Did Jesus, like Israel, burn incense to images?
​

If Jesus is the "embodiment of Israel" that is good, then likewise Jesus should also be the "embodiment of Israel" that had sinned too, hence "embodiment" of when Jesus/Israel is bad, like in Hosea 11:2, 11:12. And if you'd look at Hosea 11:12:



So, if Jesus is Israel, then did Jesus ever lie, use deceit or did ever unruly turn against god?

You can't apply a partial verse to Jesus, without applying the rest of verse to Jesus, or without applying other verses that follow it.

Like with verse Isaiah 7:14 (cf Matthew 1:23), Matthew had taken Hosea 11:1 out of context, in his partial quote of Hosea's passage.

The Jesus of Mathew’s Gospel represents the true Israelite or the Israel without blemish. This Jesus is a metaphor. This Gospel was never intended to be taken literal. This Jesus is not “…about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.” (Exo. 12:37) Obviously this Jesus is not hundreds of thousands people squeezed into one. This metaphor is an example set as a model, a paradigm. This metaphor is constructed using existing metaphors the Jews in the first century were familiar with from the Jewish scriptures. Its original aim wasn’t to have people worship some executed Jew. Its sole purpose was to point to the meaning of the Torah. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mat. 5:17) This is not a prophesy. What Mathew is saying, “You wanna know what the Torah is about, just look at this Jesus dude.” All of the Gospel of Mathew is allegory. Jesus was born of the flesh and united with God. This is where the virgin birth comes in. The key word is “united”. The concept is mentioned in the book of Exodus. First the Jews are held in bondage with Egypt. Once freed they are told to, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deu. 6:5) and “Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” (Deu. 6:8). The root of the word bondage is bond. The words bond, bind and unite are all synonymous. The Jews are to be one with God just as the allegorical Jesus is. The author of the Gospel of Philip would probably agree with me. “…the Lord (Jesus Christ) would not have said, “My Father Who is in Heaven,” if He had not had another father. He would have said simply: “My father”.” Philip also writes, “The Truth is not given to this world in clear form, but in symbols and images. It is not possible to give It in other forms.” (Gospel of Philip). It doesn’t surprise me in the least why the early church wanted this Gospel destroyed. As I said before, the Gospel of Mathew wasn’t intended for Gentiles. It is a Jewish allegorical writing.

 

[gnostic]

As I said before, the Gospel of Mathew wasn’t intended for Gentiles. It is a Jewish allegorical writing.

Sorry, but you do realize that you and most Christians like mixing allegories or symbolics with the literals, don't you?

Arguing with Christians over what are allegories and what are literals, is an exercise of futility. What Jews have always believe certain passages to be metaphoric or symbolic, Christians had changed them around, so that metaphors become literals; and literals become metaphors.

When the Alexandrian Jews translated their scriptures into Greek, and translated verse like Isaiah 7:14, almah or "young woman" becomes parthenos or "virgin". Matthew took advantage of the Greek bible, and twisted it to mean Mary, instead of someone contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz.

If the gospel of Matthew was for the Jewish audience, then why did Matthew (in Matt. 1:23) quote Isaiah 7:14 from Greek source, instead of Hebrew source?

I have no doubt that almah is a contemporary to Isaiah, most likely to be Isaiah's wife (prophetess), because the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 is very similar to the sign given in Isaiah 8:3-4. So that would mean Immanuel (7:14-16; 8:8) was Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:1:3).

And both Isaiah 7 & 8 relate to events that was taking place in Isaiah's time (and Ahaz's time), namely that Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram were waging a war against Ahaz of Judah. The war would only cease when the child (Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz) had reached a certain age:

15 He [Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child [Immanuel] 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.”

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.

The child's age is critical as the sign or portent of things to come, so the child has to be contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz. So Immanuel can't be Jesus, almah can't be Mary.

 

[Fletch]

When the Alexandrian Jews translated their scriptures into Greek, and translated verse like Isaiah 7:14, almah or "young woman" becomes parthenos or "virgin". Matthew took advantage of the Greek bible, and twisted it to mean Mary, instead of someone contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz.

Hi Gnostic,

I don't mean to be disagreeing with you, but if I am wrong on something, I do want people to point out where they think I am so that I do not continue being wrong.

Today's Septuagint or LXX is a 100% Christian document, Origen said that by his day it was corrupted and he reconstructed it. The original Septuagint did not contain the Prophets, only the Torah, so Isaiah 7:14 was not translated by the 72 Alexandrian Jews. Here is an excerpt from Uri Yoseph:

...A common misperception prevails about the Septuagint: Today's Septuagint (LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by Christians) is a translation by unknown authors, most likely Christians, that is not the same document as the Original Septuagint.
The evidence in support of this statement is abundant:
 The LXX contains errors that learned Jewish scholars would not make, particularly when one considers the size of the team that produced the translation.6
 Lastly, an analysis of the Greek language used in the LXX translation, which includes Prophets and Writings, indicates that it is not the Koiné Greek that was prevalent in the mid-third century B.C.E.; rather, it is a more modern dialect of the Greek language.
 The Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) into (Koiné) Greek by 72 learned bi-lingual Jewish scholars (Rabbis). The work took place in Alexandria, Egypt, in the mid-third century B.C.E. The well-known Letter of Aristeas describes this entire project as having been commissioned by King Ptolemy II Philadelphius of Alexandria.7

 In Section 3 of his Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus states that the translation was "of our law" (i.e., the Mosaic Law),8 and the details on the entire event appear later, in Book XII, Chapter 2, Sections1-4.9

 St. Jerome, an early Christian Church father, in the Preface to his Book of Hebrew Questions, affirms Josephus' statement that the Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Five Books of Moses.10

 The Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Megilah, Folios 9a&b, records 15 phrases which the Jewish scholars translated in a unique fashion, and which deviate from the (later) Masoretic Text, yet only two of these uniquely translated phrases appear in the Christian LXX.11
6 One such error concerns the number of people who went to Egypt with Joseph. Three references in the Hebrew Bible have the number as 70 (Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22). The LXX has the number as 75 at Genesis 46:27 & Exodus 1:5, but as 70 at Deuteronomy 10:22. The most likely reason for the 75 at the first two places and 70 in the third place is that in the New Testament the number is cited as 75 (Acts 7:14), and that the unknown (probably Christian) translators forgot to change the number at Deuteronomy 10:22, something a learned Jewish scholar would never do.
7 The Letter Of Aristeas, R.H. Charles-Editor, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913; available on the Internet at - The Letter of Aristeas
8 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews – Preface; available on the Internet at - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm
9 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews – Chapter XII; available on the Internet at - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-12.htm
10 St. Jerome, Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions; available on the Internet at - NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
11 The 15 phrases which appeared in the Original Septuagint are in the following verses: Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exodus 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; and Deuteronomy 4:19, 17:3. The only two of these found in the LXX are: Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40.

If the gospel of Matthew was for the Jewish audience, then why did Matthew (in Matt. 1:23) quote Isaiah 7:14 from Greek source, instead of Hebrew source?

The NT has it that only a select few Jewish are included with the main audience being the Gentiles. Most of the Jews are suppose to be "blinded".

Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath obtained it , and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written , God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see , and ears that they should not hear unto this day...11 I say then , Have they stumbled that they should fall ? God forbid : but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy

I have no doubt that almah is a contemporary to Isaiah, most likely to be Isaiah's wife (prophetess), because the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 is very similar to the sign given in Isaiah 8:3-4. So that would mean Immanuel (7:14-16; 8:8) was Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:1:3).

And both Isaiah 7 & 8 relate to events that was taking place in Isaiah's time (and Ahaz's time), namely that Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram were waging a war against Ahaz of Judah. The war would only cease when the child (Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz) had reached a certain age:

Isaiah 8:18 is clear that there are children for signs(i.e. more than one child and more than one sign). But Isaiah's son Shearjashub who was present in the upper pool could fill in if your case is true.

The child's age is critical as the sign or portent of things to come, so the child has to be contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz. So Immanuel can't be Jesus, almah can't be Mary.

Immanuel also eats butter and honey and in Isaiah 7:22 we see everyone is eating butter and honey. I do not believe that to be a coincidence whatsoever.

Fletch

 

[sincerly]

Selective blindness is real. When I was taught Christianity, my friends showed me all the verses. I never questioned them. I didn't read the verses in context until 3 years later. Then I had to make a choice, go on pretending that Christianity is based on Bible truth or investigate it and try to find out where it all came from, like the devil and hell and all the other supposed "truths" of the Bible. The virgin birth "myth" is only one of the road blocks for me in believing Christianity is true. I thank you for your knowledge and for taking the time to argue these points.

Hi CG D, Scripturally, the wages of Sin is death. Not just the first death which all mankind is subject to, but the second death.
Therefore, by what means, are you to have access to the promised eternal life which is acknowledged throughout the Scriptures?? (Since, to you, the "virgin birth is a "myth"??)

 

[CG Didymus]

Ha! Try 19 or 20 years.

I lost interested in Christianity, when I was 20 or 21-year old, back in 1986 or 87. I was too busy with my studies in civil engineering at that time, and hadn't touch the bible from then till later...which will be explained below.

I had started my website (Timeless Myths) in 1999, but my interest in Abrahamic religions didn't start until a few years later. Between 2002 and 2006, I was exploring other religions, other than Christianity, like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Gnosticism, and some apocryphal literature, like the book of Jubilees, the Enochian literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And I didn't re-read Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1 & 2, until about a year (2005) just before I started another website - Dark Mirrors of Heaven in 2006 (the very year I had joined RF).

My interests in various religions, is because of their scriptural literature; I wasn't looking for a religion to follow, or to convert. I was mostly interested in the stories, not the faith or belief. Years of reading ancient and medieval literature with mythological themes, gave me experiences in interpreting religious scriptures. So context and understanding the themes of the stories, matters more to me than what I believe or what I don't believe.

Do you understand what I mean, Didymus?

Yes, I like everything you're doing here. Keep at it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi CG D, Scripturally, the wages of Sin is death. Not just the first death which all mankind is subject to, but the second death.
Therefore, by what means, are you to have access to the promised eternal life which is acknowledged throughout the Scriptures?? (Since, to you, the "virgin birth is a "myth"??)

If "salvation" is how protestants say it is, then why didn't God tell His Chosen People, the Jews? Personal salvation is great--it's wonderful, but is it really how it is? Where in all of the Hebrew Scriptures are the devil, hell, salvation and the Messiah as taught by born-again Christians? I was raised Catholic. They had the sacraments. Where did those things come from? Did they make them up? Were they ideas invented by Catholics for Catholics. They believe they are based on the Bible and what Jesus wanted. Are they?

I'm sure you are a fine Christian, but your Christianity is one of many. Is it the right one? Is the NT flawed from the start? If Jesus is the only way, then who was Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Baha'u'llah, or Zoroaster and other prophet/founders of religious movements? What about the Holy Books of these other religions? Are all of them false? Are they all myth? Not to their followers. How are they different then you? They believe they have the truth. I believe all of the religions have spiritual truth in them. Whether or not they are from the one and only "true" living God? How should I know. That's why I'm here, to ask the questions that bother me about who God is and what he expects from us.

 

[sincerly]

If "salvation" is how protestants say it is, then why didn't God tell His Chosen People, the Jews? . .....That's why I'm here, to ask the questions that bother me about who God is and what he expects from us.

HE did! Heb.4:2, "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

CG D, the first question you have to settle in your own mind is: Is there a Creator GOD? Questions/doubts will continue to arise until that is absolutely settled/confirmed. And then---Do I believe HIM enough to submit to HIS Will or continue in pleasing self?

 

[CG Didymus]

HE did! Heb.4:2, "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

CG D, the first question you have to settle in your own mind is: Is there a Creator GOD? Questions/doubts will continue to arise until that is absolutely settled/confirmed. And then---Do I believe HIM enough to submit to HIS Will or continue in pleasing self?

I hope there is a Creator God, but I hope he's different than Christians describe him.