Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Poisonshady313]

You'll have to present your argument besides the "sign", which I already speculated could have been the Star of Bethlehem

What makes you think the sign could have been the Star of Bethlehem?

What makes you think the sign could have been anything besides what Isaiah chapter 7 was talking about?

 

[Desert Snake]

What makes you think the sign could have been the Star of Bethlehem?

What makes you think the sign could have been anything besides what Isaiah chapter 7 was talking about?

Frankly it seems from scripture that the "sign' is the young woman/virgin birth, however to facilitate an answer to the OP, on the off chance that the 'sign' was something else, I suggested the Star of Bethlehem.

 

[Poisonshady313]

on the off chance that the 'sign' was something else, I suggested the Star of Bethlehem.

How about the sinking of the Titanic? Or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand? Or the crowning of Queen Victoria?

See? I can also suggest random things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the sign.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Frankly it seems from scripture that the "sign' is the young woman/virgin birth,

No. Not at all. The woman giving birth is not the sign. The woman giving birth is a chronological marker regarding the sign. The sign is what is in the verses that follow. That Rezin and Pekah will be defeated before the child is old enough to eat curds and honey and distinguish right from wrong.

 

[gnostic]

I frankly disagree with your statement, religion often does not enter the equation, culture/ethnicity might, but your statement of "ask any Jew".etc. belies an interpretive bias on your part, IMO

I know and communicate with few Jewish members here, but apart from that I have never personally met a Jew.

Me, I am not Jewish, religiously or secularly. I'm a Chinese and an Australian, and philosophically (with regards to religion), I'm an agnostic.

I don't understand how I could have "interpretative biased" - culturally or ethnically - since I'm not Jewish.

If anything, being brought in Australian suburbs, where most people in my neighbourhood were mostly Christians of European background, I actually read the bible in my mid- to late teen, with pretty much Christian interpretations than Jewish interpretations.

It is only in the last 7 to 10 years that I had major rethink of what the OT Bible means. To me, all my old understanding of the bible have changed, and I believed that many of the Christian interpretations (to the Old Testament) to be flawed and faulty.

If anything, I think I've grown up - gained wisdom or become enlightened.

 

[Desert Snake]

I know and communicate with few Jewish members here, but apart from that I have never personally met a Jew.

Me, I am not Jewish, religiously or secularly. I'm a Chinese and an Australian, and philosophically (with regards to religion), I'm an agnostic.

I don't understand how I could have "interpretative biased" - culturally or ethnically - since I'm not Jewish.

If anything, being brought in Australian suburbs, where most people in my neighbourhood were mostly Christians of European background, I actually read the bible in my mid- to late teen, with pretty much Christian interpretations than Jewish interpretations.

It is only in the last 7 to 10 years that I had major rethink of what the OT Bible means. To me, all my old understanding of the bible have changed, and I believed that many of the Christian interpretations (to the Old Testament) to be flawed and faulty.

If anything, I think I've grown up - gained wisdom or become enlightened.

Like I said, I haven't kept up on the Messiah threads, so I take it you don't believe in Jesus being the Messisah. Anyways i'm a little surprised about the reaction I've gotten from my Star of Bethlehem idea , of ot being (one of) the signs.... If jesus was the messiah this would back up scripture.
BTW why use the NT as a source if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus just curious

 

[gnostic]

Frankly it seems from scripture that the "sign' is the young woman/virgin birth

No. Not at all. The woman giving birth is not the sign. The woman giving birth is a chronological marker regarding the sign. The sign is what is in the verses that follow. That Rezin and Pekah will be defeated before the child is old enough to eat curds and honey and distinguish right from wrong.

Like I've told sincerly (and to disciple) before that there is more to the sign than just a woman giving birth to a son. The rest of the sign is given in verses 15-17, which both sincerly and disciple continued to ignore.

[13] Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? [14] Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. [15] He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, [16] for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. [17] The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

By ignoring the rest of the message, they have taken the whole message out of context. I believed that Matthew (or whoever the author is) also taken his quote - out of context.

 

[gnostic]

Anyways i'm a little surprised about the reaction I've gotten from my Star of Bethlehem idea , of ot being (one of) the signs.... If jesus was the messiah this would back up scripture.

I've never mentioned the Star of Bethlehem in my replies. I didn't react one way or another, because I see that interpretation of the Star of Bethlehem to be irrelevant. It would be relevant if there was at least a mention of star or Bethlehem anywhere in chapter 7.

Beside how do the Star of Bethlehem relate to Ahaz, Pekak, Rezin or the king of Assyria.

 

[gnostic]

Like I said, I haven't kept up on the Messiah threads, so I take it you don't believe in Jesus being the Messisah.

I know that the Christians believed that Jesus was the messiah. So it is irrelevant what I believe in.

There are number of messianic prophecies that Jesus failed to fulfil. That would sort of disqualified Jesus being a Messiah, don't you think?

BTW why use the NT as a source if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus just curious

Actually, the OP is about a quote used by Matthew, which he got from Isaiah 7, which Matthew took out of context.

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

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

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

I agreed with CG Didymus that Christians and Matthew had taken a single verse - out of context. I don't think this sign had anything to do with Jesus or Mary.

In any case, it was Matthew who quoted something out of OT, as his source.

 

[sincerly]

I know that the Christians believed that Jesus was the messiah. So it is irrelevant what I believe in.

Hi gnostic. NO! It is very relevant what you believe and the answers you are giving are evidence of such. Several posts back you acknowledged that you are Agnostic. Therefore, You have a stake in trying to refute Jesus who not only is/was the Messiah who came 2000 years ago,But also, is GOD the SON.

There are number of messianic prophecies that Jesus failed to fulfil. That would sort of disqualified Jesus being a Messiah, don't you think?

Such as???

Actually, the OP is about a quote used by Matthew, which he got from Isaiah 7, which Matthew took out of context.

No, Matthew recorded that which The Angel Gabriel informed Joseph of concerning the pregnancy of Mary and informed Joseph that the Pregnancy was induced by the HOLY Spirit in fulfilling Isaiah 7:14.However, that's, also, in fulfilling Gen3:16. (a prophecy which apparently every female from Eve could have desired to be the fulfillment concerning.)
Matthew recorded the Facts of Jesus' birth as was experienced by those involved at time of the Birth, NO taking out of context. I'm sorry if that doesn't support your non-belief.

I agreed with CG Didymus that Christians and Matthew had taken a single verse - out of context. I don't think this sign(as seen in 8:1+) had anything to do with Jesus or Mary.

Right! Jesus definitely was not Mahershalalhashbaz---NOR Mary the prophetess... and I doubt that Isaiah's wife was a virgin at this time. However, I do believe that 7:14 does appertain to Mary and Jesus as Gabriel proclaimed.(As well as to Gen.3:16)

In any case, it was Matthew who quoted something out of OT, as his source.

See above.
However, Gnostic, I want to thank you for continuing to "preach Jesus"...even in a negative manner. All readers have to make up their minds as to "myth" or one to believe.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is only in the last 7 to 10 years that I had major rethink of what the OT Bible means. To me, all my old understanding of the bible have changed, and I believed that many of the Christian interpretations (to the Old Testament) to be flawed and faulty.

If anything, I think I've grown up - gained wisdom or become enlightened.

I doubt that I ever had the same understanding of the OT as you, in fact I never really viewed the NT as fulfilling as much of the OT as I often read, and much of the Christian interpretation I tend to disagree with... that being said it really doesn't matter what religion someone follows as long as they aren't using confirmation bias to reach their conclusions.... you aren't going to get any more accurate interpretations from someone practicing Judaism than from someone practicing Christianity

 

[Avoice]

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

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

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

Verses 14 to the end of the chapter are prophesy. We who are Christian believe that sign to be about Messiah and was fulfilled with the Birth of Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

Hi gnostic. NO! It is very relevant what you believe and the answers you are giving are evidence of such. Several posts back you acknowledged that you are Agnostic. Therefore, You have a stake in trying to refute Jesus who not only is/was the Messiah who came 2000 years ago,But also, is GOD the SON.

Actually, I am not refuting Jesus at all, but stating that Matthew's claim (or more precisely the gospel's claim, since we really don't know who wrote this gospel) that Jesus was foretell in Isaiah 7:14 is terribly flawed, since it failed to mention the rest of the message (Isaiah 7:14-17), which is the whole prophecy.

Either the whole message (Isaiah 7:14-17) is about the prophecy of Jesus or none of them. You can't have Jesus' fulfilling (Isaiah's) 7:14 without also fulfilling (Isaiah's) 7:15-17, which was Judah being saved by the king of Assyria.

And when you read, and I mean truly read the entire prophecy 7:14-17, as well as the rest of chapter 7 and chapter 8 from verse 1 to 18, it clearly showed that prophecy wasn't about a messiah, unless you think the King of Assyria, because Assyria saved Ahaz and his kingdom from Ahaz's enemies.

So it is senseless to blindly following Matthew's claim, without considering the entire prophecy (again Isaiah 7:14-17).

Jesus' birth, as given in both gospels of Matthew and Luke, is a myth, and contrary to one another. But I will not go into this, since it will lead us off-topic. How do we know where either Matthew or Luke.

In any case, I see that some Christians are blinded by the blinkers in from of their eyes because they choose to read 1 verse without read the whole chapter.

No, Matthew recorded that which The Angel Gabriel informed Joseph of concerning the pregnancy of Mary and informed Joseph that the Pregnancy was induced by the HOLY Spirit in fulfilling Isaiah 7:14.

So you're saying that Gabriel told Matthew? Or do you think Joseph told Matthew what Gabriel told Joseph?

As far as I know, Joseph died before Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection, according to Christian traditions. Neither the gospel of Mark (the earliest of the canonical gospel) nor Paul ever mentioned Joseph or Jesus' miraculous conception and birth.

I had enough. I'm fed up of teaching to understand the whole prophecy, instead of cherry-picking a single verse without reading the whole prophecy. It is exactly these types of debate from Christians like yourself, which made me baulk twice (in my late teen) and becoming a Christian (from 2 different churches). I have posted half-dozen posts too many. I am not posting anymore in reply to you, since you are too blind to see or read what's in front of you. I may reply to you in other future threads, but not here.

 

[gnostic]

I doubt that I ever had the same understanding of the OT as you, in fact I never really viewed the NT as fulfilling as much of the OT as I often read

Actually my main interest with the bible is the creation myth in Genesis.

I love myths of all sort. Heroic myths, like Heracles, the Trojan War, Volsunga Saga, Samson. Or god myths, like Hesiod's creation, the Norse creation and Ragnarok.

I have even created my website called Timeless Myths. And Dark Mirrors of Heaven is mostly about biblical creation myth other than the Genesis, but from different literature, like the midrashim or Sefer Ha-Aggadah ("The Book of Legends"), the books of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi codices.

I have less interest in much of the OT, after Solomon. I have read the entire bible from cover to cover, read the gospels at least half-dozen times, the letters less so.

and much of the Christian interpretation I tend to disagree with...

As with me.

I used to believe that the Christian interpretation was the only ones, mainly because I was brought up in a suburb, where most of my neighbours and friends were Christians, whether they be Catholics, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, or one of the Protestants.

I was interested in myths, when I was young. And I used to believe in all sort of things. I was old enough to buy my own books with my own money, and read whatever I want. I started a small collection of Greek and Roman literature, some were historical records, but most of them were mythological themes. I stopped my collection in mid-20 (mainly because I was too busy with work), only to restart my interest in myths again in 1999 at age 33, when I started up my website Timeless Myths. I began spending money on books that I loved to read.

This is pinnacle moment for me.

Creating Timeless Myths required me to read and do extensive research. I became quite good at reading ancient literature (but only with English translations of those literature). My interest in religion also was re-ignited at the same time.

Due to my interests, in reading and researching literature from Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Egyptian and Mesopotamian, I looked at the bible in a new light. I was no longer blinded by the Christian interpretation of the Bible. My experiences with reading/researching these myths, also allow me to better understand the Bible, both OT and NT.

It also helped that I've read more contemporary JPS translation of the Masoretic Text as well as the Septuagint.

My point in giving you my background, is that I discovered the way both Christians and Muslims cherry-pick single verse or two from the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or Torah), as some sort of prophecies of their Messiah or Messenger (Muhammad) incorrect or flawed due to misunderstanding the passage, or deliberate deception (or propaganda) to promote their religions.

If Isaiah's verse (7:14), which Matthew quoted in 1:22-23 was prophecy of the messiah's birth, then the whole message (Isaiah 7:13-17) should also be about Jesus as the messiah. But verse 15-17 is clearly not about messiah. And if these verses are not prophecy about the messiah, then so is verse 14.

It is disgusting that many Christians blindly followed Matthew's claim by ignoring the whole sign.

That's why I disagree with sincerly and some of the other Christians here. From the frequent exchanges between me and sincerly about this subject, it seem to me he has stop thinking independently and logically whatsoever, and just following whatever garbage prophecies that Matthew spit out.

That's why I'll no longer address anything to sincerly, since I refused to waste any more time on a drone.

 

[Poisonshady313]

it really doesn't matter what religion someone follows as long as they aren't using confirmation bias to reach their conclusions....

I think that's the point gnosis is trying to make.

Christians are more than willing to overlook an entire chapter of Isaiah except for the single verse that seems to validate their beliefs, even going so far as to mistranslate that particular verse in order to do so.

Jews are more likely to read the words of their prophets in their own context, rather than work off the starting assumption that it has anything to do with Jesus. They're also more likely to know the language Isaiah wrote in (Hebrew).

Seems logical and reasonable to pay attention to what Jews say on the matter and is not, as you suggest, confirmation bias.

 

[gnostic]

It was late last night, so I didn't address your other half of your reply. :sorry1:

that being said it really doesn't matter what religion someone follows as long as they aren't using confirmation bias to reach their conclusions.... you aren't going to get any more accurate interpretations from someone practicing Judaism than from someone practicing Christianity

In the case with Matthew 1:22-23 in relation to Isaiah 7:14, the Christian interpretation is 100% incorrect about it being about Mary (virgin, which is wrong any way) and Jesus (Immanuel), because it completely ignore the entire context of chapter 7, and a large part of what happened in chapter 8 (8:1-18).

Where you ignore everything in chapter 7 and 8, then the Christian interpretation of a single verse is completely wrong.

The sign as given in Isaiah 7:13-17, all has a common theme, that the King of Assyria will save Ahaz (or Ahaz's kingdom, Judah) from Pekah and Rezin (of Aram). And 8:1-18 is the fulfilment of that prophecy when Isaiah sired a son from the prophetess:

[3] Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [4] For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”

Do you not see how these verses (Isaiah 8:3-4) relate to 7:14-17?

There is too much of striking similarity (between 7 & 8) that most Christians would blindly ignored. And these 2 chapters clearly indicated that it (prophecy or otherwise) has nothing to do with the messiah, hence it couldn't be about Jesus.

Just because Matthew claimed that the identification of young woman and her son Immanuel with Mary & Jesus, doesn't make Matthew or the Christians at all right, especially when they a single verse out of the entire chapter.

And it doesn't help the Christian cause, in day and age, when they continually mistranslated almah with "virgin". Matthew wrongly used virgin because he was using the Septuagint. The word almah should be translated to "girl" or "young woman". The word betulah or "virgin" is never used in any part of chapter 7.

And that, my friend, is the confirmation bias, as you call it, coming from Matthew and from the Christian interpretation.

Note, that not all Christians interpret the prophecy of 7:14 the same way. Green Kepi in post 6 - for example - had correctly interpret the chapter 7, as well as almah doesn't mean "virgin".

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually my main interest with the bible is the creation myth in Genesis.
I looked at the bible in a new light. I was no longer blinded by the Christian interpretation of the Bible. My experiences with reading/researching these myths, also allow me to better understand the Bible, both OT and NT.
...as some sort of prophecies of their Messiah or Messenger (Muhammad) incorrect or flawed due to misunderstanding the passage, or deliberate deception (or propaganda) to promote their religions.
It is disgusting that many Christians blindly followed Matthew's claim by ignoring the whole sign.
That's why I disagree with sincerly and some of the other Christians here. From the frequent exchanges between me and sincerly about this subject, it seem to me he has stop thinking independently and logically whatsoever, and just following whatever garbage prophecies that Matthew spit out.
That's why I'll no longer address anything to sincerly, since I refused to waste any more time on a drone.

Hey Gnostic, I still haven't gone to your web-sites, but I'm more and more intrigued by your story. It's very similar to what I'm going through. Because I'm writing a satire on creation from the pov of the animals, I should do it. I have to make one of those New Year's resolution things. But what you are saying is so true. The Christians pass on an interpretation that was constructed and given to them. They must believe it or they're not really Christian. It sounds like something a cult would do. They say we're blinded by the evil one. We need the Holy Spirit to see how the one verse points to Jesus. And the circle starts. Jesus is the truth because the Bible says so. The Bible is the truth because Jesus said so. Mathew's gospel is the truth because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And how do we know he was inspired? Because he's in the Bible and the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I'm not as good a reader as you, but I try. I depend greatly on the History Channel for shows like Banned from the Bible. I know you've given up on Sincerly, too bad, I like him, but I understand how frustrating it can be. In fact, he seems to have cut back on his responses directly to me. The negative side to that is that we all start "preaching to the choir."
Hey, thanks for getting to the very point I was trying to get to in this thread. The ramifications are incredible. If Mathew, or whoever compiled Mathew, made things up to prove his story, then where does that leave the whole of Christianity? Without Christianity, then who really was Jesus? If there was no Jesus, is there really a hell and devil? If there's no hell and devil, why not do whatever we want? I think that's why Christians fight so hard for their way as being the truth. They don't trust us to be moral, caring and loving people without them. But we and they haven't been that good with him.
Anyway, it's a cold and rainy Christmas here in Northern California. If you're sitting at a warm beach in 80 degree weather, I don't want to hear it. You take care. Oh, and thanks to you, Poisonshady313, also. It's always nice to have someone who is actually Jewish to talk about Jewish Scriptures and what they mean.

 

[gnostic]

Hey Gnostic, I still haven't gone to your web-sites, but I'm more and more intrigued by your story. It's very similar to what I'm going through. Because I'm writing a satire on creation from the pov of the animals, I should do it. I have to make one of those New Year's resolution things. But what you are saying is so true. The Christians pass on an interpretation that was constructed and given to them. They must believe it or they're not really Christian. It sounds like something a cult would do. They say we're blinded by the evil one. We need the Holy Spirit to see how the one verse points to Jesus. And the circle starts. Jesus is the truth because the Bible says so. The Bible is the truth because Jesus said so. Mathew's gospel is the truth because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And how do we know he was inspired? Because he's in the Bible and the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I'm not as good a reader as you, but I try. I depend greatly on the History Channel for shows like Banned from the Bible. I know you've given up on Sincerly, too bad, I like him, but I understand how frustrating it can be. In fact, he seems to have cut back on his responses directly to me. The negative side to that is that we all start "preaching to the choir."
Hey, thanks for getting to the very point I was trying to get to in this thread. The ramifications are incredible. If Mathew, or whoever compiled Mathew, made things up to prove his story, then where does that leave the whole of Christianity? Without Christianity, then who really was Jesus? If there was no Jesus, is there really a hell and devil? If there's no hell and devil, why not do whatever we want? I think that's why Christians fight so hard for their way as being the truth. They don't trust us to be moral, caring and loving people without them. But we and they haven't been that good with him.
Anyway, it's a cold and rainy Christmas here in Northern California. If you're sitting at a warm beach in 80 degree weather, I don't want to hear it. You take care. Oh, and thanks to you, Poisonshady313, also. It's always nice to have someone who is actually Jewish to talk about Jewish Scriptures and what they mean.

I don't think all Christians blindly believe in the traditional "Christian" interpretations. Green Kepi, who posted a lot earlier in this thread, is a Christian, but still saw flaw in Matthew's quote and interpretation.

I'd also agree with fallingblood's reply in post 3, and he is also a Christian. I often find fallingblood's comments or replies to be astute and well-read, he does not blindly follow traditional "Christian" interpretation, because he know how to research and follow up in whatever he read. I often give him good consideration on what he write and his view from a Christian perspective, even when we sometime disagree with each other's views.

But like you said, it is good to have Jewish members, like poisonshady313, contributing what they know in what is non-Christian Jewish scriptures. Other Jewish members, you should considerable consideration, are Levites, Rakhel and Jayhawker Soule. I highly respect their views, even though we may disagree with some points or issues.

I admired your enormous patience, CG, which I'll admit that I don't sometime don't have.

 

[sincerly]

Actually, I am not refuting Jesus at all, but stating that Matthew's claim (or more precisely the gospel's claim, since we really don't know who wrote this gospel) that Jesus was foretell in Isaiah 7:14 is terribly flawed, since it failed to mention the rest of the message (Isaiah 7:14-17), which is the whole prophecy.

HI gnostic, What is "terribly flawed " is the trying to force "call his name Immanuel"("meaning GOD with us")and a virgin/never had sex--Birth to mean a birth between a man and his wife and they were to call the child's name--mahershalalhashbaz(meaning "in making speed to the spoil he hasteneth to the prey.")
More information is seen in 2Chron.28:19-25. Assyria had an interest in stripping Judah of its treasures than helping.
"For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD. And Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not. For Ahaz took away a portion [out] of the house of the LORD, and [out] of the house of the king, and of the princes, and gave [it] unto the king of Assyria: but he helped him not.And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD: this [is that] king Ahaz. For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, [therefore] will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the LORD, and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem. And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD God of his fathers."

You see in, Isa.8:11-12, Isa. was speaking/warning against a confederacy with "the nations"---GOD HIMSELF is the strength and fortress of those who TRUST IN HIM.

Either the whole message (Isaiah 7:14-17) is about the prophecy of Jesus or none of them. You can't have Jesus' fulfilling (Isaiah's) 7:14 without also fulfilling (Isaiah's) 7:15-17, which was Judah being saved by the king of Assyria.

And when you read, and I mean truly read the entire prophecy 7:14-17, as well as the rest of chapter 7 and chapter 8 from verse 1 to 18, it clearly showed that prophecy wasn't about a messiah, unless you think the King of Assyria, because Assyria saved Ahaz and his kingdom from Ahaz's enemies.

So it is senseless to blindly following Matthew's claim, without considering the entire prophecy (again Isaiah 7:14-17).

Jesus' birth, as given in both gospels of Matthew and Luke, is a myth, and contrary to one another. But I will not go into this, since it will lead us off-topic. How do we know where either Matthew or Luke.

In any case, I see that some Christians are blinded by the blinkers in from of their eyes because they choose to read 1 verse without read the whole chapter.

Gnostic, as you attested to---your interest is in "Myths" and that is what you have assessed the Scriptures(Bible) to be. I look upon the writings of Genesis to Revelation as the History of mankind and the ultimate to the purpose for which it was Created. Our views/focus are clearly 180 degrees apart.

Notice this piece of history. 1Chron.5:26, "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day. "
It is the Creator GOD who builds up and tears down "kingdoms". (OH! I forgot to you GOD is just a "myth".)

So you're saying that Gabriel told Matthew? Or do you think Joseph told Matthew what Gabriel told Joseph?

I didn't say either one. Your are inserting things.

As far as I know, Joseph died before Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection, according to Christian traditions. Neither the gospel of Mark (the earliest of the canonical gospel) nor Paul ever mentioned Joseph or Jesus' miraculous conception and birth.

Silence means nothing. another attempt to "insert".

I had enough. I'm fed up of teaching to understand the whole prophecy, instead of cherry-picking a single verse without reading the whole prophecy. It is exactly these types of debate from Christians like yourself, which made me baulk twice (in my late teen) and becoming a Christian (from 2 different churches). I have posted half-dozen posts too many. I am not posting anymore in reply to you, since you are too blind to see or read what's in front of you. I may reply to you in other future threads, but not here.

Well, Gnostic, When one is trying to teach contrary to what Gabriel clearly said was the meaning of the "sign", I'll accept HIS worn over that of one who is clearly manufacturing/believing in/creating/producing "myths".
Why should I believe in that which you have written just because it is before me???.
Therefore, Look for a reply to anything that is contrary to scripture.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by disciple
it really doesn't matter what religion someone follows as long as they aren't using confirmation bias to reach their conclusions....

I think that's the point gnosis is trying to make.

Christians are more than willing to overlook an entire chapter of Isaiah except for the single verse that seems to validate their beliefs, even going so far as to mistranslate that particular verse in order to do so.

Jews are more likely to read the words of their prophets in their own context, rather than work off the starting assumption that it has anything to do with Jesus. They're also more likely to know the language Isaiah wrote in (Hebrew).

Hi PS, This post of yours is a great example of the "confirmational bias" Disciple was stressing.

Seems logical and reasonable to pay attention to what Jews say on the matter and is not, as you suggest, confirmation bias.

Case "confirmed".