Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, I'll give you my answer direct. The writer of the Gospel was Matthew and Human. That Fact makes him fallible and able to make mistakes. However, the Being which quoted from Isaiah was the Angel Gabriel to Joseph. Matthew in writing the Gospel(the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) included the "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"

I'll still take Gabriel's information and message over what is speculated for Isaiah7:14 and 8:1+

More bucket-load of fallacies, baseless claims and horse craps. :foot:

This gospel never say that angel was Gabriel. Gabriel didn't quote (@ Matthew 1:22-23) from Isaiah, Matthew did (or whoever wrote this gospel). The only time the unnamed angel spoke are verse 20-21:

20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

These are the only words that the angel spoke (bold and in blue).

The angel also told Joseph to name the child "Jesus", not "Immanuel". Jesus does not equal to Immanuel, no matter how you look at it.

You do like twisting the words around to suit your imaginary claim. You seriously can't read, can you? :cover:

Blah! I'm wasting my time in answering you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Gnostic, I'll give you my answer direct. The writer of the Gospel was Matthew and Human.

How do you know?

 

[sincerly]

How do you know?

How do you know that he wasn't????
And my initial post was precise.

 

[sincerly]

More bucket-load of fallacies, baseless claims and horse craps. :foot:

This gospel never say that angel was Gabriel. Gabriel didn't quote (@ Matthew 1:22-23) from Isaiah, Matthew did (or whoever wrote this gospel). The only time the unnamed angel spoke are verse 20-21:

These are the only words that the angel spoke (bold and in blue).
The angel also told Joseph to name the child "Jesus", not "Immanuel". Jesus does not equal to Immanuel, no matter how you look at it.

You do like twisting the words around to suit your imaginary claim. You seriously can't read, can you? :cover:

Blah! I'm wasting my time in answering you.

Hi Gnostic, The above is the only portion of your post that copied from the "quote" button.
An Angel is seen in Matthew's and Luke's accounting of the Conception events of Mary. There is no good reason to believe that GOD would send a separate Angel to each of the "need to know people". And that Angel was Gabriel.
Yes, in both accounts, the name to be called was Jesus. Which means--Savior. In Luke 19:9-10, Jesus said, "And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost".
Immanuel= GOD with us--and the Angel Gabriel said to Mary(Luke 1:35), "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gnostic, I understand your point of view---as you have acknowledged being "agnostic", Therefore, everything to do with GOD and the Bible is as your initial sentence says---and that is your prerogative.

Prophecies were made by GOD to the Prophets in the OT and these were "fulfilled" in the NT and Gospels.
Matt.26:52-56, "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled."
After the Resurrection, Jesus met with the Disciples and (Luke 24:27, 44-48 declares/explains), "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."

That witness is still to be Believed or Rejected by its hears. Plain and simple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The writer of the Gospel was Matthew and Human.

How do you know?

How do you know that he wasn't????

You made a claim. Justify it.

And my initial post was precise.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof was pathetic.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'll still take Gabriel's information and message over what is speculated for Isaiah7:14 and 8:1+

My point in all my questions is that all religions work if you believe in them. Of course, what you believe fills you, guides you, and gives you the comfort of knowing. But what about a Catholic who prays and sees a vision of Mary? A Pentecostal who gets "a word" from the Lord? A Mormon who believes an angel spoke to Joseph Smith? For other Catholics and other Pentecostals and for other Mormons that my be profound and meaningful. To you and I it might seem like delusion. Some people believe that all people that take the Bible too literally are delusional. Yet, it works. It changes lives--all the variations of it.
But for a Jew, his beliefs work for him too. Why tell him he is wrong? Because we think we have a better truth? We think God is really three in one? We think Jesus is the only way to salvation? But for how many centuries did Christians, the Catholic version, try and "convince" the Jews they were wrong? For all those Jews that "converted" in the Inquisition were they in a better religion or a better truth than what they had? Should they have become Catholics? And then, when Luther came along, should they have converted to Lutheranism? And then what, Calvinism? Then what? And, Christianity is still changing.
I have a book, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot, editor. It has quotes from early Church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and others. Their main argument seems to be that a young woman having a child isn't much of a sign. They make it a big deal that Mary must have been a virgin to make the sign something fantastic. They also complain about the Ebionites for not believing the virgin birth. Now why wouldn't Jewish believers in Jesus not believe in the virgin birth? Why would even the early Church fathers not take the whole chapter in Isaiah in context and focus only on whether the woman was a virgin or young women? Again, why didn't other apostles write about the virgin birth? For me, it is worth questioning. I know what belief in Jesus does for you is real, but is it based on reality? Like a Catholic that sees Mary or sees the face of Jesus on a tortilla, it changes their lives. It fills them with faith and confidence in the Catholic form of Christianity, but is it real?
I know how strongly you believe in your form of Christianity, but we don't even know what it is? What if we give our lives to Jesus and ask, "Brother Sincerly, what else should we do to be complete?" And you say, "You must give all your money away to the poor and come live with me in my compound in Texas for the end is nigh." Or you what if you say, "Come to my Church in Kentucky and we'll handle some snakes, just like the Lord said." I'm pretty sure you're not like that, but no matter how good of a Christian you are, you're not perfect and could have some flaky beliefs mixed in. What if you are touched by the Spirit and start speaking in tongues and come tell us, "Well boys, have you been baptized in the Spirit yet?" Or, "You know what? The Angel Moroni is real and spoke to me. Come with me and join the Mormon Church." But don't laugh, because I've done this to people. In the early 70's I was a Baha'i preaching to Christians. I switched, got saved, and the next week I was preaching Jesus to my Baha'i friends. And, after six months of being a Christian, I was asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. If, left alone, I would have been happy in any one them.But, none of us are left alone. We try to teach, preach and change each other. I played the game and now I don't know trust any of them.
Words, even words in the Bible, don't mean much when they can be turned around and taken out of context. Your big picture is sound and complete in your mind and heart, but what is that big picture? Pre-millennial? Post-millenial? Tongues no tongues? Is the Pope the legitimate successor to Peter? Darby and Dispensationalism? Some kind of Fundamentalism? Six day creation and a young Earth or do you believe in an old Earth? Do you think that once saved always saved? Who were the people that told you what and how to believe? Some things are literal, some allegorical. How do you know which to believe? It is not the Bible you trust in, it is an interpretation of it. What is it, and why do you believe yours is the best one?

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, I understand your point of view---as you have acknowledged being "agnostic", Therefore, everything to do with GOD and the Bible is as your initial sentence says---and that is your prerogative.

This has everything to do with the context of the scriptures, whether it be Hebrew Tanakh or the Christian Bible, not about whether I believe in this god of yours.

Yes, I am agnostic, but that doesn't mean I don't understand what I read.

Do not confuse my agnosticism (with regards to a god's existence, to be unknowable) with a book (like the Bible), for they are not the same thing. Despite my agnosticism, I can read passages and judge things for myself, on whether they make sense or not. I read like I read all literature, which is take everything in consideration, and not cherry-picking selective verse to change the context of that single verse.

What I see is that Matthew is wrong with his quote and with his claim. Nothing in chapter 7, including 14, indicate that it has anything to do with messiah, or with Jesus.

The way I see it, either the whole chapter has to do with messiah (or Jesus), or none of it has to do with the messiah. Twisting the words around in ONE VERSE doesn't make it true.

AND it doesn't make sense to put the Jesus in chapter 7, when nothing in chapter 7 have anything to do with Jesus, let alone verse 14.

And you keep bl@#dy Gabriel again and again. Gabriel, or whoever that angel is in Matthew 1, didn't quote from Isaiah 7:14, Matthew (or whoever the real author is) did.

You haven't shown once ounce of evidence to support your argument beyond using circular reasoning, using logical fallacy and plain misunderstanding what is written in chapter 7 (including verse 14 of Isaiah).

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by gnostic
Is sincerly saying that the person who wrote the gospel (whether he be Matthew or someone else) is not human, not fallible and can't make mistake?

Is he saying that the person who quoted from Isaiah 7:14 is not a man?

(I refused to reply directly to him in this thread, because I fed up with his ego, his lack of evidences, his bucket-load of logic fallacies and circular reasoning, and his taste for exaggeration. I had wasted enough time with him.)

Hi Gnostic, I'll give you my answer direct. The writer of the Gospel was Matthew and Human. That Fact makes him fallible and able to make mistakes. However, the Being which quoted from Isaiah was the Angel Gabriel to Joseph. Matthew in writing the Gospel(the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) included the "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"

I'll still take Gabriel's information and message over what is speculated for Isaiah7:14 and 8:1+

You made a claim. Justify it.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof was pathetic.

Hi JS, I have no reason to doubt or dispute that the Matthew who for 3 1/2 years went daily with Jesus as HE healed and taught the people and the Kingdom of GOD IS/WAS the writer of that Gospel which bears his name and that he was a human.
Luke recorded/confirmed the same message in different words that Matthew recorded.
you see, I trust the Same GOD who gave messages in the OT to do the same job in the NT of keeping the Scriptures to HIS standards.
Jesus laid bare the "man made traditions" and the "commandments of men" from/by the Jewish leaders of that Day and Luther laid bare many of those which propagated by the power which usurped the early followers of the Disciples.

I wasn't living at the time Isaiah write his 'book' nor Matthew his----and neither were you.
You are free to believe what-so-ever you please concerning both. I still believe that Isaiah was instructed to phrase that prophecy the way he did and that Gabriel used it to fulfill---it and the initial prophetic words to Adam and EVE(Gen.3:15).

Matthew was well acquainted with "that the prophecies may be fulfilled". And Jesus had gone over those prophecies with the Disciples---as stated in a previous post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The writer of the Gospel was Matthew ...

How do you know?

Hi JS, I have no reason to doubt or dispute that the Matthew who for 3 1/2 years went daily with Jesus as HE healed and taught the people and the Kingdom of GOD IS/WAS the writer of that Gospel which bears his name and that he was a human.

This type of circular reasoning is simply pitiful.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, I understand your point of view---as you have acknowledged being "agnostic", Therefore, everything to do with GOD and the Bible is as your initial sentence says---and that is your prerogative.

This has everything to do with the context of the scriptures, whether it be Hebrew Tanakh or the Christian Bible, not about whether I believe in this god of yours.

Agreed, But did you analyse and understand the views of Matthew and Luke in recording the same event.? They are in agreement. Just from a "different angle"/wording.

Yes, I am agnostic, but that doesn't mean I don't understand what I read.

Your ability to read wasn't questioned nor implied to be faulty. However, What one believes does influence one's perception of the subject.

Do not confuse my agnosticism (with regards to a god's existence, to be unknowable) with a book (like the Bible), for they are not the same thing. Despite my agnosticism, I can read passages and judge things for myself, on whether they make sense or not. I read like I read all literature, which is take everything in consideration, and not cherry-picking selective verse to change the context of that single verse.

SO! What do you expect to conclude after reading something you don't believe or believe is false?

There is no difference in "cherry-picking" of verses that have the same principles/or meanings and "cherry-picking" for seeming contradictions/contrived issues.
Different verses with the same principles/meanings may be in a variety of "contexts."

What I see is that Matthew is wrong with his quote and with his claim. Nothing in chapter 7, including 14, indicate that it has anything to do with messiah, or with Jesus.

However, AREN'T you ignoring what another writer in recording the same event is explaining about it?? And, also, that which Jesus said in pulling all the "Prophecies" into one "FACT".---the fulfilling of the mission for which Jesus was born on this earth in the first place.

The way I see it, either the whole chapter has to do with messiah (or Jesus), or none of it has to do with the messiah. Twisting the words around in ONE VERSE doesn't make it true.

AND it doesn't make sense to put the Jesus in chapter 7, when nothing in chapter 7 have anything to do with Jesus, let alone verse 14.

What doesn't make sense is to tie a "virgin" prophecy and "Emmanuel" to a "wife" and "Mahershalalhashbaz".

And you keep bl@#dy Gabriel again and again. Gabriel, or whoever that angel is in Matthew 1, didn't quote from Isaiah 7:14, Matthew (or whoever the real author is) did.

I believe Matthew to be the real author and Gabriel did meet with both Joseph and Mary; Luke(1:35) records, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

You haven't shown once ounce of evidence to support your argument beyond using circular reasoning, using logical fallacy and plain misunderstanding what is written in chapter 7 (including verse 14 of Isaiah).

I'm well aware that the scriptural evidence I have posted isn't in agreement with what you want to hear and acknowledge.

 

[sincerly]

This type of circular reasoning is simply pitiful.

Truthful reasoning is usually designated as "pitiful." Or worse!

 

[sincerly]

My point in all my questions is that all religions work if you believe in them. Of course, what you believe fills you, guides you, and gives you the comfort of knowing. But what about a Catholic who prays and sees a vision of Mary? A Pentecostal who gets "a word" from the Lord? A Mormon who believes an angel spoke to Joseph Smith? For other Catholics and other Pentecostals and for other Mormons that my be profound and meaningful. To you and I it might seem like delusion. Some people believe that all people that take the Bible too literally are delusional. Yet, it works. It changes lives--all the variations of it.

Does It?? One way, Isn't many or self-selecting. You used a very important word---Delusional. Those who choose to believe false material/teachings/Doctrines/etc. and choose not to be corrected by the "Scriptures" will be sent "strong delusions to believe a lie."
Isa.66:4, "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose [that] in which I delighted not.

2Thess.2:11, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: "

And what did Jesus say, Matt.7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. "

2 Peter 1:10, says, "make your calling and election sure". Paul wrote, "Study--rightly divide the word of truth". 2Tim.2:15
Jesus gave Parables---one of which was concerning "5 Foolish virgins"---they had ever opportunity to be prepared for the return of the bridegroom, but neglected to do so.
Then Jesus gave the source for that correct knowledge in these verses. John 5:39-47, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I know how strongly you believe in your form of Christianity, but we don't even know what it is? What if we give our lives to Jesus and ask, "Brother Sincerly, what else should we do to be complete?" And you say, "You must give all your money away to the poor and come live with me in my compound in Texas for the end is nigh." Or you what if you say, "Come to my Church in Kentucky and we'll handle some snakes, just like the Lord said." I'm pretty sure you're not like that, but no matter how good of a Christian you are, you're not perfect and could have some flaky beliefs mixed in. What if you are touched by the Spirit and start speaking in tongues and come tell us, "Well boys, have you been baptized in the Spirit yet?" Or, "You know what? The Angel Moroni is real and spoke to me. Come with me and join the Mormon Church." But don't laugh, because I've done this to people. In the early 70's I was a Baha'i preaching to Christians. I switched, got saved, and the next week I was preaching Jesus to my Baha'i friends. And, after six months of being a Christian, I was asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. If, left alone, I would have been happy in any one them.But, none of us are left alone. We try to teach, preach and change each other. I played the game and now I don't know trust any of them.
Words, even words in the Bible, don't mean much when they can be turned around and taken out of context. Your big picture is sound and complete in your mind and heart, but what is that big picture? Pre-millennial? Post-millenial? Tongues no tongues? Is the Pope the legitimate successor to Peter? Darby and Dispensationalism? Some kind of Fundamentalism? Six day creation and a young Earth or do you believe in an old Earth? Do you think that once saved always saved? Who were the people that told you what and how to believe? Some things are literal, some allegorical. How do you know which to believe? It is not the Bible you trust in, it is an interpretation of it. What is it, and why do you believe yours is the best one?

CG D, My posts have revealed a lot of what I believe, but like the "5 wise virgins" they couldn't supply the foolish one's with that which comes with securing by FAITH.
NO, I do believe in the Principles/Teachings which are presented in the Scriptures,---In the English language the principles are presented as intended---they do not need man's further interpretation/explanation.
I have posted several times Isa.8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."
Did you notice that is just a few verses beyond this topic?(Ahaz had strayed from GOD and was seeking help from who?)

 

[gnostic]

Agreed, But did you analyse and understand the views of Matthew and Luke in recording the same event.? They are in agreement. Just from a "different angle"/wording.

Luke and Matthew tell of 2 completely different birth myths of Jesus.

Definitely different angles, different details. And let's not forget - 2 completely different genealogies. And it is more than just different wordings, the settings are different.

Everything other settings/details are different.

In Luke, the setting was one of peaceful: no star, no 3 kings/magi, no massacre, no exile to Egypt. And Herod is barely mentioned.

While in Matthew's, there are stable or manger, no shepherds, no procession of angels. And the census and governorship took place in the wrong time (Qurinius didn't become governor of Syria and census in Judaea, until 6 CE or AD 6, when Judaea officially became a Roman province).

There are only 2 things both gospels have in common: Jesus was a son of Mary, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Your ability to read wasn't questioned nor implied to be faulty. However, What one believes does influence one's perception of the subject.

And you're completely wrong. You have completely ignored chapter 7 (Isaiah).

If one verse (14) is about the messiah and Jesus, then logically the whole chapter should be about the messiah and Jesus. The only explanation to this, Matthew misquoted, misused and misinterpreted 7:14.

Only a fool would ignored 7:1-17 and Isaiah 8:1-18. And Mathew is either a fool or liar...or both.

I believe Matthew to be the real author and Gabriel did meet with both Joseph and Mary; Luke(1:35) records, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

I really don't give a flying crap about the Holy Ghost or Gabriel, they are completely irrelevant to this thread.

If Gabriel was really involved with quoting Isaiah 7:14, then why did Gabriel used the Greek Septuagint, instead of the original Hebrew when quoting?

You would think that people being Hebrews, Jews, Israelites or Judaeans, the angel would have and should decency to have spoken in Hebrew instead of Greek, because that's where Matthew 1:23 comes from; it used the Greek word parthenos "virgin" instead of the original Hebrew almah "young woman", and Isaiah was originally composed in Hebrew, not Greek.

There is no difference in "cherry-picking" of verses that have the same principles/or meanings and "cherry-picking" for seeming contradictions/contrived issues.
Different verses with the same principles/meanings may be in a variety of "contexts."

I'm well aware that the scriptural evidence I have posted isn't in agreement with what you want to hear and acknowledge.

I have read Isaiah 7, from verse 1 to 17, as it is, which include the context of this chapter and afterward (afterward, meaning Isaiah 8:1-18). This mean, I am not cherry-picking, and twisting meaning of what's going on in Isaiah 7.

You, on the other hand, HAVE USED ONLY ONE VERSE, and ONE VERSE ONLY, and putting messiah or Jesus into this verse, while ignoring the whole chapter. That's a classic case of cherry-picking.

If Jesus is really identified as the son in Isaiah 7:14, then answer the following questions:

1. How do Jesus is related in the event of Isaiah 7:1-12? (Jerusalem was under siege, according to Isaiah 1:1.)
2. How do Jesus fit in, saving Judah from Israel and Aram? (The sign that Assyria will save Judah.)
3. What do Jesus have to do with the King of Assyria?
4. Why do you ignore Ahaz, Pekah and Rezin?
5. Why do you ignore the sign being fulfilled in 8:18?
6. If Jesus is the Redeemer or Saviour that you believed him to be and the one who was herald in Isaiah 7:14, then why didn't Jesus save Judah?

You tends to ignore these questions (from my past replies). And that you've ignored these points and questions in the past, you are only believing what you have read, and not understanding what are really there, right in front of your face.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Sincerly, It's obvious that we see the verses different. You've defended your beliefs well, like a boxer, a jab here, a counter-punch, a little rope-a-dope. Some might say you use circular reasoning, but that's okay with me. You believe your Bible and that it proves itself. That's okay too. But you were not my intended target for this argument, or debate, or whatever we're doing. I was looking for borderline people. People that like and study all religions. I wanted to find them before they got locked in to only one way of seeing the Bible. I wanted them to be able to stand up and question their own beliefs and a new perspective. I wanted anybody in any religion to take the best out of their religion and apply it to their lives. I wanted hard-core Christians to lighten up a little and respect people of other religions without trying to convert them and tell them that their ancient, traditional beliefs are wrong. Of course all religions have their beliefs that just don't make sense today, but that includes all forms of Christianity. Probably most every Christian assumes that the gospels are perfect and correct. All I wanted to do is to show them that no, even their Scriptures have some questionable things going on.
You're a patient man, Sincerly. This thread would not have gone anywhere without you. But my complaint will always be that if one form of Christianity, the one with the right beliefs and right doctrines, is the only one that is right then that makes everybody else wrong. We're talking about words on a page, and all religions have their words. All religions can take their words and prove everybody else wrong if they wanted to. Why do people keep doing that? I know; it's because they think they're right, but is there a truth beyond words? I know you will keep defending the words of your faith, and I guess that's okay. After all, you may be the one that's right.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Agreed, But did you analyse and understand the views of Matthew and Luke in recording the same event.? They are in agreement. Just from a "different angle"/wording.

Luke and Matthew tell of 2 completely different birth myths of Jesus.

Definitely different angles, different details. And let's not forget - 2 completely different genealogies. And it is more than just different wordings, the settings are different.

Everything other settings/details are different.

In Luke, the setting was one of peaceful: no star, no 3 kings/magi, no massacre, no exile to Egypt. And Herod is barely mentioned.

While in Matthew's, there are stable or manger, no shepherds, no procession of angels. And the census and governorship took place in the wrong time (Qurinius didn't become governor of Syria and census in Judaea, until 6 CE or AD 6, when Judaea officially became a Roman province).

There are only 2 things both gospels have in common: Jesus was a son of Mary, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Hi Gnostic, my comment above was concerning what was in common with the announcement to Mary of the Birth of Jesus and in conjunction with the prophesied Isa.7:14 accounting. The records of such were seen in Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.
Luke's Accounting of the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ begins with these words1:1-4), "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. "

Each writer presented the Narrative(biography) in their own words and started
the narrative at different points in the life and setting which impressed them just as do writers of today.
John wrote at the end of his "Gospel"(20:30-31), "and many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
Also, (21:25), "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. "

Where would you have entered into writing about the life and teachings and events surrounding Jesus Christ.?? Luke and Matthew started giving the facts as the life and dealings with the people and their needs to know was determined by Peoples who would be reading their accounts.

You are "cherry-picking"--- The what isn't expressed by one or the other---and basing "myth" on such.
The Scriptures were given to instruct GOD'S People in the correct relationship one should have to "their GOD" and to "their neighbor"; And in warnings of back-slidings as well as prophecies.

Luke and Matthew tell of 2 completely different birth myths of Jesus.......

I really don't give a flying crap about the Holy Ghost or Gabriel, they are completely irrelevant to this thread......

Unless you have a change of heart, you will not be able to see that the Bible is From GOD and that the participants are real.

And you're completely wrong. You have completely ignored chapter 7 (Isaiah).

If one verse (14) is about the messiah and Jesus, then logically the whole chapter should be about the messiah and Jesus. The only explanation to this, Matthew misquoted, misused and misinterpreted 7:14.

Only a fool would ignored 7:1-17 and Isaiah 8:1-18. And Mathew is either a fool or liar...or both.[/quote]

No! I have dealt with the prophecy of Isa. 7:14 and left it about 750 years in the past from the scene described/given in Matthew1:18-25; and Luke 126-38---which are the fulfillment of it.

Gen.3:15 is a single verse which is prophesied/referring to this same topic---the seed of woman/birth of Jesus Christ---neither is His name mentioned nor does the rest of the Chapter give any details. Therefore, your assumption is erroneous.

Yes, the scriptures do speak of foolish ones, (Ps.14:1; 53:1), "The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. "

If Gabriel was really involved with quoting Isaiah 7:14, then why did Gabriel used the Greek Septuagint, instead of the original Hebrew when quoting?

You would think that people being Hebrews, Jews, Israelites or Judaeans, the angel would have and should decency to have spoken in Hebrew instead of Greek, because that's where Matthew 1:23 comes from; it used the Greek word parthenos "virgin" instead of the original Hebrew almah "young woman", and Isaiah was originally composed in Hebrew, not Greek.

Gnostic, you are desperately trying to build straw-men with no foundation. The NT was written in the Greek. The people had been subject to the Grecian Empire prior to the that/Now Roman Empire.
I do not believe you will find in the OT usage of "almah" any passages which refer to other than a female who had NOT had sex.---therefore, "virgin".

If Jesus is really identified as the son in Isaiah 7:14, then answer the following questions:

1. How do Jesus is related in the event of Isaiah 7:1-12? (Jerusalem was under siege, according to Isaiah 1:1.)
2. How do Jesus fit in, saving Judah from Israel and Aram? (The sign that Assyria will save Judah.)
3. What do Jesus have to do with the King of Assyria?
4. Why do you ignore Ahaz, Pekah and Rezin?
5. Why do you ignore the sign being fulfilled in 8:18?
6. If Jesus is the Redeemer or Saviour that you believed him to be and the one who was herald in Isaiah 7:14, then why didn't Jesus save Judah.

You tends to ignore these questions (from my past replies). And that you've ignored these points and questions in the past, you are only believing what you have read, and not understanding what are really there, right in front of your face.

Gnostic, a prophecy denotes something in the future. What you are ignoring is that Isaiah's wife was to give birth to the " son" referred to in Isa.8+. Also, King Ahaz was in rebellion to the word of GOD. Why shouldn't GOD remind a rebellious king that HIS "planned seed" would bring about "HIS Purposes"?
History acknowledges that GOD'S Prophecies are SURE.
Again, Immanuel is not Mahershalalhashbaz.
"Immanuel" was born hundreds of years after "Mahershalalhashbaz. "

 

[sincerly]

Hey Sincerly, It's obvious that we see the verses different. You've defended your beliefs well, like a boxer, a jab here, a counter-punch, a little rope-a-dope. Some might say you use circular reasoning, but that's okay with me. You believe your Bible and that it proves itself. That's okay too. But you were not my intended target for this argument, or debate, or whatever we're doing. I was looking for borderline people. People that like and study all religions. I wanted to find them before they got locked in to only one way of seeing the Bible. I wanted them to be able to stand up and question their own beliefs and a new perspective. I wanted anybody in any religion to take the best out of their religion and apply it to their lives. I wanted hard-core Christians to lighten up a little and respect people of other religions without trying to convert them and tell them that their ancient, traditional beliefs are wrong. Of course all religions have their beliefs that just don't make sense today, but that includes all forms of Christianity. Probably most every Christian assumes that the gospels are perfect and correct. All I wanted to do is to show them that no, even their Scriptures have some questionable things going on.

Hi CG D, Think about the above for just a second. That which you have as a goal isn't Scriptural/Biblically possible. If it were, then the Bible is useless as a corrective measure.
And it all started with Adam and EVE and a "snake" in the Garden----and a thing we call/understand as OBEDIENCE. There is either a CREATOR GOD or we all just spontaneously appeared out of nothing.( Personally, everything I see denies the latter.)
Therefore, The scriptures all Confirm that I either have/accept that Creator GOD as my GOD or knowingly/willingly accept the consequences for my rejection.
There is no circumventing HIS requirements by "being satisfied" in a belief which is counter to that which GOD has said is acceptable.
The First Commandment forbids any beliefs other than what GOD has spoken and written for those who have chosen to have GOD as their GOD.
Therefore, no matter what one "believes to be the right way for them"-- if it is contrary to the "Thus saith the Lord GOD" or "It is Written" by HIS prophets for one's Admonition, then one has rejected the Creator GOD.

It isn't what is "good" in one's beliefs that one needs to correct, but that which is contrary to the Father's Will. ALL that will be Resurrected and be a part of the new earth will believe alike. That is the message of the Scriptures. GOD is "not willing that any should perish ,but that ALL come to repentance". That is giving up one's erroneous/contrary beliefs.

You're a patient man, Sincerly. This thread would not have gone anywhere without you. But my complaint will always be that if one form of Christianity, the one with the right beliefs and right doctrines, is the only one that is right then that makes everybody else wrong. We're talking about words on a page, and all religions have their words. All religions can take their words and prove everybody else wrong if they wanted to. Why do people keep doing that? I know; it's because they think they're right, but is there a truth beyond words? I know you will keep defending the words of your faith, and I guess that's okay. After all, you may be the one that's right.

CG D, My Faith is in the Jesus Christ who Created all things and in the Scriptures that tell the narrative of why it is so---and why there has to be a cleansing of all things which offend.---before a new heaven and earth can complete the "Pleasure" for which the initial Creation was intended.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I do not believe you will find in the OT usage of "almah" any passages which refer to other than a female who had NOT had sex.---therefore, "virgin".

The woman in Isaiah 7:14 was already pregnant, therefore there was no reason to believe that she was a virgin.

Additionally, the usage of almah in Proverbs 30 refers to a woman who is not a virgin.

 

[CG Didymus]

It isn't what is "good" in one's beliefs that one needs to correct, but that which is contrary to the Father's Will. ALL that will be Resurrected and be a part of the new earth will believe alike. That is the message of the Scriptures. GOD is "not willing that any should perish ,but that ALL come to repentance". That is giving up one's erroneous/contrary beliefs.

I'm speaking from a belief that men had dreams and visions and created religions around those dreams and visions. Some religions look silly to us now, but in their day, they held a people and culture together. So going back to our blind men and the elephant, I'm still following behind picking up the poops left behind. It's kind of like doing forensic science. I'm examining the people and the junk left behind. Most Christians throughout time have been very poor examples of God's love. I don't blame anyone for turning away. When it comes down to words on a page? Who can say what it really means. If you're right, keep going. I'll catch up to you someday.

 

[gnostic]

Again, you've just proven I waste my time in replying to you.

No where was Jesus ever named Immanuel. Even Jesus himself never referred himself as Immanuel, just prove you don't know what you're talking about.

You've ignored the context of the entire chapter, because some stupid misquote and misinterpret claim of Matthew, demonstrated that you're cherry-picking, misusing, misinterpreting, misquoting Isaiah in order to suit your agenda.

For this thread, I completely done with answering you and done with your ignorance. May you wallow in your ignorance.

 

[sincerly]

Hi CG D, Just another thought. It was mankind(Adam and Eve) that thought that other source(the serpent) had a better answer for their lives.
It is still mankind, who thinks the Changing of GOD'S ways to one's beliefs which are contrary to the Scriptures that are the best.

We know what "their thoughts were only evil continually" lead to some 4500 years ago. and what has been prophesied and promised when conditions hit that level again. Therefore, ????