Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

I really like the redactor idea. I can easily believe that several people had their hands on the writing and compiling of Mathew. Who were his sources. Who was his editor? God? How many drafts did he go through until he said, "Okay, let's publish!" Did someone come in later and add a few "clarifying" verses? There is reasonable doubt, and a lot is at stake.

Fundamentalist Christians need it to be literally true, but here I am barely at the beginning of his story, and I have a problem. It "literally" doesn't add up. How many more misquotes are there? Instead of hijacking Judaism, and nullifying it, I would've preferred if Christians said, "You know Judaism has a few good points. Let's make a new religion loosely based on it, but much easier."

But no (a John Belushi "But no") The Law? Gone. The Sabbath? Gone. The Jewish Feasts? Gone. Christians gutted Judaism. I've seen the verses that said things like the Law and the Sabbath will be forever, or for all your generations. Isn't that literal?

My brain hurt trying to preach Jesus to Jews. I gave up and finally asked, "Okay, why don't you believe. He's your messiah?" I shouldn't have asked. I was in blissful Christian ignorance. Now look at me, I'm a spiritual basket case. (Not literally. I'm exaggerating. And, thank you all. I'm learning a lot.)

I have yet to ever get a straight answer when I ask a Christian if they think God was a filthy liar when he said "To the thousandth generation".

Jesus most clearly taught nothing less than law obedience. What most Christians do is pervert and twist the heck out of what Jesus said into something that doesn't fit the context whatsoever. And they fail to recognize that if Jesus broke even one Law, he wouldn't be so "sinless" as they claim. This is why many Apologetic sites make a big point of attacking this widespread fallacy that Jesus himself abrogated the Law while alive, and instead turn it into an issue that he only abrogated when he died (Which is equally fallacious).

And then there's the whole book of Acts chapter 15 issue, which I also believe is interpolated.

.

CGD, You say you are learning, but "doubting" doesn't lead to true understanding. You remind me of the story concerning a group of blind men who were trying to describe what an Elephant is by each feeling of a different part of an Elephant.
The LAW and the Prophets were given and sent to mankind for a specific mission---To tell of the Love of GOD and show how GOD expects mankind to relate to GOD and to each other. However, after the "fall of mankind", there was an added "law" which was patterned after the "Heavenly Sanctuary".
The sacrificial "pattern" was initiated in the Garden of Eden at the first disobedience--the clothing of Adam and Eve with the "skin of an animal"--death/blood. That isn't seen again until the Sinai experience. "Make me a sanctuary after the pattern".
There is NO REASONABLE DOUBT when one looks at the Big Picture.
ALL those who Jesus chose as Apostles were Jews and were Zealous for the things of GOD. They Kept the Laws of GOD even better than those leaders of the community who were rejecting the very Laws of GOD(and the coming Messiah) while claiming to honor them. (The Messiah, Jesus, came unto HIS own, and HIS own received him Not---prophesied/fulfilled).
The Apostles, nor Jesus, aborgated anything, but what HE CAME TO FULFILL---and that had to do with the "services of the Sanctuary" which were "for the time then present"(Heb.9:1, 9+). They kept the Sabbath. (including the first one after Jesus death) There are Sabbatitarians other than by Judaism.

Shermana, Acts 15 showed it was the "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed" who were false in their accusations---NOT Paul nor his teachings as (15:21) testifies, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read Sabbath day."

 

[CG Didymus]

That has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I'm just as bad for going off topic. My mind is on a hundred different questions already. I'm trying to see a bigger picture here. So one important question is: How has Judaism survived all these centuries? The other Christianity, the Catholics, the original Christianity, tried to get them to convert or die. Still, Judaism lived on.

As a kid I grew up watching John Wayne kill all the Nazi's. I never heard anything about the holocaust. I didn't even know what a Jew was. I was raised in that other Christianity, the Catholics. To be honest, I didn't even know what I was or what I believed. As an ignorant hippie in the 70's, I believed in the age of Aquarius. My spirituality was on the inside, in the heart, not in a bunch of scribbles in a book. Now I know better. Those scribbles mean a lot.

Do I understand them? Do I understand the original languages? Not even close. I depended on others to tell me what they mean, and I depended on them to be telling me the truth. Sure, I read the Bible, and I read commentaries. But which version of the Bible and which commentaries were telling the truth? There are several choices. What if yours is wrong?

I can't write off the Jews without asking them. How can I know what it would be like to have your Scriptures turned around used against you. But that is exactly what I did as a born-again Christian, and that's what all Christians do. Was I right? I thought I was. But, I was merely repeating what I was taught. Did I know it for sure? No, I was trusting the interpretations of my Christian teachers. Were they right? You know there are a lot of flaky "Christian" beliefs out there. How can you know your Church group is right? Not just a little, but it has to be 100% right or there's a problem.

I need to know, what is it like from the other side? From the Jewish side? That is why I appreciate and cherish the comments from the Jewish members of this forum. It is a perspective that was hidden from me, because my religion, my culture, shunned them. My religion told me they were wrong. I assumed they were telling me the truth.

My religion also told me that I was born condemned. It was just pure luck that I was born into a nice Catholic family and got water sprinkled on me to save me from my original sin. I think I cried. Did the water save me? At 22 years old, Protestants told me "no." (What if I would have died before they found me and told me?) They said I needed to confess my sins and accept Jesus as my Savior. Okay, fine. Now what? "Read the Bible." They told me. I did. But they told me what it meant. They told me how to read it. They told me in a way that wasn't conducive to deep questioning.

Now I look at those ink spots and wonder--What do they mean? Those scribbles on the pages could mean a hundred different things. How can I believe my interpretation is the only right one? I can't. I can't close my mind to other explanations. I can't make a decision without hearing from all sides. And where did it all begin? Who were the people that started it all? I have to listen and respect the Jewish side of the story. Is Isaiah chapter seven a prophecy about the messiah? Jewish friends got me to see it different. I think they are right.

 

[CG Didymus]

.

CGD, You say you are learning, but "doubting" doesn't lead to true understanding. You remind me of the story concerning a group of blind men who were trying to describe what an Elephant is by each feeling of a different part of an Elephant.

I am the blind man that showed up late and is stepping in the elephant poop and saying, "Something stinks!"

I doubt because too many people I know got into cults. I like to learn, observe, and try new religions, but I keep one foot in the door ready to run. In the 70's, I danced with the Hari Krishna's and meditated with Zen Buddhists. But then, there was a group of hippie friends that believed they were from Venus. I hung out with them, but I doubt if they really came from Venus.

Jesus said something about his true followers will pick up snakes and drink deadly poison. Did Jesus really say that? I doubt it. Is any of the long ending of Mark genuine? I doubt it. Is the love I felt in my heart when I did the sinner's prayer real? It felt real. I believed it was real. But my doubts made it seem like it was just wishful thinking, maybe believing was just a placebo. I doubt it. There seems to be something real. Don't worry, I'll find the right path. "Hey, any of you guys seen an elephant walk by?"

 

[Harmonious]

I'm sorry, but I'm just as bad for going off topic. My mind is on a hundred different questions already. I'm trying to see a bigger picture here. So one important question is: How has Judaism survived all these centuries? The other Christianity, the Catholics, the original Christianity, tried to get them to convert or die. Still, Judaism lived on.

The fact that there are enough Jews who tenaciously cling to the traditions of old and value the Torah, God, and our traditions enough to pass everything along as faithfully as possible is more or less it.

While that might not sound like enough, it has been pointed out that the fact that Jews exist AT ALL in today's society is a supernatural occurrence. Logistically, based on the age of our faith, the conditions of exile and persecution, assimilation, and whatnot, we shouldn't exist. But we do. God promised, and this is one promise He's kept and the proof is we're still here.

As a kid I grew up watching John Wayne kill all the Nazi's. I never heard anything about the holocaust. I didn't even know what a Jew was. I was raised in that other Christianity, the Catholics. To be honest, I didn't even know what I was or what I believed. As an ignorant hippie in the 70's, I believed in the age of Aquarius. My spirituality was on the inside, in the heart, not in a bunch of scribbles in a book. Now I know better. Those scribbles mean a lot.

Wow.

Do I understand them? Do I understand the original languages? Not even close. I depended on others to tell me what they mean, and I depended on them to be telling me the truth. Sure, I read the Bible, and I read commentaries. But which version of the Bible and which commentaries were telling the truth? There are several choices. What if yours is wrong?

I can't write off the Jews without asking them. How can I know what it would be like to have your Scriptures turned around used against you. But that is exactly what I did as a born-again Christian, and that's what all Christians do. Was I right? I thought I was. But, I was merely repeating what I was taught. Did I know it for sure? No, I was trusting the interpretations of my Christian teachers. Were they right? You know there are a lot of flaky "Christian" beliefs out there. How can you know your Church group is right? Not just a little, but it has to be 100% right or there's a problem.

The questions are good. The answer is not so simple. But I'll give it a shot.

After a certain point, it's just a matter of faith. If a person uses logic, and ONLY logic, they can easily be out-argued by someone who has better logic.

If a person uses logic and faith, logic can be used to support the faith, and when logic fails, faith helps give logic a boost. (It doesn't always work, but at a certain point, when I realize that the only argument left is "Because that's what we believe", I try to agree to disagree. And how gracefully I do it depends on the tenor of the conversation at the time.

I need to know, what is it like from the other side? From the Jewish side? That is why I appreciate and cherish the comments from the Jewish members of this forum.

It is a perspective that was hidden from me, because my religion, my culture, shunned them. My religion told me they were wrong. I assumed they were telling me the truth.

My religion also told me that I was born condemned. It was just pure luck that I was born into a nice Catholic family and got water sprinkled on me to save me from my original sin. I think I cried. Did the water save me? At 22 years old, Protestants told me "no." (What if I would have died before they found me and told me?) They said I needed to confess my sins and accept Jesus as my Savior. Okay, fine. Now what? "Read the Bible." They told me. I did. But they told me what it meant. They told me how to read it. They told me in a way that wasn't conducive to deep questioning.

Now I look at those ink spots and wonder--What do they mean? Those scribbles on the pages could mean a hundred different things. How can I believe my interpretation is the only right one? I can't. I can't close my mind to other explanations. I can't make a decision without hearing from all sides. And where did it all begin? Who were the people that started it all?

Again, I say you ask good questions. But you know... Torah is taught in a way that IS conducive to deep questioning.

Some of the questions that are born of doubt aren't usually the standard fare, but we are willing to look and answer to the best of our abilities. And I'm never afraid to say, "I don't know."

I have to listen and respect the Jewish side of the story. Is Isaiah chapter seven a prophecy about the messiah?

Not a jot.

Jewish friends got me to see it different. I think they are right.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[nazz]

It's just midrash--if you understand the term.

 

[Harmonious]

It's just midrash--if you understand the term.

What is? Jewish survival is manifest truth.

If you want to know WHY the fact of Jewish survival was possible, it is a matter of faith.

Medrash has nothing to do with this.

 

[nazz]

What is? Jewish survival is manifest truth.

If you want to know WHY the fact of Jewish survival was possible, it is a matter of faith.

Medrash has nothing to do with this.

IMO, it has everything to do with it because as you pointed it out it makes no sense as p'shat.

 

[sincerly]

.CGD, You say you are learning, but "doubting" doesn't lead to true understanding. You remind me of the story concerning a group of blind men who were trying to describe what an Elephant is by each feeling of a different part of an Elephant.

I am the blind man that showed up late and is stepping in the elephant poop and saying, "Something stinks!"

CGD, As long as each of those blind men hold fast to their individual "parts" they will not be able to make the concept of the "Whole Elephant". And, YES, what is seen/concluded does "stink".
GOD didn't fragment who HE was/is nor any of HIS teachings. That was done by men in "holding to their traditions" and "decrees made in the councils of men".
In Isa.8:20, GOD specifies to whom one is to seek for Truth and right answers : Is is GOD who instructed the Prophets and GOD gave the LAW. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."
Paul commends the Bereans for searching the scriptures(OT--that's all they had.(Acts17:11), "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. "
The Scriptures are truth and by searching for conformation one finds the truth. The Context of the verse will normally reveal the meaning of any doubtful wording or keep one from applying a false conclusion to a verse.(It is those who "hold to that leg" who fail to see the proper "image" of the elephant.)

I doubt because too many people I know got into cults. I like to learn, observe, and try new religions, but I keep one foot in the door ready to run. In the 70's, I danced with the Hari Krishna's and meditated with Zen Buddhists. But then, there was a group of hippie friends that believed they were from Venus. I hung out with them, but I doubt if they really came from Venus.

Jesus said something about his true followers will pick up snakes and drink deadly poison. Did Jesus really say that? I doubt it. Is any of the long ending of Mark genuine? I doubt it. Is the love I felt in my heart when I did the sinner's prayer real? It felt real. I believed it was real. But my doubts made it seem like it was just wishful thinking, maybe believing was just a placebo. I doubt it. There seems to be something real. Don't worry, I'll find the right path. "Hey, any of you guys seen an elephant walk by?"

Yes, I have no doubt that you will find the "right path", however, if it doesn't agree with the Scriptures then you need to "clean your feet" and continue to search. ALL Roads do not lead to Rome.

Yes, Jesus did say that about snakes and poisons(Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19), but that wasn't a deliberate act on the part of the Believer. There is a Command which forbids such actions.(Deut.6:16; Matt.4:7)

 

[CG Didymus]

CGD, As long as each of those blind men hold fast to their individual "parts" they will not be able to make the concept of the "Whole Elephant". And, YES, what is seen/concluded does "stink".
GOD didn't fragment who HE was/is nor any of HIS teachings.

Before I was presented with the born-again version of Christianity, I was open to all religious "truth." The religious path prior to being "saved" was the Baha'i Faith. They told me they were taking me to the promised land. I believed them. I believed how they defined God and His plan. They showed me how their prophet was the fulfillment of all prophecies of all religions. Was that the truth? I believed it. I preached it--Until the Christians showed me what the New Testament really said.

The Baha'i Faith wasn't a perfect fit for me, but it was pretty close. I was satisfied that it was the truth. Now, Christians destroyed my whole world view of spiritual reality. I question Christianity now, because what the Baha'i did to Christianity, the Christians did to Judaism. Essentially, "Yeah, they were from God, but now we have a new revelation. The followers messed up the original meanings with their traditions, so now here is the new truth for today."

Judaism to Christianity to the Baha'i Faith was not the same elephant. And, what if you throw in Islam, Hinduism, Sikhs, Buddhism and whatever other religions are floating around out there? The religions of man, and how he defines God and reality, are much more complicated than a blind man touching an elephant.

You sound like a well-read and informed believer. I assume in Jesus. What is it that you believe? Because it's probably a part of the elephant I haven't examined yet.

 

[sincerly]

CGD, As long as each of those blind men hold fast to their individual "parts" they will not be able to make the concept of the "Whole Elephant". And, YES, what is seen/concluded does "stink".
GOD didn't fragment who HE was/is nor any of HIS teachings.

Before I was presented with the born-again version of Christianity, I was open to all religious "truth." The religious path prior to being "saved" was the Baha'i Faith. They told me they were taking me to the promised land. I believed them. I believed how they defined God and His plan. They showed me how their prophet was the fulfillment of all prophecies of all religions. Was that the truth? I believed it. I preached it--Until the Christians showed me what the New Testament really said.

The Baha'i Faith wasn't a perfect fit for me, but it was pretty close. I was satisfied that it was the truth. Now, Christians destroyed my whole world view of did tspiritual reality. I question Christianity now, because what the Baha'i o Christianity, the Christians did to Judaism. Essentially, "Yeah, they were from God, but now we have a new revelation. The followers messed up the original meanings with their traditions, so now here is the new truth for today."

Judaism to Christianity to the Baha'i Faith was not the same elephant. And, what if you throw in Islam, Hinduism, Sikhs, Buddhism and whatever other religions are floating around out there? The religions of man, and how he defines God and reality, are much more complicated than a blind man touching an elephant.

You sound like a well-read and informed believer. I assume in Jesus. What is it that you believe? Because it's probably a part of the elephant I haven't examined yet.

Hi CGD, May I offer a hint as to how to separate who said what in your posts? Place[ quote](no spaces) before what you want to quote and [ /quote](no spaces) at the end of the quote. To further indentify, that initial [ quote=(person from whom you are quoting)] (no spaces). I hope that is understandable.

Thanks for giving some of your background information.

Yes, I do believe in Jesus as the Scriptures (OT + NT) reveal and HIS Mission.
Let me clarify here that any information I present is that of those Scriptures and it is your conclusions to said information which are those of your choosing----Believing or disbelieving---Just as Ezek.18 chapter indicates. Therefore, Not proselyting.
Your initial question was Doubting one area of Scripture, but in reality the whole of Christian beliefs, Therefore, my answer will not be "off-topic".

I will try to condense without distorting the facts of the Biblical narrative.(From Genesis to Revelation---For the last 2000 years, people have had a knowledge of the "Beginning and the End" of the "big Picture".)
GOD created a perfect/everything good world with two human Beings to have "dominion" over all that GOD had made. Those two "choose" to disobey. and "Eternal Death/the second death" was the penalty. However, Before the foundation of the creation of things GOD had made provisions of the "Redemption" of mankind in the event of such "disobedience."
Within 1565 years of that "Creation", Mankind had only thoughts of "evil" continually and was destroyed save eight persons.
Those propagated for 100 Years and built a tower in disobedience to thescattering and populating the earth. Now all those individuals on that ARK had direct knowledge of the Creator GOD and upon their forced scattering took that knowledge with them. "Disobedience" was still a factor with them, because the same entity who caused "doubt" in the garden was still among them. (as in seen in JOB) Therefore, a turning from the True GOD to the creations of their own imaginations.( Rom.1:16-25)
The Israelites vascilated from Sinai to the Babylonian captyivity between serving GOD and other gods.
One can see that the "scattering from the tower of babylon" that remnants of the Truths of GOD were retained and other "beliefs" replaced those the "inhabitants" of those regions sought to "improve upon" as Eve thought to do in her beguilment.

When one starts to "improve upon" that which GOD has said and sent via the Prophets, one is left with "poop".

Daniel, during the Captivity, had visions which enlarged upon Nebuchadnazzer's dream. Those extended to the very last of earth's history. In Dan.7:25, he was given the knowledge that an ecclesiastical entity would arise "thinking to change GOD's times and laws." It would last until the very end of the earth's age.(Paul elaborated on this entity in 2Thess.2:3-4)
Also, In 9:24-27, Israel's continuing transgressions would cause it to cease being GOD'S favored means of giving HIS Redeeming message to the world.(Not that the individual person was excluded, but like the rest of the world's population and Ezekiel's message----on an individual basis.(see 1Peter2)

 

[CG Didymus]

[When one starts to "improve upon" that which GOD has said and sent via the Prophets, one is left with "poop".] Dear Sincerly, I bracketed your quote is that good enough?

Let's assume that a person believes the Bible is God's word. Let's assume that person was taught that the Bible is to be taken as literal unless it is obviously a metaphor or something.

Isaiah is straight-forward. This is the sign, the boy. He will get old enough to choose right from wrong and the threat will be over. Is that what God said? Is that what God meant? Or, is there some mystery meaning behind it? I'm okay with mystery meanings, but some of them are going to be a load of do do. (I'm getting tired of poop)

My problem is with my Christian friends that want it literal when it serves their purposes, but symbolic when it literally doesn't fit. One line is taken from Isaiah's chapter, and a word is forced to mean "virgin." That is some major manipulation. I'd expect that from a religious cult, but it came from an apostle of Jesus, Mathew. Mathew is the one that "improved" upon the words of the prophet.

Can I trust Mathew? Was it even Mathew that wrote the gospel? Can I trust his sources? Who told him that birth story, Mary? Why didn't she write her own story. It does come down to--Can I trust any part of the New Testament? I'm not sure I can. But, that is why I'm asking the question. I want to be sure.

 

[nazz]

[When one starts to "improve upon" that which GOD has said and sent via the Prophets, one is left with "poop".] Dear Sincerly, I bracketed your quote is that good enough?

Let's assume that a person believes the Bible is God's word. Let's assume that person was taught that the Bible is to be taken as literal unless it is obviously a metaphor or something.

Isaiah is straight-forward. This is the sign, the boy. He will get old enough to choose right from wrong and the threat will be over. Is that what God said? Is that what God meant? Or, is there some mystery meaning behind it? I'm okay with mystery meanings, but some of them are going to be a load of do do. (I'm getting tired of poop)

My problem is with my Christian friends that want it literal when it serves their purposes, but symbolic when it literally doesn't fit. One line is taken from Isaiah's chapter, and a word is forced to mean "virgin." That is some major manipulation. I'd expect that from a religious cult, but it came from an apostle of Jesus, Mathew. Mathew is the one that "improved" upon the words of the prophet.

Can I trust Mathew? Was it even Mathew that wrote the gospel? Can I trust his sources? Who told him that birth story, Mary? Why didn't she write her own story. It does come down to--Can I trust any part of the New Testament? I'm not sure I can. But, that is why I'm asking the question. I want to be sure.

Certainly a good attitude to have. But when it comes to things of this nature it can be difficult. Which is why it usually comes down to a matter of faith.

Here is another question to ask. Why would someone make up such a preposterous tale?

 

[sincerly]

[When one starts to "improve upon" that which GOD has said and sent via the Prophets, one is left with "poop".] Dear Sincerly, I bracketed your quote is that good enough?

Hi CGD, By Sincerly, "..." would have distinguished who made the remark. Whatever pleases you and you believe is identifying each writer.

You titled your post, "Lots of ways of interpreting prophecies ", And people do just that, however, notice Isaiah spans the reigning of four kings and because of disobedience speaks of the coming Babylonian captivity. It contains Symbols and prophecies. From (1:1 to 66:24) that present day to the creating of new heavens and a new earth at the end of this world's existance and the promised "eternity".

Let's assume that a person believes the Bible is God's word. Let's assume that person was taught that the Bible is to be taken as literal unless it is obviously a metaphor or something.

OK, But didn't JESUS use Jonah's literal experience as symbolic of HIS own death, burial, and resurrection?

Isaiah is straight-forward. This is the sign, the boy. He will get old enough to choose right from wrong and the threat will be over. Is that what God said? Is that what God meant? Or, is there some mystery meaning behind it? I'm okay with mystery meanings, but some of them are going to be a load of do do. (I'm getting tired of poop)

Ahaz said he wouldn't tempt the Lord by asking for a sign (as did Gideon), therefore, GOD said HE would give the "Sign". Are you saying that GOD couldn't give a sign that could be used in the "fulness of time" to Announce the birth of the Messiah--Jesus?(as prophesied in Gen.3:15) Can you really discount Luke's(also) narrative concerning the Birth events and the Angel Gabriel's words to the virgin Mary?
ALL the Prophets are "straight-forward"---and Jesus stated/gave understanding to all that the Prophets had written concerning HIM.(Luke 24:17,44-48) That years prior to their being written down.

My problem is with my Christian friends that want it literal when it serves their purposes, but symbolic when it literally doesn't fit. One line is taken from Isaiah's chapter, and a word is forced to mean "virgin." That is some major manipulation. I'd expect that from a religious cult, but it came from an apostle of Jesus, Mathew. Mathew is the one that "improved" upon the words of the prophet.

See above. Grabriel said Mary was the Chosen one by GOD---Mary declared how could she give Birth when she had never had sexual relations with any male? Any "manipulation"/forceing was done BY GOD.
In Isa. 7:14, "almah" is translated as:
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married

Both Mary and Joseph Deny relations and as the narrative states a laxiness/looseness in having sexual relations was met by stoning. GOD wasn't a party to "blemishes" in HIS required "Sacrifices".

Can I trust Mathew? Was it even Mathew that wrote the gospel? Can I trust his sources? Who told him that birth story, Mary? Why didn't she write her own story. It does come down to--Can I trust any part of the New Testament? I'm not sure I can. But, that is why I'm asking the question. I want to be sure.

CGD, Faith/Trust is what the whole of the Bible is concerning. Eve thought/concluded that GOD couldn't be trusted. There are only two options. Trust and obey or Believe it is all a myth---It is Your Choice to make.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Ahaz said he wouldn't tempt the Lord by asking for a sign (as did Gideon), therefore, GOD said HE would give the "Sign". Are you saying that GOD couldn't give a sign that could be used in the "fulness of time" to Announce the birth of the Messiah--Jesus?(as prophesied in Gen.3:15)

There is no reason to believe that Isaiah 7 has anything whatsoever to do with the birth of the Messiah.



The whole of the chapter revolves around this:

For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."


Let us look at the first 12 verses, shall we?

1. And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. 2. And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. 3. And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field. 4. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. 5. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: 6. 'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,' 7. So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass. 8. For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and in another sixty-five years, Ephraim shall be broken, no longer to be a people. 9. And the head of Ehpraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah; if you do not believe, it is because you cannot be believed." 10. And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, 11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." 12. And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."

For you to decide that two verses later, we're dealing with a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah is arbitrary and meaningless. This isn't even a matter of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It's a matter of shamelessly trying to plug a character into a prophecy that has absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no reason to believe that Isaiah 7 has anything whatsoever to do with the birth of the Messiah.

And there is every reason to think otherwise, which is precisely what drives the silly notion of dual prophecy.

 

[CG Didymus]

"Trust and obey or Believe it is all a myth" Dear Sincerly, that is what I think is happening. Did the sun stand still? In a another thread someone is asking about the dead that were raised and walked the streets of Jerusalem, again a story only in Mathew. A modern example is Joseph Smith. Is he a liar, a lunatic, or a prophet? I say a darn good story teller, but his religion works for those that believe. Which scares me, to paint a good picture of Jesus, to throw in a good virgin birth doesn't hurt. For new converts now, it is an incredible tale. And, we are left only two choices, believe or toss out the whole thing.

Somehow, I'm trusting in a third choice, that religion does matter, that people do "see" visions and do add their "creative" story telling to make spiritual things important to the ordinary person. Would the average Greek care about Jesus if he didn't rise from the dead? If he didn't walk on water? If he wasn't born from a virgin? I there wasn't a threat of hell if you don't believe? I doubt it. But with those stories the gospels changed the world. The same way Joseph Smith changed a little piece of the world. I think the whole Book of Mormon is fiction, but it changes lives in a similar way the gospels change lives.

You're a good guy Sincerly and you know your Bible. I just don't like one religion to think they are the only ones that are right when there is so much ambiguity.

 

[sincerly]

Trust and obey or Believe it is all a myth

Dear Sincerly, that is what I think is happening. Did the sun stand still? In a another thread someone is asking about the dead that were raised and walked the streets of Jerusalem, again a story only in Mathew. A modern example is Joseph Smith. Is he a liar, a lunatic, or a prophet? I say a darn good story teller, but his religion works for those that believe. Which scares me, to paint a good picture of Jesus, to throw in a good virgin birth doesn't hurt. For new converts now, it is an incredible tale. And, we are left only two choices, believe or toss out the whole thing.

Somehow, I'm trusting in a third choice, that religion does matter, that people do "see" visions and do add their "creative" story telling to make spiritual things important to the ordinary person. Would the average Greek care about Jesus if he didn't rise from the dead? If he didn't walk on water? If he wasn't born from a virgin? I there wasn't a threat of hell if you don't believe? I doubt it. But with those stories the gospels changed the world. The same way Joseph Smith changed a little piece of the world. I think the whole Book of Mormon is fiction, but it changes lives in a similar way the gospels change lives.

Hi CGD, The Creator GOD made a male and a female human being and from them the earth has been populated. IN the eyes of GOD, that is just persons/ those who BELIEVE or those who disbelieve. GOD is not the respecter of persons and has been/is long-suffering for ALL to Repent rather than perish.

Yes, Agreed, with those narratives there are some changes in the world's thinking---From the evil of the secular world to that which makes up the righteousness of HIS KINGDOM.
You mentioned a specific person as an example/and his "beliefs". I go back to the Scriptures to agree with you that it is false.(It fails in comparing to the message of Isa.8:20, but that's another topic.)
However, I want to mention an example from the Scriptures---Abraham. HE heard GOD, but concluded that it was to be "human means" that he would have an heir---starting with his personal servant---Then his wife's handmaid---and finally Believing GOD that with GOD "all things are possible.
Now you want me to disbelieve that GOD couldn't fulfill the Promise GOD made to Adam and Eve that it would be through the "woman's seed"(Gen.3:15) that GOD would bring about the redemption of mankind and the destruction of the source of evil.

Jay can call it a "silly notion", but I call it fulfilled prophecy.

PS can continue to deny that the promised Messiah has already come and fulfilled the assigned Mission, but I believe those "it is written" Scriptures without the doubts.

You're a good guy Sincerly and you know your Bible. I just don't like one religion to think they are the only ones that are right when there is so much ambiguity.

Those same scriptures state that there is only the Creator GOD and Faith/Belief in what is written in them and the message given in them is the means for obtaining the rewards promised within their pages.

Again, to each his own conclusions.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is for you Sincerly, I admire your strength of conviction and knowledge of the Scriptures. I'm moving on to another question. I hope to see your comments on the new thread. Thanks again for caring enough to take the time to comment on my questions.

 

[sincerly]

This is for you Sincerly, I admire your strength of conviction and knowledge of the Scriptures. I'm moving on to another question. I hope to see your comments on the new thread. Thanks again for caring enough to take the time to comment on my questions.

I'd be happy to address your questions, but I have no way of knowing what forum or thread you will be posting upon.

 

[Super Universe]

Isaiah 7:14 "The Sign of Immanuel" says that the virgin will conceive a child and call him Immanuel-"God is with us".

Jesus was conceived by Mary and her husband Joseph in the normal way. The idea of the virgin birth was written into the book of Matthew as an attempt to convince Jew's that Jesus truly was the messiah.

The name Jesus was given to Mary in a dream where she saw the angel Gabriel. The reason Jesus did not choose the name Immanuel is because Jesus did not bestow upon to earth to fulfill ancient human (Jewish) prophecy but instead to fulfill universal prophecy. Jesus did not wish to lead the Jews into war against the Romans, which is what the Jews wanted and expected in a "messiah".

Jesus mission was to experience life on the earth and then die before He could arrise and truly earn the title of God's representative.

You keep trying to put everything into simple and narrow human perspectives instead of universal perspectives.