Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Jayhawker Soule]

Best quote ever. Yet, literally, chapter seven's context remains ignored. Still, if it were a virgin the in the second fulfillment, it would have to be, literally, a virgin in the first. Or, if the sign wasn't to be fulfilled in Ahaz's time, then literally the rest of Isaiah's sign/prophecy should apply to Jesus, but it doesn't.
Come on Christians you know what you tell Mormon's when they take verses out of context.
Well, isn't that special. But, who hasn't taken bits and pieces of something to try and prove their point. There is nothing wrong with Christianity--for you. It makes perfect sense--for you. But, everything about it is wrong for so many others. Why? Because it claims to be the only "truth." But don't Mormons think they have the only truth and then use your Bible to prove it? So why shouldn't I follow them? Why, because they use the verses out of context. Because, their beliefs differ drastically from a"normal" New Testament based Christianity. But Christianity takes Hebrew Scriptures out of context and differs drastically from Judaism? Who should I believe then? You, the Christian, because the Spirit of God lives in you and the Spirit guides you to the right interpretation of Scripture? Does that mean the Spirit of God doesn't live in a Mormon or Jew? I'll bet you, they think it does, and that it's you that is blinded, confused and deceived.

Why you seem driven to pollute this thread with some off-the-wall anti-Mormon polemic is beyond me.

 

[CG Didymus]

Sorry about the pollution. I thought it was a good point to show that what Mormons do to Christians is exactly what Christians are doing to the Jews. But how do Christians respond to the Mormons? They say "No! You can't take verses out of context and force them to mean something they weren't intended to mean." Christians do unto others what they can't see about themselves. Obviously, Christians don't see what they are doing as "cherry-picking," yet they can easily see it when another religious group does it to them. I've seen some of the debates you get into, including this one. It seems like you're used to dealing with pollution. So I don't know? Do you have a better example?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Are you claiming that the man's opinions are to be believed over the Sayings/commandments/information given by GOD???

I am claiming that literalism is mind-numbing untreatable ignorance.

Hi JHS, I really don't believe that of you.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CG Didymus
Best quote ever. Yet, literally, chapter seven's context remains ignored. Still, if it were a virgin the in the second fulfillment, it would have to be, literally, a virgin in the first. Or, if the sign wasn't to be fulfilled in Ahaz's time, then literally the rest of Isaiah's sign/prophecy should apply to Jesus, but it doesn't.
Come on Christians you know what you tell Mormon's when they take verses out of context.
Well, isn't that special. But, who hasn't taken bits and pieces of something to try and prove their point. There is nothing wrong with Christianity--for you. It makes perfect sense--for you. But, everything about it is wrong for so many others. Why? Because it claims to be the only "truth." But don't Mormons think they have the only truth and then use your Bible to prove it? So why shouldn't I follow them? Why, because they use the verses out of context. Because, their beliefs differ drastically from a"normal" New Testament based Christianity. But Christianity takes Hebrew Scriptures out of context and differs drastically from Judaism? Who should I believe then? You, the Christian, because the Spirit of God lives in you and the Spirit guides you to the right interpretation of Scripture? Does that mean the Spirit of God doesn't live in a Mormon or Jew? I'll bet you, they think it does, and that it's you that is blinded, confused and deceived.

Why you seem driven to pollute this thread with some off-the-wall anti-Mormon polemic is beyond me.

Hi CG D, I have wondered how to answer these points you have raised since the last post of yours. And this topic/thread and JHS's answer seems the best bet to stay within the "polemics"/debate of the Prophecy at hand. It is late and probably I should wait until more time can be devoted to the subject.


Casting blame/or not taking responsibility for one's own actions has its roots in the Garden of Eden---nay, with that disobedient angel who was cast out of heaven.
It is still believed that "Ye shall be as gods". Many "faiths"/"beliefs" fall under that category.
Then there are the Believers in a true/literal GOD; But these have retained some of the "god' beliefs" of the former group---they are able to "over-rule" any portion of GOD'S Instructions which are contrary to their "Lusts"/exegesis. It is these who have "thought to change times and laws".
That Group make up most of the "Professed Beliefs".
Then there Are Believers who have taken GOD at HIS WORD and desire to have GOD as their GOD. They are willing to submit to the Truths as seen in the Scriptures. Not just what "seems right", but what is Scripturally sound teachings.

Since that prophecy in Gen.3:15, the Scriptures has been building to the soon to reach a fulfillment to Reappearing of that "seed" which was shown in Isa.7:14 and Matthew 1:18-25---, but that isn't the end. That Baby is still to make a final appearing in which all those have submitted to HIS rule will be separated from all who refuse to be in submission to HIM. That which GOD said was unacceptable to HIM will always be such. Because one "believes it to be so" and it is contrary to HIS "Thus saidth the LORD"---IT will be met with "I know you Not".

Those OT principles are the only ones which were covered in the Scriptures and taught by Jesus and the Disciples.

Any doctrine/belief which was made by man---"traditions or commandment/decrees" which are contrary to GOD'S principles are false.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No.

The sign was that Rezin and Pekah would no longer be a threat before the child born by a particular woman (Ahaz knew who this woman was, which means this sign could only have been fulfilled in his lifetime) was old enough to distinguish between right and wrong.

I don't think that completely cancels it. What you say would be exact if we could assume that the Christian thought follows your Jewish thought, but we aren't assuming that. Instead this whole discussion is about how Matthew 1 treats Isaiah and whether it takes Isaiah out of context. Part of learning 'Whether' requires understanding 'How' and 'Why'. If you don't know the How and the Why, then you don't really know Whether. Its like you're dancing with a cardboard version of the real girl. From the get-go Matthew 1's already using 'Virgin' instead of 'maiden', and understanding why that is may not come from knowing the actual sign was about Pekah. It may come from a Christian focus upon passages about Judah having children unexpectedly. It is going to be about how early catholics perceived Isaiah's quotation. I do not know if you are familiar with the gospels 'cause I'm new here, but the gospels have an approach to interpreting scripture that might be different from what any of us are expecting. What if the writers were crazy. Have you considered that? Or not crazy and they maybe they just had their little spin on things.

 

[gnostic]

Instead this whole discussion is about how Matthew 7 treats Isaiah and whether it takes Isaiah out of context.

You mean Matthew 1.

Matthew 1 has a quote from Isaiah 7. Matthew 7 is something else entirely.

Use the EDIT button (at the bottom right of YOUR POST) to make changes to your post.

 

[InChrist]

I think what Gnostic said is the most likely:
I agree. For you Christians, sure God, the Holy Spirit, Gabriel, Mary or Joseph or even Jesus could have told Matthew what happened. Too bad they didn't tell Luke the same story. Too bad they didn't tell Ahaz not to listen to the first part of the sign, that it didn't pertain to him, or was there a dual-prophecy? I was wondering about Ebionites? Why didn't they buy into the virgin birth thing.
Christianity has done a lot of good and a lot of bad. Believing it is the only way is mostly bad, no, it's totally bad--that is, if it's not true. If it's true than it's the most important thing in the world. But still, my complaint is that it makes all the rest of the religion false. What is strange to me is that Christianity takes only the Hebrew Bible and disregards the rest of Jewish writings. It pulls out a verse here and a verse there, and forms a Christian doctrine or prophecy around it. That is criminal. Again, unless Christians are absolutely right. Of course, Christians believe they are. But they've been taught that way. Christians over the centuries have been taught lots of things. Some are now considered false. So why should we believe a Christian that takes a partial verse and transfers it to their Holy Book? Why shouldn't I listen to the Jews that grew up in a culture and a tradition that formed the foundation to what Christians built their religion on? There is no question about it, if Judaism came before Christianity, I have to ask them--What was your prophet Isaiah trying to say in chapter seven? I did ask, and I have to agree with them. Who ever wrote the gospel of Matthew took it out of context.
If a Christian says, "But wait, an angel told Matthew the true meaning of the verse." Well, an angel told Joseph Smith the true meaning of the Bible also. I'm sure he pulled a few verses out here and there from the Bible. What do Christians say about that? I'm sure it's that Smith got it wrong and he took it out of context. But an angel told him? So why didn't all Christians follow Joseph Smith? Most Mormons seem like nice people? A knowledgeable Christian would say, "Because what Smith says doesn't line up with Scripture." And that is what I'm saying to Christians. The Book of Mormon is to Christians what the New Testament is to Jews. You believe it, but to a knowledgeable Jew, it doesn't line up with Scripture--their Scripture. I don't know enough about Judaism to say that they're wrong, but that is what most Christians are doing. Are you that sure you are right? I'm not. I'd like them to tell me what the prophecies about the coming messiah are. I have the feeling that they are different than what I've been told.

One thing you are forgetting is that ALL the first Christians were Jews who firmly believed the things they saw, heard, and then began teaching lined up with the Hebrew scriptures, They believed that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of prophetic words of their prophets.

 

[gnostic]

One thing you are forgetting is that ALL the first Christians were Jews who firmly believed the things they saw, heard, and then began teaching lined up with the Hebrew scriptures, They believed that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of prophetic words of their prophets.

That's more like circular reasoning, and generally poor scholarship in literature.

The problem is that the quoter (author of gospel) Matthew 1:23 had never bothered to quote the REST OF THE SIGN. The rest of the sign followed verse 14, and ends at verse 17.

These missing verses are the most part of the sign. I'm going to again post from the NRSV instead of JPS, because I don't have the JPS (1985 translation) with me right now. In red is the woman and son (verse 14) and in blue is about the son and what will happen to the 2 enemies of Judah.

13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Matthew would be "believable", if he was to quote all 4 verses (7:14-17) of the sign, and how the sign relates to Jesus.

But Matthew doesn't. Matthew only quote 1 verse out of 4, and then ignore the rest. Have you ever ask why?

So let me ask to do one thing, and ask you to answer several question.

First off. Read all of chapter 7 (Isaiah 7; I'm not quote from the whole chapter here). Preferably from NRSV (click on this link - Isaiah 7), but even better if you read from 1985 JPS translation. And especially pay attention to whole sign. Will you do this for me?

Next. Answer the following questions:

1. When reading the sign of Isaiah 7:14-17, do you not see how the sign is related to the rest of the chapter (Isaiah 7)?
2. When reading all of the sign (again, Isaiah 7:14-17), do you not see that the sign cannot be about Jesus or Mary? (Jesus did not save Judah from Ahaz's enemies, because the sign is about Judah's enemies (Israel and Aram) and Judah's ally (Assyria).)
3. Where do Jesus fit in with the rest of the sign (verse 15-17)?
4. If Isaiah 7:14 is true about Jesus, then shouldn't Isaiah 7:15-17 also be true about Jesus?
5. If Jesus was indeed the son Immanuel, then why did all of gospel not call him by "Immanuel"? (Even Jesus himself had never called himself "Immanuel".)
6. Why did Matthew not quote the whole sign?

When a Christian don't consider a verse with other surrounding related verses (eg 7:13-17 or the entire Isaiah 7), then he or she is basically cherry-picking a single verse and twisting that verse out of context with the rest of chapter.


The main theme of chapter 7, is how another kingdom (Assyria) will save Ahaz's kingdom, Judah, from the threat or attack from their enemies (Aram and Israel). Before the child (Immanuel) knows the difference between right and wrong, the sign is that Assyria will save Judah.



This is why the almah doesn't mean "virgin", nor do the sign refer to any messiah...not unless you count King Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (reign 745–727 BCE) as Judah's messiah (2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9)?


In any case, Isaiah 7:14-17 sign is similar to the sign given in Isaiah 8:3-4 and 8:18. Clearly the 2 passages (in Isaiah 7 & 8) are related to one another, and it is revealed that Isaiah's own son is the fulfilled sign.

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign - "Immanuel".

8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
9 Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed;
gird yourselves and be dismayed!
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for God is with us [ie. Immanuel].

And it is further confirmed here in verse 18:

18 See, I [ie. Isaiah] and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

So, Mary and Jesus can't be referred to in Isaiah 7:14...not unless you do whole set of mental gymnastic.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Brickjectivity, So you're something like a Quaker? What do they believe about the virgin birth?
InChrist, you said:

One thing you are forgetting is that ALL the first Christians were Jews who firmly believed the things they saw, heard, and then began teaching lined up with the Hebrew scriptures, They believed that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of prophetic words of their prophets.

If the Jews knew their prophecies, why weren't they looking for a virgin to give birth to their messiah? Weren't there other people thought of as possibly being the messiah? Why wouldn't that be the first question? "Hey, were you born of a virgin?" "Hey, do people call you Immanuel?"
Since Jesus didn't write it down himself. How do I know who Matthew and Luke are? It isn't the easiest thing to harmonize the two birth stories. How do I know they didn't get the stories from a bunch of oral traditions? But add to that, this is only one of the out of context quotes of Matthew, how can I trust him? Mt 2:15, Out of Egypt...? Mt 2:18, Rachel weeping...? Mt 2:23, called a Nazarene...? These are fulfilled prophecies?

How did the Jews not believe in Jesus while he was still a baby then? All those "prophecies" that should have been well-known by all Jews, all fulfilled by chapter two in Matthew? Why was there even a question? He's obviously God, the Messiah, the Savior, the Resurrected Lord--if all those things are true. So why didn't even more Jews believe? Or, did Matthew, along with Luke, contrive the birth story?
What is funny to me is that Paul doesn't want Jewish laws added in because they would be a stumbling block for Gentiles, yet, by making Jesus virgin born and equal to God and therefore part of some trinity is a big stumbling block for Jews and a lot of people in other religions? Is that really necessarily, absolutely, historically true?
All I'm trying to say is that maybe the Christian Bible isn't flawless. Maybe, there's a few areas where well-meaning believers added a few things in there. No biggy, it's just that Christianity claims to be the only way to God.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't think that completely cancels it. What you say would be exact if we could assume that the Christian thought follows your Jewish thought, but we aren't assuming that.

It has nothing to do with Christian thought vs Jewish thought. It has to do with one's ability to read more than just one sentence in the 7th chapter of Isaiah.

Instead this whole discussion is about how Matthew 1 treats Isaiah and whether it takes Isaiah out of context. Part of learning 'Whether' requires understanding 'How' and 'Why'. If you don't know the How and the Why, then you don't really know Whether. Its like you're dancing with a cardboard version of the real girl.

Not so. Why is irrelevant. It might be interesting, but it does nothing for "whether". "Whether" is all about how. And we know how... by leaving out the context. And mistranslating the verse that it did use.

From the get-go Matthew 1's already using 'Virgin' instead of 'maiden', and understanding why that is may not come from knowing the actual sign was about Pekah. It may come from a Christian focus upon passages about Judah having children unexpectedly.

Except many woman are told that they're going to have birth miraculously... and none of them are virgins. The point wasn't about giving birth to the child. The point was the events regarding that child's life.

I do not know if you are familiar with the gospels 'cause I'm new here, but the gospels have an approach to interpreting scripture that might be different from what any of us are expecting.

Sounds like a nicer way of saying "ripping passages wildly out of context and using them for their own purposes".

What if the writers were crazy. Have you considered that? Or not crazy and they maybe they just had their little spin on things.

Or maybe they just ripped passages wildly out of context and hoped people wouldn't notice.

 

[sincerly]

That's more like circular reasoning, and generally poor scholarship in literature.

The problem is that the quoter (author of gospel) Matthew 1:23 had never bothered to quote the REST OF THE SIGN. The rest of the sign followed verse 14, and ends at verse 17.

These missing verses are the most part of the sign. I'm going to again post from the NRSV instead of JPS, because I don't have the JPS (1985 translation) with me right now. In red is the woman and son (verse 14) and in blue is about the son and what will happen to the 2 enemies of Judah.

Hi Gnostic, that NRSV verse didn't print with the "Quote" button. You didn't check out the NRSV commentary on that verse did you?
Here is that which pertains to that verse.
: ""'The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek ( Matthew 1:23 ), have the article, the virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily, the woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the second wife, and bear a child, whose attainment of the age of discrimination (about three years) should be preceded by the deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancy is realized in "the woman" ( Genesis 3:15 ), whose seed should bruise the serpent's head and deliver captive man ( Jeremiah 31:22 , Micah 5:3 )."""

 

[gnostic]

Here is that which pertains to that verse.
: ""'The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek ( Matthew 1:23 )

If you bother to actually read my previous posts, I had stated that Matthew 1:23 had quoted from the Greek Septuagint, which used the word parthenos, hence "virgin".

But do I really give damn what is in the Septuagint? The Book of Isaiah was originally written in ancient Hebrew not Greek Koine. See posts 344, 374.

Matthew made the mistake of using Greek instead of Hebrew. Why use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew?

You arguments about almah being "virgin" or the Immanuel being "Jesus" or the "messiah", are still pathetically weak and utterly ignorant, when you completely ignored the theme of the entire chapter 7 and part of chapter 8.

Until you can truly argue why this Immanuel is Jesus or this so-called virgin, without resorting to the circular reasoning that Gabriel's SAY-SO (when Gabriel really said nothing about Immanuel), then your view is without substance - utterly baseless. Your cherry-picking and twisting words out of context, only give Christianity a bad name, when it come to scriptural scholarship.

 

[InChrist]

That's more like circular reasoning, and generally poor scholarship in literature.

The problem is that the quoter (author of gospel) Matthew 1:23 had never bothered to quote the REST OF THE SIGN. The rest of the sign followed verse 14, and ends at verse 17.

These missing verses are the most part of the sign. I'm going to again post from the NRSV instead of JPS, because I don't have the JPS (1985 translation) with me right now. In red is the woman and son (verse 14) and in blue is about the son and what will happen to the 2 enemies of Judah.



Matthew would be "believable", if he was to quote all 4 verses (7:14-17) of the sign, and how the sign relates to Jesus.

But Matthew doesn't. Matthew only quote 1 verse out of 4, and then ignore the rest. Have you ever ask why?

[FONT=&quot]Matthew was Jewish and I’m sure he knew the scriptures from childhood and also knew the entire passage and context of the verses above, but was inspired by God to highlight the portion of scripture which he did for the reason that it specifically applied to the birth of Christ. I believe the revelation of scripture is progressive through history. Certain aspects of this passage in Isaiah were fulfilled within the events at the time it was given ( as you assert) and certain aspects were prophetic for future fulfillment as in the case of the virgin birth fulfilled in the birth of Christ.[/FONT]

So let me ask to do one thing, and ask you to answer several question.

First off. Read all of chapter 7 (Isaiah 7; I'm not quote from the whole chapter here). Preferably from NRSV (click on this link - Isaiah 7), but even better if you read from 1985 JPS translation. And especially pay attention to whole sign. Will you do this for me?

[FONT=&quot]I will be glad to do this for you. I have been studying the book of Isaiah for a year and a half and am now in chapter 66, but I will re-read chapter 7 and attempt to answer your questions. I am involved in a few other projects right now so it may take me a few days to get to this.

[/FONT]

 

[sincerly]

If you bother to actually read my previous posts, I had stated that Matthew 1:23 had quoted from the Greek Septuagint, which used the word parthenos, hence "virgin".

But do I really give damn what is in the Septuagint? The Book of Isaiah was originally written in ancient Hebrew not Greek Koine. See posts 344, 374.

Matthew made the mistake of using Greek instead of Hebrew. Why use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew?

You arguments about almah being "virgin" or the Immanuel being "Jesus" or the "messiah", are still pathetically weak and utterly ignorant, when you completely ignored the theme of the entire chapter 7 and part of chapter 8.

Until you can truly argue why this Immanuel is Jesus or this so-called virgin, without resorting to the circular reasoning that Gabriel's SAY-SO (when Gabriel really said nothing about Immanuel), then your view is without substance - utterly baseless. Your cherry-picking and twisting words out of context, only give Christianity a bad name, when it come to scriptural scholarship.

Hi Gnostic, contrary to your assumption, I have read all your post since you first posted on this thread/topic.
Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years. Just because the BIBLE with its scriptural verses are contrary to your beliefs of "No GOD" and "Myths", doesn't change the way GOD expressed HIS Messages to mankind---at the time---Or years in the future.

The only "circular reason" is that which you continue to post and accuse others of "cherry-picking" and "bad scholarship".
There is nothing that says you have to accept any of the Bible( that is a choice you make). However, this is a debate forum, so why get offended that your conclusion are NOT accepted as valid by others?
I have gone over/responded to all the points you have listed---"again" and "again".

Those who differ in philosophy concerning Jesus, the Truth of the Scriptures, and the messages written within the Bible are the ones who try to "give Christians" a bad name.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years.

That's silly. :yes:

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years.

That's silly. :yes:

JHS, Silliness was not one of the attributes of The Creator GOD of all things.
In fact, Gen.3:15 was Not fulfilled for some approx. 4000 years later. (or in your opinion(since it wasrejected, is still to be fulfilled.)

 

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years.



JHS, Silliness was not one of the attributes of The Creator GOD of all things.
In fact, Gen.3:15 was Not fulfilled for some approx. 4000 years later. (or in your opinion(since it wasrejected, is still to be fulfilled.)

Or it wasn't a prophecy at all. And even if it was, God said nothing in Genesis 3 to indicate that the prophecy should have been fulfilled within a given time frame.

Isaiah 7:14 was meant to be fulfilled in Ahaz' lifetime. And it was.

 

[sincerly]

Or it wasn't a prophecy at all. And even if it was, God said nothing in Genesis 3 to indicate that the prophecy should have been fulfilled within a given time frame.

Isaiah 7:14 was meant to be fulfilled in Ahaz' lifetime. And it was.

Hi PS, but we both know it was to be fulfilled and "in the fullness of time" it was.

In Isa,7:14. that birth was not the one seen in 8:3 which fulfilled the conditions of 7:15-25. Isaiah had a son as was seen in 7:3. and they fulfilled the propheciy in Ahaz's time.
Judah and Jerusalem were scheduled for Babylonian captivity as expressed by the LORD at/because of the confidence of Ahaz in Assyria as a protector rather than GOD. That Virgin born Child would be the one who was prophesied by Isa.9 and 53+

 

[gnostic]

Matthew was Jewish and I’m sure he knew the scriptures from childhood and also knew the entire passage and context of the verses above, but was inspired by God to highlight the portion of scripture which he did for the reason that it specifically applied to the birth of Christ. I believe the revelation of scripture is progressive through history. Certain aspects of this passage in Isaiah were fulfilled within the events at the time it was given ( as you assert) and certain aspects were prophetic for future fulfillment as in the case of the virgin birth fulfilled in the birth of Christ.

I chose to read Isaiah 7, as well as the related Isaiah 8, as I do read any ancient literature. Examine the whole as well as distinctive parts. It is only when you read all of chapter 7 and 8, that you will get the whole picture, as well understanding what that sign actually mean.

And when I mean the sign, I mean the whole sign, from verse 14 to 17.

The problem with this selective and progressive prophecy - which I would call cherry-picking prophecy - is that the portions of passages that you would highlight or deem as prophetic signs is that they are (can be) open to all sorts of ridiculous interpretations.

How many times, have Christians doomsayers predicted the end of the world, due to interpretation of the Book of Revelation, and they got their predictions wrong, every single time. Because many of the passages are open to interpretations.

And it get worse, if you selective choose only one verse, and put more meaning into it, then it was originally intended.

When you take a single passage or verse out of context with rest of the paragraph, then you are deliberately changing a single line to suit whatever agenda that you may have, with complete disregard to the message of the entire chapter.

I could very well use 7:14, for instance, to indicate the young woman is Minnie Mouse, and that her son to be Pluto. Who are you say that my interpretation is not the right one?

Matthew, or whoever wrote this version of the gospel, has done the same thing as I did with my Minnie-Pluto example.

Matthew is supposedly Jewish as well as a Christian, like you said, and yet he chose to use a Greek translation (parthenos, "virgin") for that single verse of the original Hebrew almah, "young woman".

Why, did he (Matthew) use the Greek word instead of Hebrew?

But you get more clues of what this sign is really about, when you read the whole message, namely verses 14-17. Isaiah actually started speaking at verse 13, but didn't end it until verse 17. That's indication that the sign is more than a pregnant woman and her son.

So, why didn't Matthew quote ALL OF THE SIGN (Isaiah 7:14-17)?
​

Why did he ignore the rest of the sign? The most important part of the sign is 15 to 17.

If verse 14 is about the messiah and Jesus, then shouldn't verses 15, 16 and 17 also be about the messiah and Jesus?
​

I am dubious to any Christian who choose to not be truthful in exploring the whole chapter. If they can't be truthful about Isaiah 7:14, then how could I trust any interpretation he or she give in this chapter or elsewhere like the gospels.

There is more to the sign than Matthew's single misquoted (and misinterpreted) verse.

As in the case with Isaiah 7:14-17, the sign was being fufilled in the time of Ahaz and Isaiah, and that Isaiah's own son (Isaiah 8:1-18) was one of those signs.

 

[Shermana]

[FONT=&quot]Matthew was Jewish and I’m sure he knew the scriptures from childhood and also knew the entire passage and context of the verses above, but was inspired by God to highlight the portion of scripture which he did for the reason that it specifically applied to the birth of Christ. I believe the revelation of scripture is progressive through history. Certain aspects of this passage in Isaiah were fulfilled within the events at the time it was given ( as you assert) and certain aspects were prophetic for future fulfillment as in the case of the virgin birth fulfilled in the birth of Christ.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I will be glad to do this for you. I have been studying the book of Isaiah for a year and a half and am now in chapter 66, but I will re-read chapter 7 and attempt to answer your questions. I am involved in a few other projects right now so it may take me a few days to get to this.

[/FONT]

Or the passage is totally interpolated by a later author just like how many scholars think the passage is interpolated in Luke, and the person who wrote it in didn't realize he listed Rahab giving birth to someone 300 years later. Apparently Matthew wasn't familiar enough to know that Rahab didn't live to 300?