Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Jayhawker Soule]

If Isaiah 7:14 was truly about Jesus then SHOULDN'T ALL OF ISAIAH 7 be also about Jesus too?

To presume that Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus is to enter a fantasy world in which there can be no reasonable criteria concerning what "should be." The best one can do is hold hands with Alice as you fall down the rabbit hole of Christian prophesy ...

 

[sincerly]

We are all Sinner's and the penalty is death. When one dies, there is NO LIFE. Each sinner caused the death of the SON of GOD. There is nothing else which was sufficient to pay that death penalty other than the ONE who Created us in the first place. The Sin was ours and the Death was ours. But ,GOD the SON was willing before the "foundation of the earth" to exchange places with each disobedient person as the propitiation. A normal Birth(human) couldn't qualify, because all humans are condemned to Death. Therefore, the "virgin birth" as promised via the Holy Spirit.

Hey there Sincerly, You are like a rock. Some of us think you have rocks in your head, but we know that you are merely standing up for your Christian beliefs. You said, Is this doctrine of "All" of us being sinners and under the penalty of death a Christian concept or a Jewish concept? Unless, it was clearly a Jewish idea, then God misled the Jewish people for the thousands of years prior to Jesus. It seems that a Jew at any time could repent from a sin and God would forgive them. Anything like an "original" sin or guilt seems more like a Christian concept also. So where in any doctrines in Judaism is there anything like "all humans" being condemned to death and needing a virgin born savior/messiah to take that death penalty away? What did Gen 3:15 mean in Judaism? The verse sounds very vague to me. All of it makes more sense that early Christians "created" the concepts that became Christian doctrines.

Hi CG D, Only the eight persons who entered the Ark proved "not to have rocks in their heads".
You left something out between what "I said" and your "question". However, I believe I understand your question.
GOD has never lead the human race in any but the correct way.
There has never been, but ONE Human race----with now some different hereditary characteristics.
Dan.9:11 discloses this information, "Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that [is] written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him."

Those Cursings and Blessing are seen in Deut.27 and 28 as GOD'S Chosen people entered into the promised land. And Remember that it was a "mixed multitude"---not just the "seed" of Abraham. That is agreement with Jesus and HIS "Go ye into all the world". GOD has never been a "respecter of persons".

Gen.6:12, "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."
Ps.14 also attests to the fact that "ALL have strayed"---"none doeth good".
How often did the Israelites "Back-slide" and get warnings from the prophets?
GOD is "long-suffering----not willing that any person should perish. Those(persons) who Repent(truly) are forgiven.
Those who think doing some "good works" will allow entrance into the Kingdom of GOD are deluding themselves. (As Matt.7:21-23 shows)
Gen.3:15, was the very initial promise of defeating the "serpent/devil/Satan" by and through the "Seed" of the woman. That was when there was only two human Beings----Adam and EVE. Neither was a "JEW". Like "Christian", "Jew" was A human descriptor of a people made by people.

The "Virgin" Birth is the Creator GOD'S----mankind cannot say salvation came by way of human beings.

Reading the history of mankind, one is amazed at GOD'S Love and Mercy.

 

[Rise]

Why do the Christian theoreticists always seem to jump to the conclusion that verses in the OT are ALWAYS referring to NT Scripture?

Christ said the scriptures spoke of Him.
The OT and NT both point to the same thing, from different perspectives, so you're going to be able to find prophetic parallels about Christ and our relationship to Him all throughout the OT.

There's a saying that it doesn't matter where you cut scripture, it still bleeds Christ. You can find the same truth of Christ all throughout the old scripture as much as the new.

You have the story of the Garden of Eden , for example, now, in Genesis it is only referring to a snake, not Satan, but people trying to 'find references to Satan in the entire Bible just jumped to this conclusion, let's put aside the fact that some Rabbinical commentary also assumes the snake to be Satan, but why would Christians just go along with that assumption?

New testament revelation makes this known to us plainly:

Revelation 20:
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Add to that the OT verses that are not necessary for Christian NT influence/interpretation, does it really change narrative?

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

All scripture may not be necessary to arrive at a saving level of faith in Christ, but that doesn't mean the scripture is not useful for arriving at a more full understanding of the nature of Christ and our relationship with Him.

 

[Shermana]

Christ said the scriptures spoke of Him.

It seems likely he was also speaking of texts that are no longer considered canonical, like the Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, and various texts used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is why it's impossible to find many of the passages he speaks of in the current canon.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

At the time of the author of 2 Timothy's writing, several books may have been considered canonical that many now reject, like Enoch which Jude quotes as "prophetic".

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

There's simply no reason to assume that the Snake from the Garden is the same being as the "Ancient Serpent" as if the Snake in the Garden was Satan's true form. A dragon is not a snake necessarily.

 

[sincerly]

Why do the Christian theoreticists always seem to jump to the conclusion that verses in the OT are ALWAYS referring to NT Scripture? You have the story of the Garden of Eden , for example, now, in Genesis it is only referring to a snake, not Satan, but people trying to 'find references to Satan in the entire Bible just jumped to this conclusion, let's put aside the fact that some Rabbinical commentary also assumes the snake to be Satan, but why would Christians just go along with that assumption? Judaism doesn't even take iinto account the NT, why Christian scholars would be so focused on using Judaic sources as references is beyond me. Add to that the OT verses that are not necessary for Christian NT influence/interpretation, does it really change narrative? That's the question I think Christian scholars should be asking themselves...Then you have the Reformation... did that change the way Christian Biblical scholars viewed Scripture? Perhaps, because in a way it was going away from the NT centric notions of Church pretty much above Scripture, which after printing technology had improved, Bibles were available for anyone to get, and interpret Scripture for themselves.

What was seen in the first and second chapters of Genesis, will again be prominent in the last of Revelation as all things are restored to their original purpose from the chaos caused by the subtle snake/serpent/ Devil/Satan.
People are still refusing to believe the Creator GOD for figments of their own imagination.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Sincerly,

Gen.6:12, "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."

What was his way? If the Hebrew Scriptures were "published" by God after that day. It doesn't sound like God had written down any rules of conduct or given them a "user's manual" yet. When he did give them something, it was the Law. From that point to Isaiah, what would a Hebrew know of the Messiah, the devil, being born in sin etc.? I know you can build a case for the Christian interpretation, but I don't think it was as clear as Christians make it. I really don't think they were expecting a virgin born messiah. And, since the verse is taken out of context, it seems more reasonable for me to think that early Christians made the story fit. Once the story of the virgin birth and original sin concepts were in place, then they had to figure out how Jesus was both God and human. It really seems like they didn't know for sure. They had to take bits and pieces of verses and disregard others to make Jesus God. Once he was God, then the virgin birth becomes an absolute necessity. For me, it's not necessary for Jesus to be God, therefore he didn't have to be virgin born. It's your belief and it works well for you. But who's being foolish? Is it us for "not" believing in your interpretation of God? Or, you for only seeing the religious world from the Christian point of view? Or, are we all being foolish? I hope God is bigger than all of this.

 

[sincerly]

Sincerely, so you are finally starting to take what someone else says to you seriously even though you are calling it 'Personally'. You accept that I have a brain! That is a great thing. I hope you take lots more posts personally from now on.

As long as you are addressing your assessment of Me rather than the content of my posts they will be "Personal".

So you think the above statement is not personal and isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings. Its just plain Bible scriptures is it? I believe you contrasted them (Jews) with you (by saying 'Me').

But its ok for Martin Luther to be defiant and arrogant, so why can't I be?

Another very personal statement inviting personal responses.

Hey, here's another personal one from you to 'Jews' everywhere! It affects all Christians, too. Not only are your sweeping statements personal, but they drag me into it so now I have to distinguish myself from you. Every Jewish person may well just start thinking that all Christians completely discount their good deeds, that we're all just completely arrogant and don't listen to anybody. That's not personal, though. "Hey I'm a Christian and Christians don't think Joos are shaved." Really? Christians think that Joos aren't Shaved? Well first thing you know Joos stop going into Christian stores, because they know we won't have any Jewish razors for sale. I guess what I'm trying to say is that shaving is personal.

BJ, This is a debate forum concerning the Scriptures/Bible and I have presented scripture to back-up my comments. What I see from you is opinions. Which aren't Scriptural.
The Scriptures agree that Salvation is "personal", but NOT according to one's opinion.
What I perceive from the Scriptures is The Lord GOD saying, "HEAR YE ME"---NOT "listen to everybody".

 

[sincerly]

Hey Sincerly, What was his way? If the Hebrew Scriptures were "published" by God after that day. It doesn't sound like God had written down any rules of conduct or given them a "user's manual" yet. When he did give them something, it was the Law. From that point to Isaiah, what would a Hebrew know of the Messiah, the devil, being born in sin etc.? I know you can build a case for the Christian interpretation, but I don't think it was as clear as Christians make it. I really don't think they were expecting a virgin born messiah. And, since the verse is taken out of context, it seems more reasonable for me to think that early Christians made the story fit. Once the story of the virgin birth and original sin concepts were in place, then they had to figure out how Jesus was both God and human. It really seems like they didn't know for sure. They had to take bits and pieces of verses and disregard others to make Jesus God. Once he was God, then the virgin birth becomes an absolute necessity. For me, it's not necessary for Jesus to be God, therefore he didn't have to be virgin born. It's your belief and it works well for you. But who's being foolish? Is it us for "not" believing in your interpretation of God? Or, you for only seeing the religious world from the Christian point of view? Or, are we all being foolish? I hope God is bigger than all of this.

Hi CG D, you don't need to hope----GOD is bigger than than the universe. All things which HE purposes to do is do-able.

Since the "Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ" is beyond your Belief, then GOD and the Creation of the World is, also, beyond your belief.
"Foolish"??? That's for you to choose. I had explained my reasoning---when you finally make a choice, then we both will await the answer.

Long before Sinai, GOD said concerning Abraham. (Gen.26:5), "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. " No! they were not written down at that time, but they were known by the peoples of the world.

 

[sincerly]

I find it absolutely outrageous and illogical that some Christians know the Hebrew texts better than the Jews themselves, which the Christians called the Old Testament, simply by applying different meaning to some single verses of some chapters. And then they expect everyone to agree with their interpretations to be the only ones to be correct and true.

If Isaiah 7:14 was truly about Jesus then SHOULDN'T ALL OF ISAIAH 7 be also about Jesus too?

It doesn't make sense that only a quarter of the sign be about Jesus and not the rest of the sign. It is poor and sloppy scholarship, and not to mention dishonest practice (and arrogant) to insist their interpretations are right and everyone else are wrong.

Hi gnostic, Aren't you "insisting that your interpretation is correct"?? And aren't you appealing to those who believe the same to agree with you??
The whole world can believe your way, but I agree with the Living Creator GOD who specified your opinion as wrong.

 

[Sleeppy]

Sometimes - I say often - prophecies have more than 1 fulfillment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sometimes - I say often - prophecies have more than 1 fulfillment.

Repeating a stupid claim makes it no less absurd.

 

[gnostic]

And aren't you appealing to those who believe the same to agree with you??

I am basing my interpretation on the what I see in chapter 7 AS A WHOLE, and not on the combination of 2 completely different single verses - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. In which Matthew 1:23 is based on the Greek translation of the original Hebrew passage.

I have read chapter 7 as a whole. I didn't ignore any part of chapter 7. And it make sense to see that verse 14 is ONLY ONE PART of the whole sign (Isaiah 7:14-17), and the sign is related to all of chapter 7 and part of chapter 8 (8:1-18), as well 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-10.

You don't see chapter 7 as a whole, because you have IGNORED THE WHOLE SIGN. The whole sign may have started at verse 14, but it doesn't end till verse 17, so you're missing THREE-QUARTER OF THE SIGN. And you're completely ignoring the rest of chapter, which is relevant to this sign. This is why I think you are cherry-picking and twisting verse 14 all out of context.

The sign is not just about a woman who is about to give birth, but before the boy could understand the difference between right and wrong, the King of Assyria would have saved Jerusalem from destruction.

Are you so daft that your attention span is so extremely narrow that you can't see more than just one bl@#dy verse?

I know you are going to say that Gabriel say-so, but that's circular reasoning. And worse, Gabriel didn't even quote Isaiah 7:14, Matthew or whoever the hell is the author.

Where did Gabriel quote Isaiah 7:14. Are you blind as well as st@## that you can't properly read Matthew 1:22-23?!

You are only implying and speculating that Gabriel quoted that verse.

For one, Matthew never wrote down the angel's name. And second, the only time the unnamed angel spoke to Joseph in Matthew 1, is from verse 20 ("Joseph, son of David, do..") to the end of verse 21 ("...for he will save his people from their sins."). THAT'S ALL.

The whole world can believe your way, but I agree with the Living Creator GOD who specified your opinion as wrong.

Again, more circular reasoning. Man wrote the texts, Matthew 1 and Isaiah 7, not God.

You can believe what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you have willfully twisted the texts (Isaiah 7 & 8, as well as Matthew 7) to suit your belief. Your belief doesn't mean anything, when it lack logic and common sense, and worse, when you being dishonest with your interpretation/opinion.

 

[Sleeppy]

Repeating a stupid claim makes it no less absurd.

Well depending on who you're claiming it to, it just may. So, what's this have to do with us now?

 

[sincerly]

To presume that Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus is to enter a fantasy world in which there can be no reasonable criteria concerning what "should be." The best one can do is hold hands with Alice as you fall down the rabbit hole of Christian prophesy ...

It isn't Christian or Jewish prophecy, but it was GOD's and THAT Virgin birth was destined to come to pass and did.
Isaiah's wife did have a son(second---therefore not the "virgin" Birth seen in 7:14. ), However, that child(ren) of Isaiah's is for the sign concerning the"forsaking of the land" of the kings of Israel and Judah.
"Alice" wasn't there, but the rebellious haughtiness of the Houses of Jacob were and ended in 70 years of captivity---as the scriptures show.

 

[gnostic]

Sometimes - I say often - prophecies have more than 1 fulfillment.

So, you may think.

But it could be number of different possibilities.

1. It could be not a prophecy at all. What you may think is a prophecy, could just be the author's do his (or her) usual meaningless rhetoric (which I think what most of the Revelation), like to show off their plays with words and with symbols.
2. Or what you may think is a prophecy just maybe symbols of what had already happened in the past.
3. What people called prophecy, is often subject to open and loose interpretation. For instance, how many times have people interpret passages from Revelation, and predicted the end of the world, and nothing came of it?

There are lot more possibilities, but I right now I'm tired and I can't think of them.


But to get back to your possible more-than-one-fulfillment-in-a-single prophecy. Sure, the Christians believed that 7:14 sign is about Mary (virgin) and Jesus (son, Immanuel) some 700 years after Isaiah, is one prediction.



But from the Jewish perspective and from the context of chapter 7, the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) was actually about King of Assyria saving Jerusalem from destruction, before the boy (Immanuel), born from young woman, know the difference between right and wrong. Chapter 8 made it quite clear that the sign would happen during Isaiah's own lifetime, and that of the lifetime of King Ahaz of Judah, and not 700 years later.


No where in the sign, that if you read the whole sign (again, Isaiah 7:14-17), predict the coming of a messiah, because the King of Assyria was supposed to fulfill the sign, unless you believe that the messiah was the King of Assyria (more precisely Emperor Tiglath-Pileser III (reign 745–727 BCE). And the 1st part of the sign doesn't mean the young woman would give virgin birth to a messiah (that's Matthew's interpretation).


When you read all of chapter 7 and 8 of the book of Isaiah, and that of 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-10, you will understand the sign of Isaiah 7:14-17 bear no relation to Mary, Jesus or the messiah, and nothing to do with virgin or virgin birth.



So Matthew's interpretation in Matthew 1:22-23 is wrong.


Sincerly blindly followed whatever Matthew say. I'm hoping that you're a lot smarter than him. So please read Isaiah 7 and 8 in their entirety (as well as the verses in 2 Kings 15 and 16 that I have already given), and then you would understand why Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 relates to Jesus is wrong.

 

[sincerly]

I am basing my interpretation on the what I see in chapter 7 AS A WHOLE, and not on the combination of 2 completely different single verses - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. In which Matthew 1:23 is based on the Greek translation of the original Hebrew passage.

Hi Gnostic, I am basing what I find in Isaiah and the said two Chapters along with what is seen in the Bible Scriptures as a WHOLE concerning not only the immediate Ahaz problem because of his straying from the GOD he is claiming, but disobeying. I am looking at the other promised Messiah/Savior verses as well.
Matthew and Luke were not prophecies about a future event, but concerning and event which the "Angel of the LORD/Gabriel" was sent to prepare both Mary and Joseph to receive in fulfillment of GOD speaking to Isaiah(centuries prior).

I have read chapter 7 as a whole. I didn't ignore any part of chapter 7. And it make sense to see that verse 14 is ONLY ONE PART of the whole sign (Isaiah 7:14-17), and the sign is related to all of chapter 7 and part of chapter 8 (8:1-18), as well 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-10.

Yes, those "written evil deeds" by Aha and the kingdom of Israel were written as testimony against them and why they were "carried into captivity".
The Kingdom of GOD set up by Jesus Christ came about by/through HIS prophesied "Virgin Birth".

You don't see chapter 7 as a whole, because you have IGNORED THE WHOLE SIGN. The whole sign may have started at verse 14, but it doesn't end till verse 17, so you're missing THREE-QUARTER OF THE SIGN. And you're completely ignoring the rest of chapter, which is relevant to this sign. This is why I think you are cherry-picking and twisting verse 14 all out of context.

It makes no difference what you think----The events unfolded just as GOD had said it would.

The sign is not just about a woman who is about to give birth, but before the boy could understand the difference between right and wrong, the King of Assyria would have saved Jerusalem from destruction.

Yes, Isaiah's Wife was that sign as Isaiah 8: and vs.18 declare."Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. "

Are you so daft that your attention span is so extremely narrow that you can't see more than just one bl@#dy verse?

I know you are going to say that Gabriel say-so, but that's circular reasoning. And worse, Gabriel didn't even quote Isaiah 7:14, Matthew or whoever the hell is the author.

Where did Gabriel quote Isaiah 7:14. Are you blind as well as st@## that you can't properly read Matthew 1:22-23?!

You are only implying and speculating that Gabriel quoted that verse.

For one, Matthew never wrote down the angel's name. And second, the only time the unnamed angel spoke to Joseph in Matthew 1, is from verse 20 ("Joseph, son of David, do..") to the end of verse 21 ("...for he will save his people from their sins."). THAT'S ALL.

See above. The Creator GOD described in the Scriptures knows what HE is doing. You are speculating/surmising.

Again, more circular reasoning. Man wrote the texts, Matthew 1 and Isaiah 7, not God.

You can believe what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you have willfully twisted the texts (Isaiah 7 & 8, as well as Matthew 7) to suit your belief. Your belief doesn't mean anything, when it lack logic and common sense, and worse, when you being dishonest with your interpretation/opinion.

Since I Believe what GOD has written by/through HIS Prophets the Scriptures tell it all.
Man's "logic/"common sense" is speculation in contrast to the Scriptures Presented by the "Thus saith the Lord" of the Scriptures.

 

[Sleeppy]

So, you may think.

But it could be number of different possibilities.

1. It could be not a prophecy at all. What you may think is a prophecy, could just be the author's do his (or her) usual meaningless rhetoric (which I think what most of the Revelation), like to show off their plays with words and with symbols.
2. Or what you may think is a prophecy just maybe symbols of what had already happened in the past.
3. What people called prophecy, is often subject to open and loose interpretation. For instance, how many times have people interpret passages from Revelation, and predicted the end of the world, and nothing came of it?

There are lot more possibilities, but I right now I'm tired and I can't think of them.


But to get back to your possible more-than-one-fulfillment-in-a-single prophecy. Sure, the Christians believed that 7:14 sign is about Mary (virgin) and Jesus (son, Immanuel) some 700 years after Isaiah, is one prediction.



But from the Jewish perspective and from the context of chapter 7, the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) was actually about King of Assyria saving Jerusalem from destruction, before the boy (Immanuel), born from young woman, know the difference between right and wrong. Chapter 8 made it quite clear that the sign would happen during Isaiah's own lifetime, and that of the lifetime of King Ahaz of Judah, and not 700 years later.


No where in the sign, that if you read the whole sign (again, Isaiah 7:14-17), predict the coming of a messiah, because the King of Assyria was supposed to fulfill the sign, unless you believe that the messiah was the King of Assyria (more precisely Emperor Tiglath-Pileser III (reign 745–727 BCE). And the 1st part of the sign doesn't mean the young woman would give virgin birth to a messiah (that's Matthew's interpretation).


When you read all of chapter 7 and 8 of the book of Isaiah, and that of 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-10, you will understand the sign of Isaiah 7:14-17 bear no relation to Mary, Jesus or the messiah, and nothing to do with virgin or virgin birth.



So Matthew's interpretation in Matthew 1:22-23 is wrong.


Sincerly blindly followed whatever Matthew say. I'm hoping that you're a lot smarter than him. So please read Isaiah 7 and 8 in their entirety (as well as the verses in 2 Kings 15 and 16 that I have already given), and then you would understand why Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 relates to Jesus is wrong.

I've read, and do read. What I determine as fulfillment of prophecy, I rarely give as concern to anyone else. I see living prophetic truths everday, in fact. So much, that I often take no effort to remember or record them all. As far as Isaiah's prophecy in relation to Jesus, I accept it as presented in Matthew. Is this something I consider particularly important? No.

 

[Brickjectivity]

:run:

As long as you are addressing your assessment of Me rather than the content of my posts they will be "Personal".

Thank you for letting me know. I think we are done having each said our piece. Till we meet again!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It isn't Christian or Jewish prophecy, but it was GOD's ...

You're free to believe such nonsense, but it's a baseless belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good morning Sincerly, I know that Gnostic insinuated you're not too bright:

Sincerly blindly followed whatever Matthew say. I'm hoping that you're a lot smarter than him. So please read Isaiah 7 and 8 in their entirety (as well as the verses in 2 Kings 15 and 16 that I have already given), and then you would understand why Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 relates to Jesus is wrong.

What is scary is we know you are very bright. You are so bright that you use your brains to make all the right twists and turns to make Jesus born of a virgin and not "a god" but "THE GOD." Since no one seemed to like my comparison with how Christians view other religions when they take Bible verses out of context, then how about when one sect questions the other. Like a Pentecostal who swears that "tongues" are for today. The non-tongue speaking Christian will say, "No, you are taking the verse out of context. Tongues was for that day, and tongues were known languages." Does that argument matter to the Pentecostal? No, they know tongues is for today. They speak it, feel the power of the Spirit descending on them, and know it's from God. To the none tongue Christian it is all in their heads. It is not real. It is a placebo, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is man-made emotional fantasy.
Just like I see your version of Christianity. It has no basis in true Judaic traditions (in my opinion). It seems real to you but is man-made fantasy to me. I know it works. Just like the Christian speaking in tongues, it works for them and they have out of context verses to prove it.
You said,

Matthew and Luke were not prophecies about a future event, but concerning and event which the "Angel of the LORD/Gabriel" was sent to prepare both Mary and Joseph to receive in fulfillment of GOD speaking to Isaiah(centuries prior).

And,

The events unfolded just as GOD had said it would.

The gospel writers claimed after the fact "fulfilled" prophecy. I could pick through the Bible and find a verse that told of who won last year's Superbowl, but it would be much more impressive if I found a verse that was to predict this year's winner--before it happened. What proof is it when the gospel writer's wrote after the presumed facts? And, then "found" the right prophecies that most closely matched the presumed events (the events are "if-y" too). Were Jews predicting a virgin giving birth to Jesus, the Messiah? Would the Jews have taken bits and pieces of verses and built a scenario that added up to what the gospel writers came up with? Like the other weird "prophecies" that Matthew claims--out of Egypt, Ramah crying for her children, he will be called a Nazarene? These sound very forced and manipulated. God didn't make anything like Jesus clear. It all needs a little finagling. For the average follower, it takes a lot of trust and blind faith. Trust that the Christian apologists that they choose to believe are telling the truth. Christian apologists are a lot of very intelligent people with tremendous debating skills, but with an agenda--Jesus is Lord, no matter what. You didn't come up with your beliefs on your own. Some apologist, after picking through the work of other Christians, synthesized a good and proper way to believe in Jesus and the Bible. All things that were controversial were studied and a good twist and spin were given to make the average Christian think, "They must be right, because they are smart, and they studied it." You are smart, and you have studied it, but your "spin" is and always will be out of context with Isaiah. Just like people in versions of Christianity that are almost like what you believe but just a little bit off, what do you tell them? That they are wrong and are taking key verses out of context? I think you are. And that all I'm doing. There is something bigger than one, perfectly defined but exclusive truth.