Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Desert Snake]

How do you determine which person has religious bias when reading religious texts?

If it becomes obvious.

Isaiah 7 is Hebrew text, then are we in agreement that Judaic context should be used to interpret Isaiah's passage over the Christian interpretation/context? (hence Jewish source over Christian source)

No, faulty conclusion, because "Jewish source" is not necessarily less biased or more correct.

Does Isaiah 8:1-18 have no bearing to the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17? Why or why not?

It might. That seems like it could go either way.

Why do SOME Christians believe that their interpretation is the ONLY CORRECT interpretation? Isn't that religious bias?

I have absolutely no idea.

Could Matthew have made a mistake when he used Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew verse when quoting verse 14? Why did he not put all of the sign instead of just fraction of the sign? What was his motive for doing so?

Sure, I suppose.

I'm undecided about it, actually, ..I'm not sure if it's wrong or simply confusing because of the terminology. There isn't enough evidence to convince me either way.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe Isaiah should be read from a Hebraic perspective and not through a Christian prism.

I don't read any of the OT through a "Christian prism".

 

[gnostic]

I'm undecided about it, actually, ..I'm not sure if it's wrong or simply confusing because of the terminology. There isn't enough evidence to convince me either way.

When one read Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8, from start to finish, one can see that Jesus has no bearing to the sign.

The complete sign is given in Isaiah 7:14-17? How do you ignore that?

How do you ignore that the name Immanuel is mentioned again in relation to the King of Assyria and Rezin (8:5-8):

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before[c] Rezin and the son of Remaliah [Pekah]; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 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.

Clearly the Immanuel used here in Isaiah 8:8, has no bearing on Jesus or the messiah. Do you not see this?

How could Immanuel (Isaiah 8:6-8) be related to Jesus?

It does not say anything about Immanuel being god (or son of god) or king.

Isaiah 8:3-4 clearly showed that Isaiah's own son is the sign.

Do you truly not see this?

 

[Desert Snake]

How could Immanuel (Isaiah 8:6-8) be related to Jesus?

It could, it's a bit confusing though.

Isaiah 8:3-4 clearly showed that Isaiah's own son is the sign.

No way, now that seems completely illogical to me.

 

[Desert Snake]

Anyways, I have a different understanding of these verses than what's being proposed here, so I'm going to leave it at that

cheers

 

[gnostic]

How could Immanuel (Isaiah 8:6-8) be related to Jesus?

It could, it's a bit confusing though.

Then by all mean, explain how Jesus could be related to Isaiah 8:6-8.

I have already seen sincerly do mental gymnastic, by twisting everything in Isaiah 7 & 8, so I am quite sure I can handle the way interpret 8:6-8.

No way, now that seems completely illogical to me.

Is it?

Then why mention Isaiah's son at all?

Why do 8:6-8 followed immediately after 8:3-4? Are these 2 passages not related to one another?

And why did Isaiah say this at verse 18?

18 See, I [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.

No, please. Please explain how Jesus can be involved here, with this Immanuel as given in Isaiah 8:6-8?

 

[Desert Snake]

I have already seen sincerly do mental gymnastic, by twisting everything in Isaiah 7 & 8, so I am quite sure I can handle the way interpret 8:6-8

I don't read Scripture in that manner, that's irrelevant to me.

Then why mention Isaiah's son at all?

Seems like just part of the narrative, I didn't place any further meaning to it.

And why did Isaiah say this at verse 18?

Looks like literary allusion to me.

No, please. Please explain how Jesus can be involved here, with this Immanuel as given in Isaiah 8:6-8?

Why? I don't necessarily subscribe to that interpretation. Ask someone else lol.

 

[gnostic]

Why? I don't necessarily subscribe to that interpretation. Ask someone else lol.

You did claim it could be Jesus (in post 485), when I had asked you (with regards to Isaiah 8:6-8)...but you didn't explain how it could be Jesus?

 

[Desert Snake]

You did claim it could be Jesus (in post 485), when I had asked you (with regards to Isaiah 8:6-8)...but you didn't explain how it could be Jesus?

The name in Isaaih leaves open that possibility, however unlikely it would seem t some...IMO.

 

[gnostic]

The name in Isaaih leaves open that possibility, however unlikely it would seem t some...IMO.

Other than Matthew's baseless and misquoted claim, I see no evidences what so ever that the child to be Jesus. All literary evidences, meaning Isaiah 7 & Isaiah 8, are contrary to Matthew's claim.

Like I said before, Matthew only quote a fraction of the complete sign. By ignoring the complete sign, I could say that the child Albert Einstein or Micky Mouse. With only a fraction of the sign, I could suggest just about any son being born to a woman, because it is open to wide interpretation.

When you use the complete sign (7:14-17), you can narrow it down. And 8:1-18 helped considerably with narrowing down the identity of the son.

And beside all this, I've read the NT, from end-to-end, and NOT ONCE was Jesus ever called Immanuel. Matthew might have quoted from Isaiah 7:14, but Jesus was never called Immanuel. He (Jesus) certainly has nothing to do with the kings of Judah, Israel, Aram and Assyria, which make it more unlikely that Jesus was Immanuel.

And furthermore, why did not Luke mention Immanuel whatsoever in his version of the gospel?

 

[sincerly]

Those are all good points. I highly doubt that Mary was a "virgin". It's entirely possible a-Mary didn't exist and neither did Jesus, and if they did b-Mary had an affair and didn't want her family or old Joe to find out.

PancakeSaint, Welcome to the debates. But those "good points" are suppositions just as yours are.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi there Sincerly, You said,

Prophecies are given before and the fulfilling does come after.

Things don't get written down until after the fulfillment. No one wrote down the birth narratives until after he was born, maybe not until after he died. Why couldn't Luke and Matthew just be doing the best they could with the stories and legends about Jesus' birth? Besides, are Jews that ignorant of their own writings not to interpret Isaiah like Matthew did? Shouldn't they be telling each other, "Oops, we missed this one. Isaiah prophesied about the Messiah being born of a virgin." Gnostic has repeatedly gone verse by verse to show that in no way does the verses in Isaiah have anything to do with the Messiah. I could say that the SF Giants were prophesied to win the World Series in Genesis when it says that "There will be giants in those days." But I'm taking the verse grossly out of context.

When I said, "There is something bigger than one, perfectly defined but exclusive truth." And you said,

We are debating the Scriptures and apparently you found a source outside the Scriptures to base that comment upon.

I hope there is something bigger than any one Christian group having the exclusive truth. But do Christians make up truth as they go along? Early Christians found a need to make Mary a "perpetual virgin" and to have had some kind of an "immaculate conception" Is that true? If not then how farfetched would it be for Matthew to have thrown in a few "proofs" from Scripture to make Jesus sound like a virtual God? Who were the people that canonized the book and made it "God's Word"? Who's fighting for the virgin birth story now? You, a Christian. You believe it all. Or do you? You stop short of the stuff about Mary I'll bet--because those were "traditions" of Popes. But Christians made the Popes words infallible didn't they? Were those Christians wrong? You said you believe in "tongues" but how about handling snakes? Some very fine, very literal-believing Christians take up serpents just like Jesus said. Or, are they taking his words out of context? There are too many variations of Christianity for any one of them to say, "Jesus is the only way and we are the ones that know that way." The exclusive club of Jesus being God and the only way to salvation doesn't fit with the "truth" that the same God gave to the Jews. Either Christians are exaggerating the truth or the Jews totally misread and misunderstood their own writings. Your beliefs are dependent on the words of the Bible being accurate and being interpreted accurately. I've asked several times, in several ways, so here we go again--What do you say to those that take Bible verses out of context? You probably cry "foul". What do you say when it's you doing it? You say, "Oh, that's different. We have the correct meaning. How foolish would it be for a normal birth to be a sign." Then we all pull our hair out and say, "What? The sign is the kid getting older. It's a question of time. By the time he reaches a certain age." Whatever, anyway, I'm scouring the Scriptures for a verse that has the SF 49's winning the Superbowl. Have a good day Sincerly.

 

[gnostic]

Things don't get written down until after the fulfillment. No one wrote down the birth narratives until after he was born, maybe not until after he died. Why couldn't Luke and Matthew just be doing the best they could with the stories and legends about Jesus' birth? Besides, are Jews that ignorant of their own writings not to interpret Isaiah like Matthew did? Shouldn't they be telling each other, "Oops, we missed this one. Isaiah prophesied about the Messiah being born of a virgin."

Both authors wrote their versions of Jesus' birth about 30 years after Jesus' death, so it is hardly impressive feat in prophecy.

I would have been far more impressed had Matthew quoted Isaiah years before Jesus was born.

 

[sincerly]

The scripture in Revelation removes the ambiguity by calling him both the dragon and the ancient serpent.

How does that possibly remove the Ambiguity? You think the Snake in the Garden was a Dragon?

Rev.12:9,"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. [/quote]

Hi, Shermana, all the appellations in that verse refer to the same entity---the Scriptures remain true---as GOD intended----No matter his appearance. (In Peter, he is described as a "roaring lion".-----In Corinthians as an "angel of light".) However, his goal is to deceive the whole world---as Scripture attests.

A symbol perhaps? Maybe Satan is a Reptilian being of whom the Snake was a minion. You also have to take into account the symbolism prevalent in Revelation. Did Satan lose his legs forever?

"Perhaps" and "Maybe" are suppositions, NOT Facts. Yes, there is a lot of symbolism in the Book of Revelation, But, contextually, the meaning is revealed. Don't despair.
Satan didn't "lose his legs", but the "serpent"--which was used by the casted out disobedient angel--did. Will it be forever a trait of snakes? I don't know, but from the "Asps"/"cockatrice" seen in the new earth(Isa,11:8), there will be snakes.

So maybe he was the master of the Snake telling the Snake in the Garden what to do? You think Satan had his legs removed?

And that in no way proves that Satan was the Snake himself, but very would could have been his controller.

The Creator GOD is the master of all things HE CREATED. The serpent could not have been "controlled by Satan" had he not prior to Eve allowed Satan to sway their loyalty to GOD.

 

[sincerly]

Or C) Joseph was the Father, as some of the text seemingly indicates, and the whole virgin affair was a later addition, as many scholars agree the account in Luke was interpolated, and the version in Matthew contains several oddities like Rahab having a child at over 300 years old.

Hi Shermana, What version of Matthew are you using? Your (C) doesn't make sense. Joseph knew he was NOT the father. He was contemplating "putting Mary away privily" when Gabriel enlightened him of the true nature of the situation. "Seemingly" is another supposition of "I think/Presume".
Deceitful weights, measures and "witnesses"(including "prophets") have been present since the Garden of Eden.
There is a genealogy at the end of Ruth which follows Matthews account, but I do not see Ahab's name. However, I calculate 140 years from Jericho's fall to the time of Ruth. Certainly not an impossibility at that time or with GOD.

 

[Poisonshady313]

PancakeSaint, Welcome to the debates. But those "good points" are suppositions just as yours are.

On the contrary, there is no reason to translate almah as virgin in isaiah other than a bias to allow for it to imply virginity.

The septuagint also calls Dinah a parthenos after she was raped (NOT A VIRGIN)

And as has been pointed out, the almah in proverbs is not a virgin.

Even the word maiden doesn't necessarily imply virginity... just "not married".

None of those four points are suppositions.

 

[sincerly]

When you use the complete sign (7:14-17), you can narrow it down. And 8:1-18 helped considerably with narrowing down the identity of the son.

Gnostic, Did GOD give Ahaz a "a deep, profound, unsearchable, Sign"="amaq"? Yes, Vs.14.
Did GOD give tell Isaiah to to comfort Ahaz with the knowledge that what was being planned by those kings against him would not "come to pass"? YES. Because both parties in sixty five years would be "not a people"? Yes.
Did Ahaz believe GOD or confererate with Assyria and GOD had said by so doing he would not be "established". Yes, it happened.
Did GOD say both houses of Jacob would stumble? Yes. But those who remained "fearful/ loyal to GOD'S ways are "sanctified."? Yes.
That "unsearchable" sign was about a "SON" which in the future--to be born to a "Virgin" and the LORD said , HIS Name shall be called, "Immanuel"==meaning "GOD with us". (1Tim. 3:15). Jesus was to be called "Jesus " as well. ("Savior of HIS People")
Luke1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

It was Isiah's sons who the rest of the verses alluded to and the "confederacies" would fail under.

 

[gnostic]

That "unsearchable" sign was about a "SON" which in the future--to be born to a "Virgin" and the LORD said , HIS Name shall be called, "Immanuel"==meaning "GOD with us". (1Tim. 3:15). Jesus was to be called "Jesus " as well. ("Savior of HIS People")
Luke1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Sincerly, you're the master of circular reasoning.

I would be more impressed that Isaiah say explicitly that the son would be born over 700-year later, then I would think and believe that it is talking of prophecy of the messiah.

It (7:14) doesn't give any specific date or timeframe that the child would be born centuries later.

In fact, it say that the young woman (almah) was "with a child", hence the child-sign would be born during the lifetimes of Isaiah, Ahaz and the King of Assyria, especially when you considered verse 15, 16 and 17:

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.

And tell me, what do the rest of the sign say about the child after verse 14????

Are you going to again ignore the complete sign?

Hypocritical cherry picker.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Poisonshady313
On the contrary, there is no reason to translate almah as virgin in isaiah other than a bias to allow for it to imply virginity.

The septuagint also calls Dinah a parthenos after she was raped (NOT A VIRGIN)

And as has been pointed out, the almah in proverbs is not a virgin.

Even the word maiden doesn't necessarily imply virginity... just "not married".

None of those four points are suppositions.

1. In Isaiah 7:14, a prophecy given by GOD, "almah" would not translated by any designation but Virgin to denote "GOD with us."

2. In Gen.34., Dinah is called a damsel=="na' arah"--- girl of marriageable age.
She was a virgin until she was "defiled".

3.You have acknowledged that a young woman can be either "virgin" or non-virgin", but the content denotes which. The Holy Scriptures attest to "virgin" status unless specified otherwise.

4. See #3 for "maiden". To imply "maiden" means "non-virgin" in Scriptural verses where it is not stated to mean "non virgin" is to defile the Scriptures given by GOD.

 

[Poisonshady313]

1. In Isaiah 7:14, a prophecy given by GOD, "almah" would not translated by any designation but Virgin to denote "GOD with us."

Incoherent nonsense.

2. In Gen.34., Dinah is called a damsel=="na' arah"--- girl of marriageable age.
She was a virgin until she was "defiled".

You're not even paying attention to what you are replying to. I said the Septuagint (y'know... the one written in GREEK) refers to Dinah as a "parthenos" after she is raped/defiled.

Telling me which Hebrew word is used is all well and good... yet totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Which is that while the word "parthenos" was used to describe the woman in Isaiah 7... it was also used to describe Dinah after she was raped.

Which either means that the word doesn't mean what you think it means... or it was used incorrectly.

3.You have acknowledged that a young woman can be either "virgin" or non-virgin", but the content denotes which. The Holy Scriptures attest to "virgin" status unless specified otherwise.

Incoherent nonsense.

4. See #3 for "maiden". To imply "maiden" means "non-virgin" in Scriptural verses where it is not stated to mean "non virgin" is to defile the Scriptures given by GOD.

Incoherent nonsense.