Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

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

Incoherent nonsense.

It is only "incoherent" to those who refuse to see and understand. And "nonsense" to those who have rejected the Creator GOD. In the Scriptures concerning/portraying GOD, HE is NOT likened/symbolically described by any corrupt thing.

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.

Unfortunate for your posting, I am "paying attention to what I am replying to"---which is the departing from scriptural meaning by you.
I do not read the Greek "Septuagint", but did pull up the English translation and the word "virgin" isn't used.(nor was it used in the KJV.) However, Gen.34:7, is this, "And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.". Yes, Dinah was a Virgin prior to the "humbling" . and vs.31 enforces the fact, "And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot"?

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

But it is relevant! Your drawn conclusions are based on different information.

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.

Agreed, you did use it incorrectly.

Incoherent nonsense.

Incoherent nonsense.

Agreed, it is "incoherent nonsense" to believe that a "almah"=Virgin/young woman in the usage of by Hebrew writers doesn't mean has been sexually free unless the context indicates such.
Stoning was a deterrent to keeping down harlotry/"folly in Israel."

 

[gnostic]

If Immanuel was a son to a woman who is a virgin (according to Matthew and not to Isaiah), then why is Isaiah's son in Isaiah 8:3-4, that connected the baby boy to the King of Assyria and destruction of Israel and Aram, before the boy could say "mother" & "father" 8:4 in comparison with a boy before he could know the difference and choose right over wrong (7:15-17).

The verses in 2 different chapters are slightly difference, but also strikingly the same, indicate that the signs are actually the same...but with 8:3-4, we know Immanuel is Isaiah's son - Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Why else would the Immanuel reappeared in 8:8, in connection with the King of Assyria and with the Rezin and Pekah (the son of Remaliah) in 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.

If Jesus is Immanuel as you believe, then don't you think that Isaiah 8:6-8 wouldn't make any sense...unless Jesus is not Immanuel?

As I keep saying, there are more to the sign than just 7:14. The sign 7:14 is incomplete without 7:15-17, and without Isaiah 8:1-18.

What are your thoughts on Isaiah 8:5-8?

 

[sincerly]

What are your thoughts on Isaiah 8:5-8?

I have been telling you for many posts, but you are with the same mindset as the people Isaiah was sent to tell. (6:9-10) "And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

There is hope for the few as seen in 6:13---and that was for those returning from the 70 years of captivity as well as those peoples at the end of the world who heed the prophetic warnings.

Those Scriptures we are debating leave It is everyone's choice to Believe it True or "myth".

 

[Poisonshady313]

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



It is only "incoherent" to those who refuse to see and understand. And "nonsense" to those who have rejected the Creator GOD. In the Scriptures concerning/portraying GOD, HE is NOT likened/symbolically described by any corrupt thing.



Unfortunate for your posting, I am "paying attention to what I am replying to"---which is the departing from scriptural meaning by you.
I do not read the Greek "Septuagint", but did pull up the English translation and the word "virgin" isn't used.(nor was it used in the KJV.) However, Gen.34:7, is this, "And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.". Yes, Dinah was a Virgin prior to the "humbling" . and vs.31 enforces the fact, "And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot"?



But it is relevant! Your drawn conclusions are based on different information.



Agreed, you did use it incorrectly.



Agreed, it is "incoherent nonsense" to believe that a "almah"=Virgin/young woman in the usage of by Hebrew writers doesn't mean has been sexually free unless the context indicates such.
Stoning was a deterrent to keeping down harlotry/"folly in Israel."

Wow. I can't decide if you're simply not very bright, or if you're a troll. Either way, I'm done with you.

 

[sincerly]

Wow. I can't decide if you're simply not very bright, or if you're a troll. Either way, I'm done with you.

Thanks, I assure you ---I am real and I'm not trolling for anything---but do like to catch/gather in "Truth".

 

[gnostic]

I have been telling you for many posts, but you are with the same mindset as the people Isaiah was sent to tell.

The 2nd time, Immanuel being mentioned in the Book of Isaiah (8:6-8), clearly bear no relation to a messiah or to Jesus.

Like 7:14-17, 8:3-4 & 8:6-8 all relate to Judah, and to the King of Assyria, Rezin and Pekah. Twice, the signs are given, twice about this son, and twice about all these kings.

How can they be related to Jesus?

It all comes down to either twisting a single verse to suit your belief or ignoring the rest of the contents to suit your belief. Your belief that Immanuel is Jesus and the virgin is Mary, are based on nothing more than your opinion, your supposition and your belief, and the mistranslation and misinterpretation of that single verse from the ascribed author, Matthew.

You often speak of verse 14, but not much on the following verses (15 to 17). You ignored the fact that Immanuel is mentioned again in 8:8, in relation to Isaiah having a son with a woman (8:3-4) and in relation to the King of Assyria and Judah's enemies (7:16-17 & 8:6-8).

You also ignore the fact that none of gospels or letters EVER calling Jesus "Immanuel", clearly demonstrate your blind faith and ignorance that Matthew's quotation is correct.

You keep bringing up Gabriel, as if it had any really meaning in it, when is simply YOU using circular reasoning to back your baseless claim that Jesus is Immanuel.

You have shown us nothing rational in your argument, just your baseless opinion.

And then you yada, yada, yada me with another quote of yours (Isaiah 6:9-10) about looking or listening without understanding, Well, look buddy, this same quote you were referring to me, can actually apply even more suitably to you. Did it ever occur to you that you don't understand? (Actually, I think you don't want to understand.)

You said that you have read both chapters 7 & 8, but the truth of the matter is that you don't understand a single thing that you have read in those chapter. You such a hypocrite.

 

[Desert Snake]

The 2nd time, Immanuel being mentioned in the Book of Isaiah (8:6-8), clearly bear no relation to a messiah or to Jesus.

Something of interest, I did run across a reference in the Bible where the name was different from the "title", so to speak, similar to this... I'll try to find it, I think it's in the OT.

 

[InChrist]

I believe that Matthew precisely and perfectly quoted from Isaiah 7:14 as inspired by God, just as he quoted in Matthew 4:15-16 from Isaiah 9:1-2. Isaiah was a prophet of God sent to take the message of God’s holiness and light to His covenant people who were in rebellion and therefore darkness. The book of Isaiah contains promises and prophetic messages throughout which give progressive revelation and extend far beyond the lifetime of King Ahaz and other historical people/events to the future of “the house of David”.

King Ahaz was an evil king who preferred to live according to his evil ways rather than obey God. ([FONT=&quot]2 Kings 16:2-4). [/FONT]God invited Ahaz who was of the house of David and a beneficiary of the Davidic covenant to ask for a sign. But Ahaz refused to trust, ask and walk in the light of the Lord. Instead he trusted his own plans to depend upon Assyria (2 Kings 16:7; 2 Chron. 28:16). God gave a sign for the house of David anyway:
[FONT=&quot]
T[/FONT]hen he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father‘s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”. Isaiah 7:13-17

Ahaz refused to listen to God, but Isaiah listened. Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall have knowledge to cry ‘My father’ and ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria.” (Isaiah 8:3-4) The meaning ofMaher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is: Speed the Spoil, Hasten the Boot. Before this son was old enough to say mother and father the alliance of Syria and Israel which Judah feared had come to nothing, but God also punished Judah for their rebellion against Him through the king of Assyria whom they trusted.

So this sign for the house of David was partially fulfilled during the life and circumstances of King Ahaz. It was a picture and foreshadow of God’s faithful involvement in the affairs of His people “God with us-Immanuel” even in their unfaithfulness, but it was not completely fulfilled as it pertained to the future of “the house of David” and the Child born of a virgin who would again demonstrate, “God with us-Immanuel”, coming as Redeemer for His people and who would one day rule from David’s throne forever.


For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. Isaiah 9:6-7

I will get back to this, specifically addressing the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, at my next opportunity.

 

[gnostic]

King Ahaz was an evil king who preferred to live according to his evil ways rather than obey God. ([FONT=&quot]2 Kings 16:2-4). [/FONT]

I have never stated that Ahaz was a good king. I know of 2 Kings 16, and I've quoted from the passages or cited it as the source, for the event, in relation to Isaiah 7 & 8.

Whether Ahaz was a good king or evil king, is rather irrelevant.

The point of this thread, is to point out that Matthew (or whoever hell the real author is, of this gospel) had taken the single verse out-of-context:
Firstly, Matthew didn't quote THE COMPLETE sign, just a fraction of it. The COMPLETE SIGN begins at verse 14 and ends at verse 17.
And two, Matthew based his quote on Isaiah 7:14 on the Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew.

You had used the King James Version (KJV) in your quote of Isaiah 7:13-17:

[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT]hen he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father‘s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”. Isaiah 7:13-17

I preferred to use NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) or JPS (Jewish Publication Society, 1985 translation):

13 Then Isaiah[d] 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[e] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.[f] 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.”

The problem with KJV, is that the translators began the translation of Isaiah 7 from the Hebrew text (from Masoretic Text), swapped to the Greek translation (Septuagint bible) at verse 14, and switched back to Hebrew text at verse 15 and onward.

Why did they (KJV translators) do that?

Was not verse 14 not available in the Masoretic Text? (The answer is no.)

This inconsistency in translation (of switching back-and-forth, between Hebrew and Greek), demonstrate the flaw in the KJV translation.

The only reason why I think the KJV translators would do such thing, is to make Isaiah 7:14 consistent with Matthew 1:23, which is wrong thing to do.

All of Isaiah 7 should have been translated directly from Hebrew.

It is ok for KJV team to translate Matthew 1:23 as it is, from Greek to English, but it is wrong for KJV choir to translate Isaiah 7:14 from Greek to English.

But regardless if you use KJV, NRSV, NIV, JPS, read the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Septuagint bible directly, when you read the complete sign, from 14 to 17, of Isaiah 7, it doesn't indicate a virgin birth or the messiah, because it (verse 14) isn't a messianic prophecy.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not that living a good Christian life isn't great. Not that the words attributed to Jesus aren't profound. However, there are great Mormons, Baha'i's, Buddhists, etc. All the teachings of every great religion have very profound sayings. All religions have aspects that are miraculous. How can we decide where factual reality departs and myth and legend begins?

Part of believing in any religion requires a person to accept it as THE TRUTH. Some forms of Christianity take such a literal interpretation of their writings that it does make them the exclusive keeper of the truth. It makes them the exclusive interpreter of the truth. It obviously doesn't bother some Christians that Matthew takes Isaiah out of context. They spin it to say what they want it to say. But every religion can and does that to each other. If Christians allow that kind of misquoting, then they can't complain when their own Scriptures are turned and twisted, allegorized and cherry-picked. Although, I know Christians do complain when other religions misquote the Christian writings. You can try and justify it in your own mind, but Isaiah chapter seven will never, ever be a Jewish prophecy about the Jewish Messiah.

For Christians great--you want to pick and choose Hebrew Bible verses to prove Jesus to yourselves fine. But don't be surprised when you get called on it. To live a life based on the teachings of Jesus is wonderful, to try and prove him God, to prove people are hopelessly depraved and need him to gain salvation is not so wonderful. It's not easy to prove and is going to be challenged. To say I'm blind and can't see because I don't have the Spirit of God in me doesn't work. Christians are blinded by the light they think is glowing all around them. It's a light they lit and believe is real. But how about all the other religions? They all think they have "the" light. Does to be in the light mean having the right Scripture and the right interpretation of that Scripture? Then it's always going to be changing, because even Christians keep making new adjustments to their beliefs.

Where is the practical application of Christianity? Most are ignorant, blind followers. They've probably never read Isaiah. They've probably taken it for granted that their preachers were telling them the correct interpretation of the few verses they tell their flock. Is that right? I don't think so. I was one of those naive people sitting in a pew. Why would preachers mislead people? Why would the writer of Matthew? If it happened today, and it does, we'd call that religion a cult--a charismatic leader, verses out of context, unusual and fantastic miracles? Christianity has a lot in common with a cult. God being born as a human? God impregnating a virgin with himself? Seriously, do I have to believe this to be saved? I'll believe in the power of love and being "the good Samaritan." You keep the hocus pocus.

 

[gnostic]

Where is the practical application of Christianity? Most are ignorant, blind followers. They've probably never read Isaiah. They've probably taken it for granted that their preachers were telling them the correct interpretation of the few verses they tell their flock.

You're right. I myself had actually take Matthew's quote (1:23) of Isaiah 7:14 for granted, at that time, and I didn't dare to question the accepted Christian teaching that the virgin was Mary and her son Immanuel was Jesus.

When I was younger (in my mid-teen), my older sister gave me the bible to read (Good News Bible, and later the KJV). And I read it from cover to cover. When I read all of the book of Isaiah and Matthew's gospel. I didn't question Matthew's interpretation of that verse.

But when I read Matthew 1:23, at that time, I didn't bother to check and re-read Isaiah 7. I took Matthew's claim and interpretation to be true, so I did take it for granted, and had assumed that it was indeed the prophecy of the messiah, and didn't think to question it.

Well, I nearly join my sister's church when I was still a teenager. The water was set, and before I was baptised, I backed out. I was nearly baptised again, a year or 2 later, with a different church. By my early 20's I didn't read the bible again, because I was busy with studies and works.

It wasn't until some 12 or 13 years later, in 1999, when I first began building my website, Timeless Myths, that I picked up the bible again, mainly because of my research for the Arthurian page. Christianity wasn't the only religion that interested me, because in the last 12 years, I was looking into other religions, reading other scriptures, exploring other myths. My main interest with the bible was Genesis particularly chapters 1 to 11, including the creation myth (Genesis 1 to 4) and the flood story (Genesis 6-8). I have read Genesis 1 to 8, countless times. I've read them from start to finish, and in reverse. I've read sideways, read the creation and flood stories separately, as well compare them with all available translation that I had at my fingertips.

Now, when I read a book (not just the bible), I read more carefully, investigate references made in any literature, trying to find cross-references. Due to my reading of Greek and Roman mythology, I have gain experiences in chasing down sources, and investigating different versions of the same myth.

Having read Matthew 1 & 2 again, and particularly Matthew's quote (1:23), and I had discovered that I did take Isaiah 7:14 for granted. My view with the quote has changed, because of my experiences with researching literature and mythology. I know without doubt that Matthew had misquoted and misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14, and that Matthew didn't quote the whole sign.

 

[InChrist]

[FONT=&quot]I believe Isaiah 7:14 is a prophetic Messianic verse because almost the entire book of Isaiah is prophetic showing Israel’s state of darkness in sin and rebellion and revealing the LORD’S deliverance not only in the immediate battles they were facing, but future promises for their redemption and salvation through Messiah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ahaz refused to ask God and to comply with His request. This demonstrated his unbelief and a complete absence of faith. As a result, God's response was immediate and directed not only to Ahaz, but to the future house of David and the Judaic line of kings. According to the LORD, since Ahaz failed to meet the requirement specified in Isaiah 7:9, his throne would not be established. This resulted in the LORD's immediate judgment against the house of David. While David's line failed in God's conditional promise, God's unconditional promise would be fulfilled in a sign: a virgin would conceive and bear a Son. God Himself would become the Father of the Messiah who would rule from the throne of David in Israel’s future.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For unto us a Child is born,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. Isaiah 9:6-7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A young woman bearing a child is no sign. Young women having children is an everyday event. A virgin bearing a child on the other hand is a miraculous sign which only God could accomplish.[/FONT]

 

[gnostic]

[FONT=&quot]A young woman bearing a child is no sign. Young women having children is an everyday event. [/FONT]

The woman, virgin or not, is not the sign. The sign is not even the name of her son: "Immanuel".

The complete sign is actually that followed verse 14:

15 He [Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child [Immanuel] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings [Rezin and Pekah] 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.”

Why do Christian selectively ignore relevant verses? Some Christians seemed to have selective blindness, that they can't even bother to read the whole sign. And that's what disgust me, whenever I debate with some Christians, their willingness to twist verse out-of-context.

I have highlighted the "He" (in verse 15) and "child" (in verse 16) are both about the woman's son, Immanuel.

The birth of the child is not the miracle nor the true sign, but that before the child knows "good" and "evil", the outcome of war of Judah against Israel and Aram would be decided by the more powerful Assyria. Nothing in these verses of the complete sign (7:14-17), including verse 14, depict a messiah. Nothing in verse 14 say that the child will be messiah.

The sign was not about a miracle, but the outcome of the war, in which Israel and Aram would not trouble Judah anymore...and that it will come about before knows right and wrong. That's the sign.

What does Jesus have to do with the 2 kings? Nothing whatsoever.

In Jesus' life, was there ever connection between him and the King of Assyria?

 

[CG Didymus]

A young woman bearing a child is no sign. Young women having children is an everyday event. A virgin bearing a child on the other hand is a miraculous sign which only God could accomplish.

That's right. A virgin birth would be miraculous. So what happened in Isaiah's time? Was there a virgin then? Christians are either stuck with a dual prophecy problem, or that there wasn't any fulfillment in Isaiah's time. Then, Christians still have to explain how the rest of the "sign" has anything to do with Jesus. They can't. They have to ignore it. How strange is it that the non-Christians are supporting the use of the whole of the chapter, and the Christians are taking just one part of it. And, somehow convince themselves they are right.

Christians lose their legitimacy by trying to force this and other verses into their "proofs". Sorry, I know belief in Jesus can change lives, but so can any religion. Christianity is absolutely dependent on the New Testament being truthful. How can I trust it with such glaring manipulations of the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

[InChrist]

I have highlighted the "He" (in verse 15) and "child" (in verse 16) are both about the woman's son, Immanuel.

So who do you believe this child is?

 

[InChrist]

That's right. A virgin birth would be miraculous. So what happened in Isaiah's time? Was there a virgin then? Christians are either stuck with a dual prophecy problem, or that there wasn't any fulfillment in Isaiah's time. Then, Christians still have to explain how the rest of the "sign" has anything to do with Jesus. They can't. They have to ignore it. How strange is it that the non-Christians are supporting the use of the whole of the chapter, and the Christians are taking just one part of it. And, somehow convince themselves they are right.

Christians lose their legitimacy by trying to force this and other verses into their "proofs". Sorry, I know belief in Jesus can change lives, but so can any religion. Christianity is absolutely dependent on the New Testament being truthful. How can I trust it with such glaring manipulations of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Christians are not stuck with a duel prophecy problem because it is not a problem. The reality is that the majority of prophecies do have duel application. Actually it is the entire book of Isaiah, not just one chapter, that reveals who the Son is as Immanuel, Redeemer and Messiah.

 

[CG Didymus]

Christians are not stuck with a duel prophecy problem because it is not a problem. The reality is that the majority of prophecies do have duel application. Actually it is the entire book of Isaiah, not just one chapter, that reveals who the Son is as Immanuel, Redeemer and Messiah.

I've never heard anyone successfully explain how it was a dual prophecy. The number one question for Christians becomes--If it was a virgin in the New Testament times, then it has to be a virgin in Isaiah's time. Like Gnostic has tried to point out numerous times, Jesus does not fit the whole sign. Of course Jesus can be forced to fit the sign. Just like a mystery evil angel named Lucifer can fit into another chapter of Isaiah. But words have to be added, words have to be translated into a language that allows a better re-interpretation of the story--like a king and prince of Tyre becoming that same evil angel.

Take Jesus love him, make him your God, live by his commandments, but don't even pretend that you don't do what every other religion does--manipulate Scriptures to make them fit your version of truth. You're probably a great example of a good Christian, if you deny that then you're humble also, but so are people like Sincerly, Pegg, Lady B and all the others. All of you probably have differences in how you believe in Jesus. Where does that come from? From the Bible, the same book but a slightly different translation of it, or each of you follows a different tradition of what it's supposed to mean. No one has just one authoritative view of who God is and who Jesus is. You trust the Bible, but the Bible is the product of men who you make into mouthpieces of God. You make the early church fathers infallible in their choice of which books went into the Bible because the Spirit guided them. Yet, not long after that the succession of church fathers went bad? They came in with wrong doctrines? They made Mary an immaculately concepted perpetual virgin? So unless you're Catholic, you believe they lied about that, yet the preceding generations of church fathers were right?

Sorry, believing and living by the high standards of Christianity is awesome, if you can live up to them, but still Matthew cherry-picked. You can try and defend him all you want, but the woman, whether virgin or not, was not the sign--it was the age of the kid. Creating a scenario after the fact and piecing in a forced translation of Isaiah doesn't make it a prophecy. Either the Jews were looking for a virgin to conceive the Messiah or they weren't. Matthew can't come in later and say, "Well, now that we have a virgin and a child, there must have been a prophecy about this. Oh look, imagine that, there is." Imagine that, how convenient, all he had to do is force a young maiden into a virgin and disregard the rest of the sign. It don't cut it! It makes the Christian Bible story look fabricated.

Everybody in Judea should have known--"The wonderful counselor is born! The prince of peace has arrived! His star rose in the east. He was born in the right city. He was born of a virgin! He is here! Herod tried to kill him but failed. He came out of Egypt just like it was foretold. This baby is the promised Messiah!" Then he disappears for thirty years? It's a fantastic story. And, he must be God. And, he must be the Savior--If The New Testament is true. But is it? You don't think there is any evidence that the gospel writers, especially Matthew, bent the truth and historical facts to paint their picture? It is a pretty good picture. But, it sits right next to a lot of other pretty good pictures of other religions. And, if you look close at the Jesus picture, you'll see a few smears and some colors running--maybe even a few places where it looks like someone re-touched up the painting.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Christians are not stuck with a duel prophecy problem because it is not a problem. The reality is that the majority of prophecies do have duel application. Actually it is the entire book of Isaiah, not just one chapter, that reveals who the Son is as Immanuel, Redeemer and Messiah.

By your standards of recognizing prophecy, Moshe Shulman's rooster is the Messiah.

My name is Moshe and I am a Chassidic Jew who has, from my youth, learned the words of our Holy Prophets, and has been puzzled by their meaning. Then, on the day before Yom Kippur, I contemplated the solemnity of the day and was made aware of the amazing meaning of G-d's words. I recognized the fulfillment of 42 Messianic prophecies of the Tenach, and they changed my life forever.

1. Early in the morning I went to get my rooster to fulfill the ancient custom. There in the light I looked into his eyes and saw fulfilled the words, 'I am the rooster who has seen affliction.' (Lam. 3:1)
2. I took him and swung him around my head as the verse says, 'And he circled his head.' (Lam 3:5)
3. I moved my hands as I swirled him, as it says, 'Only against me did he turn his hand.' (Lam 3:3)
4. With this he leaped from my hand and started to run. As it says, 'They have run away without seeing good.' (Job 9:25)
5. I cried a short pray to HaShem as it says, 'My words I say out of the bitterness of my soul.' (Job 10:1)
6. He ran from me, fulfilling the verse, 'To me they showed their back and not their face.' (Jer. 32:33)
7. I borrowed a cane from a man near me so as to catch him with the rounded edge, as the verse says, 'And Moshe took the stick.' (Ex. 4:20,
8. (Num 20:8 -- same)
9. I tried to catch him with the hook, but only the blows of the cane hit his back as it says, 'Afflicted by the rod of his anger.' (Lam. 3:1)
10. It also says, 'I struck you with the blows of an enemy.' (Jer. 30:12)
11. He turned to me and I got him right on the cheek fulfilling the verse, 'I have offered my cheek to the one who strikes me.' (Lam. 3:30)
12. He ran from me into a dark corner and I followed after him, as the verse says, 'He has led me and driven me into the darkness and not light.' (Lam. 3:2)
13. I had him there in the corner as it says; 'All her pursuers overtook her in the small place.' (Lam. 1:3)
14. He stood there silent, as he had been to this time in fulfillment of the words of the prophet, 'He was persecuted and afflicted, be he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)
15. In that corner there was just nowhere for him to hide from me as the verse says, 'Can a person hide in a concealed place, and I should not see him?' (Jer. 23:25)
16. He was now trapped as the verse says, 'He has walled me in so I cannot escape.' (Lam. 3:7)
17. In his eyes I could see him praying silently to HaShem, 'My G-d my G-d why have you forsaken me?' (Psalm 22:1)
18. Clearly it was fulfilled for him, 'The mighty ones of Bashan encircle me.' (Psalm 22:13)
19. I grabbed him and he started to call out to HaShem. As the verse says, 'My G-d, I call to you by day and you do not answer and by night and there is no respite.' (Psalm 22:3)
20. But there was no answer as it says, 'Though I would scream out and plead he shut out my prayer.' (Lam. 3:8)
21. It was clearly the end. I grabbed him and took my place in the line waiting to give my rooster to the shochet (ritual slaughterer.) He was silent, 'Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe to her sharers he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)
22. The shochet took him by the neck as it says; 'He grasped me by the neck.' (Job 16:12)
23. With that he screamed out, 'Be not far from me because distress is near and there is none to help me.' (Psalm 22:12)
24. He also said, 'Save my soul from the sword.' (Psalm 22:21)
25. He slaughtered him fulfilling 'He was removed from the living land.' (Is. 53:8)
26. He let the blood fall on the floor, as it says, 'I am poured out like water.' (Psalm 22:15)
27. I took the dead chicken and gazed at it as the prophet says, 'They have looked upon me whom they have pierced.' (Zech 12:10)
28. I took it to be made kosher. We separated it into pieces snapping it's bones as the verses say, 'All my bones became disjointed.' (Psalm 22:15)
29. Also 'He has broken my bones.' (Lam 3:4)
30. Then I took him home to cook. My wife removed the skin as it says, 'He has worn away my flesh and skin.' (Lam. 3:4)
31. She placed him in a pot with water, as it says, 'For the waters have reached unto my soul.' (Psalm 69:2)
32. She added many spices as it says, 'And she gave ...many spices.' (1 Kings 10:10)
33. She covered up the pot so it could cook as it says; 'He has placed me in darkness.' (Lam 3:6)
34. The smell of it filled the room as it says, 'That the spices may flow out.' (Song 4:16)
35. After that it was served on the table and we gazed upon it as the verse says, 'I count my bones and they gaze and look upon me.' (Psalm 22:18)
36. He was divided among the members of my family, as it says, 'Therefore I will divide him among the many.' (Is. 53:12)
37. We rejoiced and sang as we ate him, as it says, 'I have become a thing of laughter for my people, they sing all day long.' (Lam. 3:14)
38. Also, 'In him our hearts were joyful.' (Psalm 33:21)
39. 39/40/41. After which we were full and praised G-d as it says, 'You shall eat and be satisfied and praise HaShem your G-d.' (Deut. 6:11,
40. (Same for Deut 8:10)
41. (Same for Deut 11:15).
42. We truly saw the goodness of G-d as it says, 'You should taste and see that HaShem is good.' (Psalm 34:9)

There were many more messianic prophecies that I could have added that applied to my messianic rooster. Many more he will fulfill when he comes back.

http://www.qumran.org/js/texts/mrooster.php

 

[Brickjectivity]

May your rooster be chicken and your hens satisfied. May their corn husks guide you through weasel-ly times!

 

[gnostic]

So who do you believe this child is?

If you have read that entire paragraph (Isaiah 7:13-17) then you will know that Isaiah was addressing to King Ahaz of Judah. The sign in this paragraph may have begun at 7:14, but Isaiah didn't stop speaking about the sign till the end of the paragraph (so 7:17). Hence the complete sign encompassed Isaiah 7:14-17.

Within this complete sign, it give you the timeframe when this sign WILL TAKE PLACE. More specifically verse 7:16:

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.

The child is clearly the boy that will born to the young woman (almah) of Isaiah 7:14, but have you considered the IDENTITIES of the TWO KINGS?

Isaiah addressing Ahaz about the sign, while Ahaz's city - Jerusalem - was under siege by two armies of two kings - King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram. So:

7 In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it.

Are you following me, so far?

The TWO KINGS of Isaiah 7:16 are clearly Rezin and Pekah. Am I right?

So if the child (Immanuel) was to know how to choose right from wrong, the attack on the LAND (Judah) that the TWO KINGS were attacking, would be abandoned. So the child Immanuel has to be contemporary to the Rezin and Pekah. And the reason why the TWO KINGS will abandoned the attack on the land, is the King of Assyria, which is revealed in Isaiah 7:17.

That mean this (complete) sign will happen or be fulfilled while both Ahaz and Isaiah are still alive.

I am not ignoring your question, because I have to make clear to you -

1. who are these TWO KINGS that verse 7:16 were speaking of
2. and when the child be born
3. and what will happen BEFORE the child KNOW how to choose "right" over "wrong"

- before I can revealed the identity of THIS CHILD - Immanuel.

Verse 16 revealed WHEN it will all take place.

The identity of the child - Immanuel - is revealed in the next chapter - Isaiah 8!

The child Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the son of Isaiah and the unnamed prophetess:

3 And I [isaiah] 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.

Verse 8:4 is very similar sign to that of Isaiah 7:16-17.

Damascus and Samaria are the two capitals of the TWO KINGS...And there is the KING OF ASSYRIA, again!

The KING OF ASSYRIA will cause Ahaz's enemies to abandon their attack on Judah and on Jerusalem (sources: 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9; the King of Assyria would be revealed as Tiglath-pileser (the Third)).

Isaiah 8:6-8, speak of the TWO KINGS (Rezin and Pekah) and of the KING OF ASSYRIA, and the very end of this, speak of Immanuel:

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; 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.

Are you still following?

When you consider all the verses I have cited or quoted, and all the players (Isaiah, Ahaz, Rezin, and the King of Assyria), and everything (and I mean everything) that were going on in both chapters, are related to each other. So there is no way in hell that Isaiah 7:14 is speaking of the virgin birth, the messiah or Jesus, because the child - Immanuel - has to be contemporary to all these players, and Jesus was definitely not their contemporary.

Isaiah's son is the sign - that child - Immanuel.

I've explained everything within the confines of these 2 chapters without taking them out of context; the same can't be said of Matthew, who didn't even bother to quote the COMPLETE SIGN (Isaiah 7:14-17)!!!