Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

I would also like to point out that the messianic prophecy (which Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy about the messiah, as I've already pointed out in my last post) that the messiah would be king from David's line.

While the gospels (Mathew and Luke) may have provided 2 different genealogies that linked Jesus to David, no matter how you look at it - Jesus was never "king".

Also, the prophecy say that the messiah will re-unite the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL, and will rule the TWELVE TRIBES, as did David rule the unified kingdom. Well Jesus had never re-united the TWELVE TRIBES.

All claims from the gospels and epistles that quoted or mentioned the messianic prophecy about kingship and reunification of the 12 tribes have either be taken out-of-context or ignored.

 

[InChrist]

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


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

Why was the child's name Maher-shalal-hash-baz and not Immanuel?

 

[InChrist]

I would also like to point out that the messianic prophecy (which Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy about the messiah, as I've already pointed out in my last post) that the messiah would be king from David's line.

While the gospels (Mathew and Luke) may have provided 2 different genealogies that linked Jesus to David, no matter how you look at it - Jesus was never "king".

Also, the prophecy say that the messiah will re-unite the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL, and will rule the TWELVE TRIBES, as did David rule the unified kingdom. Well Jesus had never re-united the TWELVE TRIBES.

All claims from the gospels and epistles that quoted or mentioned the messianic prophecy about kingship and reunification of the 12 tribes have either be taken out-of-context or ignored.

The prophecies do say that Messiah will unite the twelve tribes, restore Israel ( which is actually in the process of occurring now) and reign from David's throne. Is there any valid reason that these prophecies do not entail future fulfillment when Christ returns as the scriptures attest He will?

 

[InChrist]

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?

[FONT=&quot]Anyone who has read the NT should not be surprised that humans have created numerous false teaching... Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). There are many warnings from Jesus and the apostles concerning false teachers. For that reason it’s important to search the scriptures alone seeking God’s guidance for His truth, rather than depending upon organizations, other literature, or some preacher’s interpretations. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.(Acts 17;11)

[/FONT]

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.

[/quote]

[FONT=&quot]Matthew was Jewish (as were Mark, John, Peter, Paul and others who testified of Christ), he knew the Torah. He did not come up with a scenario. The words he recorded were already in the Hebrew scriptures and he was led by God which passages to apply to Christ as a testimony of His prophesied Messiahship. Jesus Himself did the same thing when He read only the first part of a prophetic passage from Isaiah 61... “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,[/FONT] because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” Matthew 4:18-19 [FONT=&quot]He read and highlighted only the first part because this applied to His first coming while the remainder applies to His coming again to judge the earth and restore Israel.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Everyone in Judea should have known (and some did), but they didn’t because just as was the pattern of Israel’s history and is the case with many who read or don’t read the scriptures today; people are often in rebellion to God and have their own agenda and expectations. Most Judea was looking for a conquering leader to save them from Rome, they didn’t look for or want the promised One to save them from their sins.[/FONT]

 

[InChrist]

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

The piece by Moshe Shulman may be rather childishly humorous, but it doesn't discredit at all the precise way which the details of Christ's life and death fulfilled prophecy which many Jewish individuals clearly recognized during His lifetime and still do today.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Is there any valid reason that these prophecies do not entail future fulfillment when Christ returns as the scriptures attest He will?

There are at least two valid reasons.

1. Throughout Tanach (what you might refer to as the "Old Testament") there is no scripture that supports the notion that the Messiah will have to come twice.

2. In many instances, individual verses are picked out of context because one could look at it and say that it vaguely resembles what they think of Jesus.... yet many of the surrounding verses, especially those that contain the phrase "And on that day..." are lumped into a category of "oh, he'll do that when he comes back."


For example:

Isaiah 11


And a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse, and a twig shall sprout from his roots.
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and heroism, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.
And he shall be animated by the fear of the Lord, and neither with the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor with the hearing of his ears shall he chastise.
And he shall judge the poor justly, and he shall chastise with equity the humble of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall put the wicked to death.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his loins.
And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them.
And a cow and a bear shall graze together, their children shall lie; and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw.
And an infant shall play over the hole of an old snake and over the eyeball of an adder, a weaned child shall stretch forth his hand.They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.
And it shall come to pass on that day, that the root of Jesse, which stands as a banner for peoples, to him shall the nations inquire, and his peace shall be [with] honor.
And it shall come to pass that on that day, the Lord shall continue to apply His hand a second time to acquire the rest of His people, that will remain from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from Sumeria and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth.
And the envy of Ephraim shall cease, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, nor shall Judah vex Ephraim.
And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west, together they shall plunder the children of the East; upon Edom and Moab shall they stretch forth their hand, and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
And the Lord shall dry up the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and He shall lift His hand over the river with the strength of His wind, and He shall beat it into seven streams, and He shall lead [the exiles] with shoes.
And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people who remain from Assyria, as there was for Israel on the day they went up from the land of Egypt.



The black bolded portion shows sections Christians have decided vaguely resemble their perception of Jesus.... ignoring the context of the whole chapter, and despite the indication that this is all regarding one subject (as pointed out in blue), Christians arbitrarily decide that the unbolded portion is simply future fulfillment.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The piece by Moshe Shulman may be rather childishly humorous, but it doesn't discredit at all the precise way which the details of Christ's life and death fulfilled prophecy which many Jewish individuals clearly recognized during His lifetime and still do today.

It demonstrates the childishly humorous way which Christians claim that certain bits and pieces of scripture refer to the messiah and/or Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

Why was the child's name Maher-shalal-hash-baz and not Immanuel?

Why wasn't Jesus called "Immanuel" instead of "Jesus"?

You are playing double standard. Why isn't Jesus named "Imnmanuel"?

You're forgetting the similarities between Isaiah 7:14-17 and Isaiah 8:3-4:

The 2 enemy kings of Judah and the King of Assyria. These 3 kings ARE TIED TO THE CHILD: Immanuel. And you're forgetting that Immanuel is mentioned in Isaiah 8:6-8, which is another sign that also tied Immanuel to the 3 kings.

You have to completely daft to miss all these connections. The 3 kings in the sign (both in chapters 7 and 8) are linked to the child. Where do Jesus come into these signs with the 3 kings? How do Jesus fit in with the rest of the signs?

These questions are important, but you're ignoring them, just as sincerly have.

I have patiently gave point-by-point explanation of why the child would be born in Ahaz's time. The signs (7:14-17, 8:3-4 & 8:6-8) presented in all cases, where the child would be born during the TWO KINGS and that of the King of Assyria, but you have completely ignored them. Like with sincerly, I have wasted my time and patience with you. All you did was give me is one-line reply. Yes, you're waste of my bl@#dy time.

And none of them fit with Jesus or the messiah. If you don't understand the context of the child with these 3 kings, then you will never understand PERIOD.

Why are you ignoring Isaiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 8:6-8?

BAH! Trust to these few Christians to be selectively blind, or illiterate. You may be able to read, but you certainly don't understand. BE BLIND then! You're really not my problem.

Why should I waste my time in discussing the messianic prophecy with you from your reply in your post 523???

 

[CG Didymus]

Poisonshady 313, What are the signs of the rooster's return? Will he peck the evil angry birds to death? Will I be given wings to meet him in the air?

Yes, InChrist, it is hilarious. You laugh. We all laugh at so many crazy religious notions. If you can't laugh at your own, then you're not judging by the same criteria. Literal-believing Christians are very funny--in a scary way. I was happy as a Baha'i. Christians told me that "no" Baha'u'llah was not the Spirit promised in Acts. I checked it out, and yes, in context, he wasn't. Same thing, right. We all want our religion to be the one that has it right. It's a lot easier than doing right.

I could be, and I'd love to be a Christian. It was loads of fun. Christian rock music was at its beginning. Then, I had to ask a Jew, "Why don't you believe Jesus is the Messiah." Oops! They had a legitimate reason. Christians borrowed, chopped up, and re-wrote the Jewish story. Now who do I trust? I'm hoping the teachings of the rooster have will have some validity.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Poisonshady 313, What are the signs of the rooster's return? Will he peck the evil angry birds to death? Will I be given wings to meet him in the air?

We know Moshe's rooster will return for it says:

Is anything hidden from the Lord? At the appointed time, I will return to you (Gen 18:14)

He will not peck the evil birds to death... they will flee, for a great earthquake will accompany the return of Moshe's rooster...


I saw the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro.
I saw, and behold, there were no people, and all the birds of the heavens wandered away. (Jer 23-24)

And yes, you will be given wings... eagle wings... to rise up and meet Moshe's rooster.

You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought you to Me. (Ex 19:4)

Yes, InChrist, it is hilarious. You laugh. We all laugh at so many crazy religious notions. If you can't laugh at your own, then you're not judging by the same criteria. Literal-believing Christians are very funny--in a scary way. I was happy as a Baha'i. Christians told me that "no" Baha'u'llah was not the Spirit promised in Acts. I checked it out, and yes, in context, he wasn't. Same thing, right. We all want our religion to be the one that has it right. It's a lot easier than doing right.

It's not about being literal believing... it's about ripping passages wildly out of context to interpret them in ways that make no sense at all.

I'm hoping the teachings of the rooster have will have some validity.

You've seen 45 prophecies fulfilled (or will be fulfilled) by Moshe's rooster... straight from scripture. The odds of that are astronomical. It couldn't possibly be anyone other than Moshe's rooster.

 

[InChrist]

There are at least two valid reasons.

1. Throughout Tanach (what you might refer to as the "Old Testament") there is no scripture that supports the notion that the Messiah will have to come twice.

2. In many instances, individual verses are picked out of context because one could look at it and say that it vaguely resembles what they think of Jesus.... yet many of the surrounding verses, especially those that contain the phrase "And on that day..." are lumped into a category of "oh, he'll do that when he comes back."

Just remember the first "Christians" were Jewish. I don't think they just vaguely decided which portions of scriptures from the Tanach applied to Jesus. It was probably obvious to them which portions did and which would still be future. I believe there are scriptures in the OT which show that Messiah will come twice as I believe there are scriptures in the NT that also show He must come again twice, but most people don't pay attention to the subtle references in scripture.

The reason Christians believe the scriptures that say, "on that day" or "in that day" is because those scriptures speak about things which will occur in that day or the last day...God's judgment on the earth, restoration of Israel. etc. But I realize you don't agree and you have your own perspective.

 

[Shermana]

Just remember the first "Christians" were Jewish. I don't think they just vaguely decided which portions of scriptures from the Tanach applied to Jesus. It was probably obvious to them which portions did and which would still be future. I believe there are scriptures in the OT which show that Messiah will come twice as I believe there are scriptures in the NT that also show He must come again twice, but most people don't pay attention to the subtle references in scripture.

The reason Christians believe the scriptures that say, "on that day" or "in that day" is because those scriptures speak about things which will occur in that day or the last day...God's judgment on the earth, restoration of Israel. etc. But I realize you don't agree and you have your own perspective.

Or the original Jewish Christians didn't believe in the Virgin Birth (Like Cerinthus and the Ebionites) and the original version of Matthew, which was likely "Gospel to the Hebrews" didn't include the Virgin Birth narrative (The Ebionite gospel of Matthew started at Chapter 3). Or Luke, which numerous scholars agree the account was interpolated into as well.

Then there's the issue of what exactly the Messianic prophecies mean in the first place, if they take place overnight or over the course of an age. And what the Messiah is exactly may have some light from the extra canonical texts, the incarnation of the Logos and Firstborn soul doesn't necessarily need to remain on Earth to do his job either.

 

[InChrist]

Why wasn't Jesus called "Immanuel" instead of "Jesus"?

You are playing double standard. Why isn't Jesus named "Imnmanuel"?

You're forgetting the similarities between Isaiah 7:14-17 and Isaiah 8:3-4:

The 2 enemy kings of Judah and the King of Assyria. These 3 kings ARE TIED TO THE CHILD: Immanuel. And you're forgetting that Immanuel is mentioned in Isaiah 8:6-8, which is another sign that also tied Immanuel to the 3 kings.

You have to completely daft to miss all these connections. The 3 kings in the sign (both in chapters 7 and 8) are linked to the child. Where do Jesus come into these signs with the 3 kings? How do Jesus fit in with the rest of the signs?

These questions are important, but you're ignoring them, just as sincerly have.

I have patiently gave point-by-point explanation of why the child would be born in Ahaz's time. The signs (7:14-17, 8:3-4 & 8:6-8) presented in all cases, where the child would be born during the TWO KINGS and that of the King of Assyria, but you have completely ignored them. Like with sincerly, I have wasted my time and patience with you. All you did was give me is one-line reply. Yes, you're waste of my bl@#dy time.

And none of them fit with Jesus or the messiah. If you don't understand the context of the child with these 3 kings, then you will never understand PERIOD.

Why are you ignoring Isaiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 8:6-8?

BAH! Trust to these few Christians to be selectively blind, or illiterate. You may be able to read, but you certainly don't understand. BE BLIND then! You're really not my problem.

Why should I waste my time in discussing the messianic prophecy with you from your reply in your post 523???

I not attempting to have a double standard. Jesus, who I believe was God who came in the flesh, fulfills the concept of Immanuel "God with us". And although He was named Jesus for a proper name, He bore many other descriptive names or titles. Maher-shalal-hash-baz means "speed the spoil, hasten the booty", which would fit in with the fulfillment during the time of King Ahaz and the invasion by Assyria. I am not missing the connections, ignoring the things you are pointing out or refuting the immediate fulfillment during the time of the two kings which you continue referring to, but I see aspects that were not fulfilled until Christ.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Just remember the first "Christians" were Jewish.

So were the people who worshiped the golden calf.

I don't think they just vaguely decided which portions of scriptures from the Tanach applied to Jesus.

You say that because you already come from a position that what they say is correct. If you bothered to read a little bit of context... in some cases, even just one sentence before or after a given verse, you might notice that certain Christian claims regarding old testament prophecies don't add up.

It was probably obvious to them which portions did and which would still be future.

Or, they deliberately ripped verses out of context to sell a story to people who wouldn't know any better (i.e. the non-Jewish early Christians).

I believe there are scriptures in the OT which show that Messiah will come twice

Such as?

 

[Shermana]

Immanuel is simply a name that means "God is with us", leaving out the "is" is standard Trinitarian grammar tactic. Doesn't in any way mean that "This here person is God with us" anymore so than Ezekiel means "This person is God strengthening you all".

 

[Poisonshady313]

but I see aspects that were not fulfilled until Christ.

Such as?

 

[InChrist]

Such as?

I'll try to get back to this, it is getting late for me now.

 

[CG Didymus]

You know Poisonshady313 you are right again:

It's not about being literal believing... it's about ripping passages wildly out of context to interpret them in ways that make no sense at all.

It's about believing in what the Christian preachers say as literal. I know everyone has their limits to how literal they take the Bible.They will say they believe in every word Jesus said, but none of them will "pluck" their eye out for lusting, and I'm very glad they don't. It shows reason. It shows that maybe Jesus didn't mean it literally. I'm glad most Christians don't handle rattlesnakes and drink deadly poison. That would be taking the words of Jesus too literal. And, I'm glad that most of them don't. They use their brains. However, it's so ironic that some Christians will argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis, yet when it comes to the written in stone commandments of God and his laws they push them aside and say, "Not for today, they've been replaced." Weird.

 

[gnostic]

I not attempting to have a double standard. Jesus, who I believe was God who came in the flesh, fulfills the concept of Immanuel "God with us". And although He was named Jesus for a proper name, He bore many other descriptive names or titles. Maher-shalal-hash-baz means "speed the spoil, hasten the booty", which would fit in with the fulfillment during the time of King Ahaz and the invasion by Assyria. I am not missing the connections, ignoring the things you are pointing out or refuting the immediate fulfillment during the time of the two kings which you continue referring to, but I see aspects that were not fulfilled until Christ.

So you're suggesting a dual prophecy, where the sign or revelation that may have two possible outcomes or fulfillments.

The problem with this, that such a sign is open to all sort of interpretations.

The fulfillment of the sign in Isaiah's own time required by the complete sign to be fulfill, but according to Matthew's quote and interpretation, only a quarter of the sign to be fulfilled. I don't see how only a quarter of sign be considered a "prophecy" at all, without any person taking the passage of an incomplete sign, out-of-context.

Just remember the first "Christians" were Jewish. I don't think they just vaguely decided which portions of scriptures from the Tanach applied to Jesus.

I think and believe Christians do exactly that.

I guess it is the nature of a newer religion using and ripping some verses from the scriptures-of-an-older-religion, and turning those passages into some prophecies to justify his or her newer religion.

Christians do this with the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh or OT) of Judaism, in order to justify Jesus being the messiah. Muslims do the same thing with passages of Jewish scriptures and Christian scriptures, to justify Muhammad being the Last Messenger. And other fringe religions will also do the same cherry-picking verses out of any previous religions to justify their own prophets as the chosen ones.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you're suggesting a dual prophecy, where the sign or revelation that may have two possible outcomes or fulfillments.

The problem with this, that such a sign is open to all sort of interpretations.

It is anyways.

I think and believe Christians do exactly that.

I guess it is the nature of a newer religion using and ripping some verses from the scriptures-of-an-older-religion, and turning those passages into some prophecies to justify his or her newer religion.

Christians do this with the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh or OT) of Judaism, in order to justify Jesus being the messiah. Muslims do the same thing with passages of Jewish scriptures and Christian scriptures, to justify Muhammad being the Last Messenger. And other fringe religions will also do the same cherry-picking verses out of any previous religions to justify their own prophets as the chosen ones.

Sort of irrelevant, anyone can have biases that might make them believe something false. Midrash would be just as biased to it's agenda as any Christian perspective, etc., if we employ that logic.