Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Jonathan Hoffman]

To be consistent in the dual prophecy, both kids would have to be born of a virgin wouldn't they? I've never heard anyone claim that any child in Isaiah's time, for any sign or prophecy, was born of a virgin. However, in Jesus' time was virgin births that unusual? That was what great humans were--half human and half god. So maybe a virgin birth, in those days, was "normal" and not "miraculous for a great leader?

An obvious point that is somehow overlooked!!

 

[Shermana]

So if the Virgin Birth account is NOT interpolated in Matthew, why were Joseph and Mary so dumbfounded when Jesus said he was visiting his Father's house at the Temple? Alzheimers?

And I still want to know how Rahab had a baby at over 300 years old. You'd think the ORIGINAL (Jewish) author of Matthew would have been very well schooled in the geneologies back then.

 

[CG Didymus]

So if the Virgin Birth account is NOT interpolated in Matthew, why were Joseph and Mary so dumbfounded when Jesus said he was visiting his Father's house at the Temple? Alzheimers?

And I still want to know how Rahab had a baby at over 300 years old. You'd think the ORIGINAL (Jewish) author of Matthew would have been very well schooled in the geneologies back then.

Everyone had amnesia--the Magi, the shepherds, Herod's boys. The Magi saw the kid and took off and never told anybody that the Prince of Peace, the Wonderful Councilor, the God with us was born? (And what happened to the Star, it disappeared?) The shepherds heard the angels and saw the baby and went back to watching the sheep? And Herod, what happened to him? He thought his thugs successfully killed the right baby? All his chief priests and scribes apparently wanted the Messiah dead too. Did they forgot about all the prophecies about what the grown-up Messiah will accomplish? They knew where the baby Messiah was to be born, yet they forgot to tell Herod's men to make sure to get the child that was born of a virgin?

But, if they knew all the "Scriptures", why didn't they know that the baby would escape to Egypt to "fulfill" yet another (out of context) Messianic prophecy--Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt did I call My Son". They didn't tell Herod that all he would accomplish is to fulfill another prophecy that Ramah would weep for her slaughtered children (out of context again). Matthew ends the chapter with the family going to Nazareth "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.' My reference Bible doesn't even know what to do this "prophecy." But let's pretend that it was a real prophecy. So wouldn't the word have gotten out? "A child born of a virgin is out there. He has fulfilled several "prophecies" already including the one that places him in Nazareth right now."

Or, nobody cared, because nobody knew about him. What are the chances that Matthew fabricated the whole story after the fact from pieces of Scripture verses? Do all people that identify themselves as Christian have to believe it all literal and historical? I'll bet you that plenty of people that call themselves Christian don't take it all as literal. only the few, the proud, the hard-core Christians. Yet, those of you that are hard-core believe the legends and myths of all the other religions are false. You have no problem seeing the mythological specks in their eyes but miss the mythological logs in your own eyes.

 

[sincerly]

Clearly, you can't even do a simple task of just reading Isaiah 7, ON ITS OWN. I didn't ask you to read Isaiah 1.

Or from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.

I only asked to read Isaiah 7 - just CHAPTER 7 - and considered the context of the whole chapter in context with the sign given in verses 14-17 - AND NOTHING ELSE.

I ask you to analyse chapter 7: to read the chapter and how the verses from 14 to 17 (the complete sign) is related to the event in chapter 7 (Ahaz, Ahaz's enemies, and the attack upon Jerusalem).

Hi Gnostic, The "Contextual message" seen in the "topical theme" related to the "biblical debates" which are found in the "Scriptural debates" which is the key to understanding the "Big Picture".
The Biblical Scriptures DO GIVE UNDERSTANDING TO SCRIPTURAL MESSAGES.

There is a verse which fits your opinion of the Scriptures and above requirement.
Ps.14:1, " [There is] no God." Just to focus on those words is a mistake. Because the whole message in that one verse and 32 other similar verses is """The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. "

You fail to acknowledge Isaiah's commanded sons (7:3; 8:3-6, 18) which are the answer regarding the Son's part.

You are like this guy. You don't listen.

Isn't that 'bias"?

The "bias" is in keeping the message concerning the "Big picture" as the Creator GOD of the Scriptures intended rather than as a detester of the scriptures falsely claims.

 

[Shermana]

Everyone had amnesia--the Magi, the shepherds, Herod's boys. The Magi saw the kid and took off and never told anybody that the Prince of Peace, the Wonderful Councilor, the God with us was born? (And what happened to the Star, it disappeared?) The shepherds heard the angels and saw the baby and went back to watching the sheep? And Herod, what happened to him? He thought his thugs successfully killed the right baby? All his chief priests and scribes apparently wanted the Messiah dead too. Did they forgot about all the prophecies about what the grown-up Messiah will accomplish? They knew where the baby Messiah was to be born, yet they forgot to tell Herod's men to make sure to get the child that was born of a virgin?

But, if they knew all the "Scriptures", why didn't they know that the baby would escape to Egypt to "fulfill" yet another (out of context) Messianic prophecy--Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt did I call My Son". They didn't tell Herod that all he would accomplish is to fulfill another prophecy that Ramah would weep for her slaughtered children (out of context again). Matthew ends the chapter with the family going to Nazareth "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.' My reference Bible doesn't even know what to do this "prophecy." But let's pretend that it was a real prophecy. So wouldn't the word have gotten out? "A child born of a virgin is out there. He has fulfilled several "prophecies" already including the one that places him in Nazareth right now."

Or, nobody cared, because nobody knew about him. What are the chances that Matthew fabricated the whole story after the fact from pieces of Scripture verses? Do all people that identify themselves as Christian have to believe it all literal and historical? I'll bet you that plenty of people that call themselves Christian don't take it all as literal. only the few, the proud, the hard-core Christians. Yet, those of you that are hard-core believe the legends and myths of all the other religions are false. You have no problem seeing the mythological specks in their eyes but miss the mythological logs in your own eyes.

Let me bring up the fact again that the Ebionite version of Matthew started at Chapter 3....

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, The "Contextual message" seen in the "topical theme" related to the "biblical debates" which are found in the "Scriptural debates" which is the key to understanding the "Big Picture".
The Biblical Scriptures DO GIVE UNDERSTANDING TO SCRIPTURAL MESSAGES.

I'm actually all FOR seeing the "Big Picture".

But there needs to be balance between the Big Picture and the "little detail". Both have their strengths, and their drawbacks. To me, both are required to get the complete picture.

I actually know all about the Christian perspective, because I grew up around them. The importance of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. The importance of faith and belief in the scriptures, in Jesus' teaching, and in baptism, confession, penitence and forgiveness. I may not be Christian, but I was surrounded by it.

Considering the scriptures, I understand the importance of the gospel to the Christians and their church.

But what you call the "BIG PICTURE" is actually subjective and based on your "belief" on your interpretation of what the verses may say. And with the BIG PICTURE you have overlook what the chapter is saying.

The majority of the OT or the Hebrew Tanakh doesn't hint at the messiah. Much of the messianic prophecy comes from only scatter single verses in Isaiah, and from what Judaism teaches about the messiah, Isaiah 7:14 is not one of them.

Only a Christian would believe Isaiah 7:14 verse to be "messianic".

I am neither Jew or Christian, I don't see how this verse could be "messianic", unless I only read English translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew verse...and only if I choose to read JUST THAT ONE VERSE.

And I used to look at that verse (when I was a teenager), and thought it was about Jesus too, only because I didn't do any cross-checking, and compare Matthew's version of Isaiah 7:14. But I have better understanding of the bible today than I did back then (in my late teens, early 20s), and I can see my first impression of Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14 was mistaken.

Back then, I read Isaiah, and later Matthew's, separately, without noticing that Matthew didn't quote the COMPLETE SIGN.

The complete sign is that by the time the child (Immanuel) reach an age to learn right and wrong (7:16), Aram and Israel will no longer trouble Judah (7:16), because of Assyria (7:17).

This sign is confirmed by chapter 8 (from verse 1 to 18), where is revealed that Isaiah and his children would be the sign about Assyrians' deliverance of Judah. The name Immanuel is mentioned again in verse 8:8.

Jesus didn't deliver Judah, nor save Jerusalem. And none of the verses from start of chapter 7 and the end of chapter 8 even remotely concern with the messiah.

You're seeing too big a picture (by linking the entire bible to the messiah, which is Jesus in your case), but at the very same time not seeing enough of the big picture (you've ignored the relevancy of entire chapter(s) or that relevancy of the complete sign).

To me, you're not seeing the Big Picture at all. You're simply twisting the words of one verse to suit your agenda (hence propaganda) - nothing more, nothing less.

The "bias" is in keeping the message concerning the "Big picture" as the Creator GOD of the Scriptures intended rather than as a detester of the scriptures falsely claims.

The only detester of the scriptures I see, is you, sincerly.

I had read Isaiah 7 and 8 as they are, and I have read Matthew 1 as it is. I didn't change the words or meanings any of those 3 chapters, so I've made no false claim.

You the one who tried to push more meaning into a single verse, so it would mean something else entirely, so anyone making a false claim, is you.

For instance, you had made enough misinterpretation of the verse in this thread: Genesis 3:15:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You wrote:

ALL persons were declared as needing to be "Reconciled to GOD" and GOD had made a plan by which that reconciliation could be a reality. That was revealed to Adam and Eve(Gen3:15)---in the "seed of the woman". That "one verse" was the "prophecy" which was further elucidated in Isa.7:14(one verse) and fulfilled as seen in Matt.1:23. YES, it was, indeed, a miraculous birth.

Nothing in that verse (Genesis 3:15) about any reconciliation, between God and humans, or between the offspring (or seeds) of the serpent and offspring (or seeds) of Eve. If anything, God was cursing the offspring of the serpent and the seeds of Eve; that there would always be enmity between the two. You've taken Genesis 3:15 out-of-context, by twisting the words - "seed of woman" and using it for Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, to mean Jesus' miraculous birth.

How could you possibly see reconciliation in this verse? How could you possibly see Genesis 3:15 to be related to Isaiah 7:14?

You're not seeing a Big Picture at all, you only demonstrated to me, your faulty reasoning and your blind faith to me that what believe in...nothing more, nothing less....

 

[CG Didymus]

Let me bring up the fact again that the Ebionite version of Matthew started at Chapter 3....

'm sorry about the way I worded that reply. I actually agree with you, but then went into my rant that sounded as if it was meant for you. It was meant for Sincerly and InChrist. I did the same to Gnostic a few posts ago. Sorry, I like everything both of you have been saying.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CG Didymus
When I tried to be a Christian, I listened to all the preachers and teachers. I never ever heard the whole story. I don't remember ever hearing the name "Ahaz" or the two rival kingdoms. I never heard of the problem of "dual prophecy".

When I read the gospel of Matthew in my late teen and early 20s, I took it at face value, this verse from Matthew (1:23) without question, because I didn't bother to check Isaiah 7. BTW, I did read book of Isaiah, but at that time, it just never occur to me that Matthew was wrong or the author misinterpret his source.

At that time, I didn't cross-reference any part that I had read, double check to see if any part of what I read do or don't match up.

Like you, I didn't look at the bible critically. I had accept the Christian interpretation.

Ever since I had started Timeless Myths website (which I had started in 1999), I had to do my own reading, my own researches, and I had to double-check what I've read, the context (of the chapters and passages) and the sources (both primary and alternatives). Starting this website also got me interested in reading religious literature.

Reading the bible again after all these years, as well as exploring other Judaeo-Christian literature (canonical and non-canonical) and pagan texts, I had looked at it with fresh eyes. It allowed me to challenge my previous interpretations (on the bible) of my youth. I think I understand the Bible better than I ever did before. I am not saying I know everything.

Sure, there are things I don't understand, and I guess some things will remain a mystery. That's why I ask questions in these forums, getting new ideas from other people. And it's why I contribute and share whatever I know or uncover.

I got a lot of surprises since I had joined RF. A lot my "revised" view on the bible, particularly relating to the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or OT), actually coincide with Jewish understanding of their scriptures (which sometimes differ from the Christian interpretations). So I don't think interpretation is so outlandish.

For instance, I no longer hold the view that Satan in the OT is the same as the NT Satan, aka Lucifer aka the Devil. I used to think as the Christians did (or do) that Satan of the OT was evil enemy of God. After revisiting the Book of Job, and all the "implied" references to Satan (such as the Serpent in Eden, or Isaiah 14) I realized that in Job, Satan is actually an angel working for God, not against him, and that Genesis 3 and Isaiah 14 had nothing to do with Satan.

Satan has changed during the inter-testimonial period, largely due to foreign influences (from the Persian Zoroastrianism and the Hellenistic Greek religions. And it is these influences that made Christianity different from Judaism of 6th century and earlier.

I am not against Christianity, I am just no longer blinded by their interpretations of the scriptures, nor do I take what I read at face value or be bound by their views...if that make any sense to you.

Hi Gnostic, I apologize for the getting behind in answering. I shall try to answer this communication in a straight forward manner.
"Cross-referencing" is essential for the Big picture and even to clarify the details seen in bringing facts to make a comprehensive understanding not only of "myths", but historical events. Had you done that with the Scriptures, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Again, What is seen in your posts is the defense of "myths" which has been paramount in your writings since your acknowledged 1999 starting of your "web-site". It is seen in not wanting to Acknowledge of the prophet being GOD'S spoke-person in instructions via visions to the wayward 'kings" by Isaiah.
Isa.7:14 is not speaking of the same birth which Isa.8:1-3 is proclaiming. Those are assumptions upon which one has based their own biased interpretations.
Therefore, that which "seems to be correct" in your estimation/ opinion, scripturally isn't so.
also, Other Beliefs may definitely contain some valid scriptural truths(and it is those truths which give an appearance of credience to "false teachings" as well.
It is no secret that those who acknowledge the truth which is mingled with "false teachings"--also, accept the falseness as well.

There is the belief/opinion which is contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures which teaches that "tolerance" means that "All beliefs should have equal validity before all persons." HOWEVER, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND. "Ye shall have no other gods before ME."(Ex. 20:3)

What I am seeing in your revealing is related to the same lies as was seen in the Garden of Eden. "The critical look at the scriptures"---the casting of doubt.---rather that looking at the the contradictions made by the arch-deceiver. It was "out-side" influences" which were accepted as Truth and which now are literal truth.
Your "fresh eyes" in understanding the scriptures has been dimmed and are in agreement to your "I am not saying, I know everything."

The GOD of the Scriptures has given within the scriptural pages all things which are necessary for the salvation/Redemption of mankind.

There are "NO Surprises" given by GOD as seen in Amos (3:7) because in HIS time and way GOD reveals those plans to mankind which are for mankind's benefit. "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Therefore, the "that it might be fulfilled".)

It is scripture which interprets scripture---NOT interpreted from the "opinions of men in their "wisdom", nor in their councils of men".

Jesus didn't invalidate the OT Scripture's---HE Applied them/fulfilled them. That which Jesus did condemn was those "doctrines and commandments of men" which were Contrary to GOD'S Laws and Commandments. Therefore, as prophesied, there were false prophets in Israel and there has been false prophets since the Resurrection(Within many so called Christian Churches) arising and leading astray.

Satan is real--NOT a figment of one's imagination--he is evil and Gen.3 and Isa,14 are only part of the truths concerning him.

You claim that you are not against Christianity, but "True Christianity and "false christianity" are not differentiated in your "myths".
There is a True Creator GOD of all things---and there are many man made gods/ beliefs which are added/retained with some of GOD'S noble Beliefs as previously stated.

One isn't blinded by the True knowledge of GOD'S Scriptures, but by one's preconceived false ideas concerning them.

 

[gnostic]

I shall try to answer this communication in a straight forward manner.

"...straight forward manner"?

That will be the first.

How can I take you seriously, when you continually cherrypicking verse here and there, twisting the meaning of the verses that you proclaimed to be "sacred"?

Then there is the problem of YOU completely ignoring the theme and context of the chapter(s) as a whole. How can you even claim of seeing the BIG PICTURE, when you can't even see the chapter(s) as a whole?

And lastly, and more importantly, you continually choose to ignore the whole sign, from verse 14 to verse 17 (Isaiah 7:14-17). How can I take your scholarship and your interpretation seriously, when you continually the DAMN COMPLETE SIGN?

By ignoring these other verses (15, 16, 17) in the sign, then how can you truly say to me that you're seeing the BIG PICTURE????!!!!

So forgive me that I don't hold my breath on you being "straight forward" with me.

Sorry, but I find biblical scholarship by some Christians to be plying their trades in dishonest fantasy or unwholesome propaganda.

And from reading your current post, I don't see anything new.

 

[CG Didymus]

"...straight forward manner"?

That will be the first.

How can I take you seriously, when you continually cherrypicking verse here and there, twisting the meaning of the verses that you proclaimed to be "sacred"?

Then there is the problem of YOU completely ignoring the theme and context of the chapter(s) as a whole. How can you even claim of seeing the BIG PICTURE, when you can't even see the chapter(s) as a whole?

And lastly, and more importantly, you continually choose to ignore the whole sign, from verse 14 to verse 17 (Isaiah 7:14-17). How can I take your scholarship and your interpretation seriously, when you continually the DAMN COMPLETE SIGN?

By ignoring these other verses (15, 16, 17) in the sign, then how can you truly say to me that you're seeing the BIG PICTURE????!!!!

So forgive me that I don't hold my breath on you being "straight forward" with me.

Sorry, but I find biblical scholarship by some Christians to be plying their trades in dishonest fantasy or unwholesome propaganda.

And from reading your current post, I don't see anything new.

Sincerly, we all want to know the truth here. I agree with Gnostic. We know the Christian propaganda. We all know that some Christian denominations and cults take verses out of context to push their way of believing as being the one right way. The problem that I'm having and Gnostic is having is that all Christianity has done this to Judaism. No question that you have a suitable explanation that works for you, but where did you learn it from? You can't tell me that out of the blue you read the NT and then double checked the Hebrew Scriptures to verify it? And then thought Yes, that must be how it all went down. No, you were first told by somebody who Jesus was. How he had a plan for your life. How he fulfilled all the prophecies. Then, with an already biased heart toward believing in Jesus, you read the NT and the Hebrew Scriptures and I'm sure, in your mind and heart, had no doubt that it was true and became a believer.

We did that too. But now we are seeing inconsistencies. I'm trying to look at it from the Jewish POV. What if all I had was the Hebrew Scriptures and I read Isaiah, what would I believe about chapter seven? That it was a sign for Ahaz. That it was fulfilled in his time. That the only significance of the child was his age, a period of time. Isaiah could have said that before ten or fifteen years are up, your two enemies will be dead. Whether the women was a virgin or not isn't even important.

Now with Christianity looking back and Christian writers putting together a coherent story, the woman and the child become the primary focus. But for me, putting myself in the shoes of a Jew, I don't even see those verses as being related to prophecies about the Messiah. Why force it? Why do you need Jesus to be born of a virgin? Because Matthew and Luke said so? And they are the Word of God, inerrant, infallible etc. etc. truth? But for us doubters, it looks like a make believe lie. For "rational" more scientific minded people it sounds like religious superstition and mythology. For me, coming from the Jewish Scriptures first, then to the NT, it looks like Matthew picked through the Hebrew Scriptures to build his story.

It wouldn't be too bad if all he used was Isaiah's seventh chapter, except he throws in all those other out of context verses about "out of Egypt" "Ramah crying" and calling him a "Nazarene". The weak defenses I hear aren't good enough. Still, I haven't heard a good answer to the dual-prophecy problem. Was there a child in Isaiah's time? Did he fulfill the sign? If so then was he born of a virgin? Obviously, no. If the "sign" was meant for the future, then why doesn't Jesus fulfill the whole sign? Why only the "virgin" part of it? If Christians say that a "normal" birth isn't much of a sign, which is a big part of McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, then we need two virgin births, one for Ahaz and one for the Messiah. If the Messiah was prophesied to be born of a virgin, we need it to be a tradition in Judaism prior to Jesus being born. It don't work to say it was a prophecy after the fact.

I know we keep rehashing these same arguments, but it's important, very important. If the Christians are right, then we should all renounce our false beliefs and get down on our knees and worship Jesus. But, if the Christians are wrong, and considering how many Christians believe that other Christians are wrong, then we have a situation. It would put Christianity on equal footing with all other religions. All religions will be equally good for what spiritual teachings they bring to us. All the myths and legends in every religion would be taken not as historical fact, but as meaningful spiritual stories. And, all religions that use coercion to get converts would be seen as equally bad. If Christianity didn't make it an absolute necessity to believe to be "saved", it wouldn't be a problem. But, because Christians do, they need to have all of their spiritual ducks in a row. They don't.

 

[sincerly]

"...straight forward manner"?

That will be the first.

How can I take you seriously, when you continually cherrypicking verse here and there, twisting the meaning of the verses that you proclaimed to be "sacred"?

Then there is the problem of YOU completely ignoring the theme and context of the chapter(s) as a whole. How can you even claim of seeing the BIG PICTURE, when you can't even see the chapter(s) as a whole?

And lastly, and more importantly, you continually choose to ignore the whole sign, from verse 14 to verse 17 (Isaiah 7:14-17). How can I take your scholarship and your interpretation seriously, when you continually the DAMN COMPLETE SIGN?

By ignoring these other verses (15, 16, 17) in the sign, then how can you truly say to me that you're seeing the BIG PICTURE????!!!!

So forgive me that I don't hold my breath on you being "straight forward" with me.

Sorry, but I find biblical scholarship by some Christians to be plying their trades in dishonest fantasy or unwholesome propaganda.

And from reading your current post, I don't see anything new.

Hi Gnostic, The Scriptures do present the "Big Picture" to all who Believe the Scriptures, However, those who openingly acknowledge their "works of Myths" are the ones who are "plying their trades in dishonest fantasy or unwholesome propaganda".

 

[sincerly]

Sincerly, we all want to know the truth here. I agree with Gnostic. We know the Christian propaganda. We all know that some Christian denominations and cults take verses out of context to push their way of believing as being the one right way. The problem that I'm having and Gnostic is having is that all Christianity has done this to Judaism. No question that you have a suitable explanation that works for you, but where did you learn it from? You can't tell me that out of the blue you read the NT and then double checked the Hebrew Scriptures to verify it? And then thought Yes, that must be how it all went down. No, you were first told by somebody who Jesus was. How he had a plan for your life. How he fulfilled all the prophecies. Then, with an already biased heart toward believing in Jesus, you read the NT and the Hebrew Scriptures and I'm sure, in your mind and heart, had no doubt that it was true and became a believer.

We did that too. But now we are seeing inconsistencies. I'm trying to look at it from the Jewish POV. What if all I had was the Hebrew Scriptures and I read Isaiah, what would I believe about chapter seven? That it was a sign for Ahaz. That it was fulfilled in his time. That the only significance of the child was his age, a period of time. Isaiah could have said that before ten or fifteen years are up, your two enemies will be dead. Whether the women was a virgin or not isn't even important.

Now with Christianity looking back and Christian writers putting together a coherent story, the woman and the child become the primary focus. But for me, putting myself in the shoes of a Jew, I don't even see those verses as being related to prophecies about the Messiah. Why force it? Why do you need Jesus to be born of a virgin? Because Matthew and Luke said so? And they are the Word of God, inerrant, infallible etc. etc. truth? But for us doubters, it looks like a make believe lie. For "rational" more scientific minded people it sounds like religious superstition and mythology. For me, coming from the Jewish Scriptures first, then to the NT, it looks like Matthew picked through the Hebrew Scriptures to build his story.

It wouldn't be too bad if all he used was Isaiah's seventh chapter, except he throws in all those other out of context verses about "out of Egypt" "Ramah crying" and calling him a "Nazarene". The weak defenses I hear aren't good enough. Still, I haven't heard a good answer to the dual-prophecy problem. Was there a child in Isaiah's time? Did he fulfill the sign? If so then was he born of a virgin? Obviously, no. If the "sign" was meant for the future, then why doesn't Jesus fulfill the whole sign? Why only the "virgin" part of it? If Christians say that a "normal" birth isn't much of a sign, which is a big part of McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, then we need two virgin births, one for Ahaz and one for the Messiah. If the Messiah was prophesied to be born of a virgin, we need it to be a tradition in Judaism prior to Jesus being born. It don't work to say it was a prophecy after the fact.

I know we keep rehashing these same arguments, but it's important, very important. If the Christians are right, then we should all renounce our false beliefs and get down on our knees and worship Jesus. But, if the Christians are wrong, and considering how many Christians believe that other Christians are wrong, then we have a situation. It would put Christianity on equal footing with all other religions. All religions will be equally good for what spiritual teachings they bring to us. All the myths and legends in every religion would be taken not as historical fact, but as meaningful spiritual stories. And, all religions that use coercion to get converts would be seen as equally bad. If Christianity didn't make it an absolute necessity to believe to be "saved", it wouldn't be a problem. But, because Christians do, they need to have all of their spiritual ducks in a row. They don't.

Hi CG D, Prov. 14:12 addresses viewpoints and opinions which are contrary to GOD'S truths seen in those prophetic writings inspired by the Holy Spirit. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "
God gave the redemption plan to Adam and Eve in that Gen.3 dialog after the Sinning and the assurance that they would die(the first death--but a blood sacrifice was symbolically made in revealing the promised Messiah/Virgin Birth at the time appointed by GOD---The seed of the woman---NO human male was involved)
CG D, You claim to """all want to know the truth here.""", but Isaiah is addressing in Chap.53 all who reject what he has said and done among the people. and John in (12:9-50)is relating the prophesied responses by the people toward Jesus in fulfillment. You "reject" that which was prophesied and you seek.
You believe the Jewish descendants who, also, Reject as a myth the very Messiah they were told to expect and look for for many centuries.
John 12:34, "The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? "
True, Jesus is from everlasting unto everlasting, but that "lifted up" was a three day earth period and a "Resurrection"/ taking again of the life HE voluntarily laid down to Redeem mankind.(Coming from the FATHER for that purpose--and entering into human form via way of Mary and a Virgin Birth.)

Isa.53:1-12, "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."......"Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

No Human Being could/can pay another's "death penalty" because all persons have their own 'death penalty" to pay.

John 12:37-41, "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias(53:3) the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again(6:1, 9), He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. "

 

[gnostic]

The Scriptures do present the "Big Picture" to all who Believe the Scriptures, However, those who openingly acknowledge their "works of Myths" are the ones who are "plying their trades in dishonest fantasy or unwholesome propaganda".

How am I'm using propaganda or being dishonest?

I used ALL OF CHAPTER 7, to present my case, as the scripture were meant to be read, from the very 1st verse (7:1) to the very last verse (7:25). I had interpret the sign (7:14-17) as being part of the whole chapter.

The woman is unimportant as it is the birth of child or the name of the child; what is important in the sign that by the time the child reach a certain age, Aram and Israel (enemies of Ahaz and Judah, as seen in 7:1) would no longer trouble Judah because of Assyria's intervention. That's the true BIG PICTURE.

The sign (7:14-17) is almost exactly the same as the one presented in Isaiah 8:3-4. Both chapters concerned with Judah's trouble with its neighbors (again, Aram and Israel). And both chapters has Assyria being Judah's savior.

And lastly, and more importantly, the name - Immanuel - is presented twice, IN CONNECTION WITH ASSYRIA or the KING OF ASSYRIA, the 2nd time here:

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 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.

I didn't resort to cherry-picking verse, nor attempt to change the meaning of any verse. I read Isaiah 7 and 8, as they were meant to be read, as a complete whole, from 1st verse to the last of each chapter. The scripture (in this case, the book of Isaiah) interpret itself.

How is that being dishonest, you silly @##? :foot:

 

[CG Didymus]

Prov. 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. "
God gave the redemption plan...

How would a Jew describe "God's redemptive plan? And how would they interpret Proverbs? Can we go back, pre-Jesus, and get an understanding of what they believed? God's Law was probably foremost. To love and serve God probably meant trying your best to keep his commandments. I look at the laws and think that some of them are a little odd. They sound like an ancient people describing ancient laws and rules that pertain to them, an ancient nomadic people. Which is fine, because they don't tell me that I have to believe their Laws. They don't tell me that their God is going to send me to hell for not believing their Messiah.

Since the concepts of hell, the devil, original sin etc. are not in or not the same in Judaism as in Christianity, it leads me to suspect that spiritual "truth" has evolved over the centuries. When I look at Christianity itself over the centuries, it has gone through a lot of changes. You're a fine and good defender of Christianity, but it's not a universal version of Christianity. What you've been taught and what you believe is different than other Christians. Why is that? Because it ain't simple to understand and interpret. The basics, yes, very simple, understanding the deeper things of Scripture, all the doctrines and dogmas? Not so simple.

I don't want to reject Jews and all other religions by what some Christians tell me is true. There are glitches. You have an answer, but it's not a perfect answer. It does take verses out of context. If literal, it should mean that there should have been a virgin in Isaiah's time also, but nobody believes that. It should mean that Jesus ate his curds and honey and learned to distinguish between good and evil, but he didn't have to do that and no one claims he did that. So Christians have come up with alternative views. The alternatives satisfy them, but they don't satisfy me.

It is so similar to what we say to those of other religions. "Your prophet" or "Your religion takes a few Scriptures and builds a false claim around them." We tell them, "Read the Bible in context. That way you will know the truth." But Christians don't even do that. But they can't do that and still come up with Jesus being the Messiah. Christians divide over a verse here or there taken out of context even in the NT--like tongues, like snake-handling, like Mary worship.

So who is Jesus? For you, Paul, Matthew and the rest, you need him to be the Messiah. You need to prove he is the Messiah by showing us Scriptures. Some seem a little forced. That's okay, you believe it, and you stand up for it. It's what you know as true. If you're right and I finally "see" the light, I'll thank you for it, and I'll thank you for the grueling hours you spent posting to my questions. Actually, thanks anyway. It is enlightening listening to what you have to say.

 

[sincerly]

How would a Jew describe "God's redemptive plan? And how would they interpret Proverbs? Can we go back, pre-Jesus, and get an understanding of what they believed? God's Law was probably foremost. To love and serve God probably meant trying your best to keep his commandments. I look at the laws and think that some of them are a little odd. They sound like an ancient people describing ancient laws and rules that pertain to them, an ancient nomadic people. Which is fine, because they don't tell me that I have to believe their Laws. They don't tell me that their God is going to send me to hell for not believing their Messiah.

Hi CG D, I have shown you pre-Jesus belief of that which the Creator GOD of all mankind asked of them who HE Made. It all starts with Gen1:1 and is continuous to the restoration of all things as seen in Rev.22:21.

Are you sure you want to follow the multitude who Jesus said was vainly worshiping GOD? Mark 7:5-13, "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. "

At Sinai, GOD wrote with HIS finger on stone tablets the Decalogue---which spell out the LOVE relationship one must have with GOD and the rest of mankind for those relationships to be in agreement with HIS plan peace and harmony among all parties sharing this planet and sustaining it.

In less than forty days, many rejected GOD for a golden calf and were ready to return to Egyptian bondage. Then upon reaching the borders of the "promised land", they rejected the leadership of GOD for the "Report given by men". When the younger generation did finally cross over, the Scriptures record the multiple backsliddings into Idol worship of the nations surrounding them.
However, there was always a remnant who continued to Worship the True Creator GOD. Therefore, GOD's true Israelites(prevailers/Over-comers) are the ones who remain faithful to GOD.(Dan.9:24 records the prophecy of final "finishing of the transgression"/ rejection of GOD by the Jewish Nation and the establishing of "GOD'S Kingdom" which will continue throughout eternity.( Peoples in/from all nations.)

Was God's laws foremost in their hearts?--- the Scriptural record says--NO! Idols and profaning the Sabbath of GOD was common reasons for the sending of the prophets.

One isn't doing their best to keep HIS LAWS when "Breaking them." Also, GOD'S LAWS(Decalogue) do not become outmoded/obsolete. (The sacrificial/Ceremonial laws were symbolic of Christ's death on the Cross for the Redemption of mankind)--and were "fulfilled by that Death".
CG D, "Hell" refers to the "Grave"/"pit"/ "place of the dead". Good and bad all go there. However, Mal.4:1-3(OT) says that there is coming a day when GOD will judge the wicked and their final end will be "ashes under the feet of the Righteous" in the earth made new.(the restoration of all things). "Dust thou art and to dust ye shall return."Gen.3:19"

Since the concepts of hell, the devil, original sin etc. are not in or not the same in Judaism as in Christianity, it leads me to suspect that spiritual "truth" has evolved over the centuries. When I look at Christianity itself over the centuries, it has gone through a lot of changes. You're a fine and good defender of Christianity, but it's not a universal version of Christianity. What you've been taught and what you believe is different than other Christians. Why is that? Because it ain't simple to understand and interpret. The basics, yes, very simple, understanding the deeper things of Scripture, all the doctrines and dogmas? Not so simple.

CG D, The Scriptures(OT and NT) are true. It has been people who have twisted those "Truths" to fit their own rejections of the very principles proclaimed by the Scriptures which brings about the false doctrines/teachings/interpretations/etc. that one sees. Judaism had them, just as Eve had the serpent. Just as the Jewish leaders were blinded to the coming of the TRUE MESSIAH(Jesus Christ).
AND Yes, GOD prophesied that in the Post Jesus period there would be a "falling away from the TRUE TEACHINGS OF THE SCRIPTURES.(2Thess.2:3-4)

It isn't "spiritual truths" which have evolved, but an evolving of the "FALSE TEACHINGS" to make them more "reasonable seeming"/ compatible with societies evolving "ethics" as related to GOD'S Standards.(Yet, still being false).
Apply Matt.7:21-23 when using the word "Christian". There are "Many" who will be sadly rejected, as was Jesus----"I never knew you".
Why is that? (anon)"As long as sin is persisted in, one will seek for any excuse to continue therein".

I don't want to reject Jews and all other religions by what some Christians tell me is true. There are glitches. You have an answer, but it's not a perfect answer. It does take verses out of context. If literal, it should mean that there should have been a virgin in Isaiah's time also, but nobody believes that. It should mean that Jesus ate his curds and honey and learned to distinguish between good and evil, but he didn't have to do that and no one claims he did that. So Christians have come up with alternative views. The alternatives satisfy them, but they don't satisfy me.

CG D, The Scriptures still bear record that the Kingdom set up by Jesus Christ would stand though Ahaz was tearing his kingdom apart by disobedience---- and neither kingdom would survive.(7:16). That Virgin wasn't prophesied to be in Ahaz's time. (And all "maidens", "young girls" of Jewish descent were "Virgins"--- OR subject to stoning for bringing reproach upon the Jewish Nation/people.)
Isaiah's wife was to have the child to satisfy the Assyria bit.(8:18).
God had prophesied by Jacob(Gen.50:10) that a king would continue in Judah until Shiloh come.

It is so similar to what we say to those of other religions. "Your prophet" or "Your religion takes a few Scriptures and builds a false claim around them." We tell them, "Read the Bible in context. That way you will know the truth." But Christians don't even do that. But they can't do that and still come up with Jesus being the Messiah. Christians divide over a verse here or there taken out of context even in the NT--like tongues, like snake-handling, like Mary worship.

Where you fail to see and understand that the Scriptures are consistent in the telling of the Gospel narrative, I have no problem; Nor the Method of Redemption and Reconciliation. And The Greek for "Messiah"/"anointed one" is "Christ". The Disciples had no Problem believing their own witnessing of Jesus in action that HE fulfilled the "Messiah" they were expecting and looking for. "We have found the Messiah"(John 1:42)

So who is Jesus? For you, Paul, Matthew and the rest, you need him to be the Messiah. You need to prove he is the Messiah by showing us Scriptures. Some seem a little forced. That's okay, you believe it, and you stand up for it. It's what you know as true. If you're right and I finally "see" the light, I'll thank you for it, and I'll thank you for the grueling hours you spent posting to my questions. Actually, thanks anyway. It is enlightening listening to what you have to say.

The Truth of the Scriptures doesn't need to be "forced" to the Believer. However, the unbeliever will not believe without a struggle to continue in erroneous teachings.
The one thief being crucified with Jesus acknowledged Jesus Christ Not only as the GOD the mockers were calling HIM, but as his Redeemer/LORD/Resurrection. He knew that he and Jesus were to die on those crosses.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here is [FONT=&quot]Rabbi Tovia Singer on the problem of:[/FONT]
Dual Prophecy and the Virgin Birth

When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they frequently argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy."
In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, let's begin by exploring the traumatic circumstance that is unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. This event is completely inconsistent with Matthew's application of these passages to his virgin-birth story.
As mentioned earlier, the word "virgin"does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha'almah) as "a virgin." This Hebrew word, however, does not mean "a virgin." It simple means "the young woman,"with no implication of sexual purity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman."
Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish Scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context and utilize it to support his infancy narrative of Jesus.
… If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah's seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment.2
This notion of a dual prophecy was contrived in order to conceal a stunning theological problem - the seventh chapter of Isaiah does not support Matthew's virgin birth story. Matthew's claim that Mary was untouched by a man when she conceived Jesus in unsupported by the Book of Isaiah.
The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz's lifetime? Were there two virgin births?
In other words, if Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled on two occasions, who was the first virgin to deliver a baby boy during the lifetime of Isaiah, in about 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries zealously insist that the word almah can only mean a "virgin." Are they then suggesting that Mary was not the only virgin in history to conceive and give birth to a son?

So either there were two virgins. Or there never was a first virgin only Jesus 700 years later. Or Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and the birth narrative was a fabricated story and the child in Isaiah was born the ordinary way. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is what I found at Jewishroots.net[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Septuagint Note:
Interestingly enough when the Septuagint was written by the 72 elders of Israel (six from each tribe) the writers specifically chose the Greek word "parthenos," for virgin. This clearly demonstrates the common Jewish understanding of this passage at that time. There is no doubt that Jewish leaders looked at this passage as a messianic passage with the expectation of some type of supernatural birth.

The Septuagint translation of the Torah was done between 285 and 244 B.C.E. Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the Bible...the legend contained in the apocryphal letter of Aristeas, according to which 72 elders of Israel, six from each tribe, translated the LAW [Torah] into Greek in Alexandria, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-244 B.C.E.)...The designation Septuagint was EXTENDED to the rest of the Bible and non-canonical books that were translated to Greek during the following two centuries."(1)

Since this translation was completed in pre-Christian Alexandria before Jesus was even born, the position that Christian scholars have intentionally misinterpreted this word holds no merit.
However the question does arise as to why this passage that was originally understood and taught as messianic during the days of the Second Temple and the time of Christ, is now not viewed that way anymore by most Rabbinical commentaries in modern day Judaism.

What is interesting is that last sentence. They claim that Jews were expecting a virgin to give birth? So all the rabbi's stopped teaching this prophecy about the Messiah? Has any Jew other than "Messianic Jews" ever heard of this?

 

[Shermana]

Apparently the Virgin Birth idea wasn't even known to the authors of the (arguably Jewish) Gospel of Nicodemus (a rework of the Acts of Pilate, arguably referenced by Justin Martyr as an early work), where Joseph is clearly identified as the legitimate father in a response to Jesus being born as the result of fornication.

Seriously, the idea of an entire geneology being made for Joseph when he wasn't the actual Father seems rather...ridiculous. Probably why many scholars think the entire account in Luke is interpolated.

 

[CG Didymus]

Apparently the Virgin Birth idea wasn't even known to the authors of the (arguably Jewish) Gospel of Nicodemus (a rework of the Acts of Pilate, arguably referenced by Justin Martyr as an early work), where Joseph is clearly identified as the legitimate father in a response to Jesus being born as the result of fornication.

Seriously, the idea of an entire geneology being made for Joseph when he wasn't the actual Father seems rather...ridiculous. Probably why many scholars think the entire account in Luke is interpolated.

You're coming from a unique perspective. It sounds like you believe Jesus is the Messiah but don't believe the virgin birth story. You said that the real gospel of Matthew starts at chapter 3. I can imagine there was a lot of controversy going on in the early years. What did the Ebionites and others like them believe? I believe that the main body of believers contrived virgin birth to get pagans to believe in Jesus, that it isn't and doesn't have to be real. What do you think happened?

 

[sincerly]

Here is [FONT=&quot]Rabbi Tovia Singer on the problem of:[/FONT]
Dual Prophecy and the Virgin Birth
So either there were two virgins. Or there never was a first virgin only Jesus 700 years later. Or Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and the birth narrative was a fabricated story and the child in Isaiah was born the ordinary way.

Hi CG D, For 2000 years, the leaders(writers) of the Jewish people have tried to devise means proving the GOD who they claim to worship to be wrong.
Think about it! From Sinai, GOD made a Covenant with the people---and over the many centuries, it was continually broken by a gain-saying and disobedient people. Jer.31:31-34 attests to the fact . (and a new one in the future [from that time] would re-establish it---upon better promises.)
What was the "blessings and cursing" which Moses imposed upon the people as they were ready to cross over the Jordan into the "Promised land"? The fulfillment was soon to be history with the Captivity by the Babylonian Empire.
The Birth of Jesus as Isa.7:14 prophesied would be that "kingdom of GOD" which would not cease. (Virgin #1) Isaiah's wife would be the mother of the "son" to fulfill the conflict/trouble with "Israel" and Syria".
Do you find anywhere in history(secular or Scriptural) where the Jewish Nation was free from the rule of another power?(Babylonian, Medio-Persia, Greek, or Roman?)
Had They remained "OBEDIENT"---there wouldn't have been the "cursing".

Jesus Christ was born of a young maiden who had never had sex with a human male. Thus, Divinity/humanity as prophesied in Gen.3:15.---to destroy sin and the propagator of EVIL.

[FONT=&quot]

This is what I found at Jewishroots.net[/FONT]

Septuagint Note:
Interestingly enough when the Septuagint was written by the 72 elders of Israel (six from each tribe) the writers specifically chose the Greek word "parthenos," for virgin. This clearly demonstrates the common Jewish understanding of this passage at that time. There is no doubt that Jewish leaders looked at this passage as a messianic passage with the expectation of some type of supernatural birth.

The Septuagint translation of the Torah was done between 285 and 244 B.C.E. Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the Bible...the legend contained in the apocryphal letter of Aristeas, according to which 72 elders of Israel, six from each tribe, translated the LAW [Torah] into Greek in Alexandria, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-244 B.C.E.)...The designation Septuagint was EXTENDED to the rest of the Bible and non-canonical books that were translated to Greek during the following two centuries."(1)

Since this translation was completed in pre-Christian Alexandria before Jesus was even born, the position that Christian scholars have intentionally misinterpreted this word holds no merit.
However the question does arise as to why this passage that was originally understood and taught as messianic during the days of the Second Temple and the time of Christ, is now not viewed that way anymore by most Rabbinical commentaries in modern day Judaism.

What is interesting is that last sentence. They claim that Jews were expecting a virgin to give birth? So all the rabbi's stopped teaching this prophecy about the Messiah? Has any Jew other than "Messianic Jews" ever heard of this?

As Paul wrote in the epistle to the Romans, GOD is not a respecter of Persons and every person is LOVED by GOD and the Jewish people can be reconciled to GOD just as every-other person is---by believing in the Plan GOD gave in the Scriptures for doing so.
Denial/rejection will not lead to a "Welcome Home! My child."
When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they frequently argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy."
In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, let's begin by exploring the traumatic circumstance that is unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. This event is completely inconsistent with Matthew's application of these passages to his virgin-birth story.
As mentioned earlier, the word "virgin"does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha'almah) as "a virgin." This Hebrew word, however, does not mean "a virgin." It simple means "the young woman,"with no implication of sexual purity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman."
Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish Scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context and utilize it to support his infancy narrative of Jesus.
… If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah's seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment.2
This notion of a dual prophecy was contrived in order to conceal a stunning theological problem - the seventh chapter of Isaiah does not support Matthew's virgin birth story. Matthew's claim that Mary was untouched by a man when she conceived Jesus in unsupported by the Book of Isaiah.
The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz's lifetime? Were there two virgin births?
In other words, if Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled on two occasions, who was the first virgin to deliver a baby boy during the lifetime of Isaiah, in about 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries zealously insist that the word almah can only mean a "virgin." Are they then suggesting that Mary was not the only virgin in history to conceive and give birth to a son?

 

[sincerly]

Apparently the Virgin Birth idea wasn't even known to the authors of the (arguably Jewish) Gospel of Nicodemus (a rework of the Acts of Pilate, arguably referenced by Justin Martyr as an early work), where Joseph is clearly identified as the legitimate father in a response to Jesus being born as the result of fornication.

Seriously, the idea of an entire geneology being made for Joseph when he wasn't the actual Father seems rather...ridiculous. Probably why many scholars think the entire account in Luke is interpolated.

Hi Shermana, the only "interpolation" is by the Critics of the Scriptures and not by the Gospel writers.
The Gospel Writers attest to the Birth of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and not by "fornication with a human male."

Matt.13:57-58, "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. "