Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

Hi Shermana, the only "interpolation" is by the Critics of the Scriptures and not by the Gospel writers.

But aren't the writings that Shermana is referring to pre-canon? So if the NT canon wasn't established yet, what happened to these writings? Were some of the churches using them? If so, then what was the relationship between those churches and the church in Rome? Also, I don't know if you had an answer about the virgin birth being a prophecy of the Jews prior to Jesus being born.

Like I said before. This thread would be nothing without you. I find it sad that so few Christians posted a response. So thanks again, Sincerly, for your persistence..

 

[Shermana]

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. "

How interesting that Mark and John and Paul didn't feel it was important enough to mention.

Paul could have said "Born of a virgin" instead of "Born of a woman" for one thing.

Where is the line "Fornication with a human male" other than in Gospel of Nicodemus where the accusation is denied by referring to Joseph as the legitimate father?

And why include an entire geneology for Joseph if he's just the Step-Father?

And did Joseph go to Bethlehem to flee from Herod or to register for a census?

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was never named "Immanuel". In Joseph's dream, the angel told him he was to name Mary's son - Jesus (Matthew 1:21):

I already answered this and you ignored the answer.


The name Immanuel appeared in relation to the event in Isaiah 7:1, when Ahaz's enemies were besieging:

Don't just say it prove it. I find no tie in to the event.

Isaiah 7:16 indicate before the child know right and wrong, the war would have ended, like Green Kepi said.

It does not say that. Stop adding words to the Bible that aren't there.


The sign mean more than just the meaning of the name "God with us". Have you consider Isaiah 8, where the name reappeared again in 8:8, in relation to Judah, their enemies (Aram and Israel) and Assyria (Isaiah 8:1-18).

The name repeated refers back to The Lord not to the son of Isaiah. Isa 8:7 now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the River, strong and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory: and it shall come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks;


When you read Isaiah 8:1-18, you will see that it is related to chapter 7, but it is revealed that Isaiah's own son is the sign:

Isaiah's son is a sign but not the same one.

Do you not see how Isaiah 8:4 is so similar to that of Isaiah 7:16-17?

Yes, but that may very well be the point, that the signs are similar but not the same.

And do you not see the similarity between 8:3 and 7:14?

Isaiah 8:18 stated that Isaiah and his children were the signs.

It says "signs" not "the Signs."



It is not a coincidence.

I believe the coincidence is intentional but that doesn't mean they coincide.

 

[Muffled]

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.

You don't remember? They were astonished because Jesus had casued them sorrow in thinking He was lost. Also the angels did not make it crystal clear that Jesus would be God with us, so for them a vulnerable child was in this nasty world alone. They knew the child was a special gift from God and that he would be the Messiah.

Matthew wasn't a theologian. He was a tax collector.

 

[Muffled]

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:



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:

I don't see proof that it is about the King of Assyria. I believe verse 7 has the King of Assyria as an object not the subject. The subject is "The Lord." The King of Assyria refers back to "them" upon whom the waters flow.

 

[gnostic]

I already answered this and you ignored the answer.

You may have answered, but I had answered again, with further clarification, but you're ignoring this "newer" reply.

Yes, but that may very well be the point, that the signs are similar but not the same.

No, the MESSAGE IS THE SAME (the context is the same), 7:14-17 and 8:4 are just worded differently. This is confirmed when 8:6-8 mentioned Immanuel again in 8:8 together with Rezin and Pekah (8:6, and Pekah may not be explicitly mentioned by name, but he is the son of Remaliah) and the King of Assyria (8:7), just as the complete sign (7:14-17) connect the child with the two kings (7:16) and the King of Assyria (7:17) did, as well as the child (in 8:3-4).

This child - Immanuel - is without a doubt is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Why else would Isaiah give Ahaz a sign (7:14-17) if it wasn't meant to be fulfilled during Ahaz's lifetime (and that of Isaiah's)?

What connect the sign with 7:1?

I don't see proof that it is about the King of Assyria. I believe verse 7 has the King of Assyria as an object not the subject. The subject is "The Lord." The King of Assyria refers back to "them" upon whom the waters flow.

The subject (or the THEME to chapter 7) is about Ahaz receiving the sign from god via through Isaiah about the fate of Judah and that of (fates of) the two kings, when Judah was being invaded and Jerusalem being besieged (Isaiah 7:1 and 2 Kings 16:5, 16:7-9).

The King of Assyria is more than a mere object, it is part of the subject, and more importantly, part of chapter 7's sign.

If the King of Assyria is not part of the subject, then why after the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) given, the chapter is followed by further sign of the King of Assyria, being the Lord's instrument; read Isaiah 7:18-25?

What do 7:15 say?

The child (Immanuel) will eat curds and honey.

15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

In the new JPS translation (1985), it is the people of Judah or of Jerusalem who will eat curds and honey:

15( By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.)

Is it coincidence that the further sign about the King of Assyria (7:18-25), that people were eating curds and honey is mentioned again, in verse 22?

22( And he shall obtain so much milk that he shall eat curds.) Thus everyone who is left in the land shall feed on curds and honey.

There are too many connections between Immanuel and to the event (7:1) that was unfolding, for you to dismiss what was happening in Isaiah 7 & 8 (as well as 2 Kings 15 (about Pekah) & 16 (about Ahaz). More so than Christian interpretation of 7:14 to Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

You don't remember? They were astonished because Jesus had casued them sorrow in thinking He was lost. Also the angels did not make it crystal clear that Jesus would be God with us, so for them a vulnerable child was in this nasty world alone. They knew the child was a special gift from God and that he would be the Messiah.

Matthew wasn't a theologian. He was a tax collector.

Ummm, I don't think you understand the concept of why they'd be confused when he said "I am in my Father's house", your answer has nothing to do with the concept and is a total change of the issue.

It's very simple: If they knew God was Jesus's direct Father, they wouldn't have been confused.

All this about them being confused about why a special child would be in the world alone does not reflect what the text is indicating.

Matthew being a Tax collector and not a "Theologian" also does not whatsoever relate to why he listed Rahab as the Mother of someone born 300 years later. That would be called "an error". Most Jews back then knew their geneologies very well, from Tax collectors to garbage collectors.

(Also the Angels in the account did NOT make it clear that Jesus was "God with us" but that his name was "God is with us")

 

[sincerly]

How am I'm using propaganda or being dishonest?

Duh!!!

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 "Big Picture" begins with Genesis 1. And Ahaz's problem with the straying from the Creator GOD as seen in Isaiah 1 and confirmed in the reports written in the Kings and Chronicles.
Also, the "woman" is important.----But not to any who believe that the Creator GOD and the Written Scriptures are "myths".

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.

Yes, almost the same, but Ahaz had two issues confronting him----one from his "neighbors" and the most important one with the Creator GOD he claimed to worship.----therefore, the sign. Ahaz was seeking assistance from Assyria and disobeying GOD.
The kingdom established by GOD from a mixed multitude from Abraham's "seed" and others who chose the have the Creator GOD as their GOD being released from the bondage of slavery (by peoples and SIN) was not to be ended by Ahaz's disobedience and unbelief.(As was seen in that prophecy)
Isaiah 8:19-20 said, "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them. "
Isa.7:9, "If you will not believe(because of your instability), surely ye shall not be established." However, GOD'S WORD is SURE. Isaiah's 66:22-23; Rev.21 attests to the Kingdom which will be "stable"/forever and will be made new with GOD the Father and Jesus( that Baby Boy from the Virgin Mother Ruling). "

And lastly, and more importantly, the name - Immanuel - is presented twice, IN CONNECTION WITH ASSYRIA or the KING OF ASSYRIA, the 2nd time here: (Isaiah8:8)

The usage is different in the two vers;es and is important. (7:14) "Immanuel" is given denoting the Child's Name. In 8:8, it is more as we say today when something is about to happen---"GOD be with us".

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:

Again, DUH!!! Am I seeing some "projecting"? Scripture does interpret itself when allowed to do so. Most Scriptural critics resort to esisegesis.

 

[CG Didymus]

Matthew being a Tax collector and not a "Theologian" also does not whatsoever relate to why he listed Rahab as the Mother of someone born 300 years later. That would be called "an error". Most Jews back then knew their geneologies very well, from Tax collectors to garbage collectors.

I saw that in Mt 1:5, Boaz was the son of Salmon and Rahab then Obed born to him and Ruth and to Obed was born Jesse the father of David. My Bible gives references, but for that verse, it didn't give any. Strange? What's going on?

 

[sincerly]

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?

Matthew isn't doing any "interpolating"---that action is by you. Luke 2:42-51 is the account of Jesus remaining in Jerusalem after the feast and why.

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.

Your "doubting and thinking" doesn't change the recorded scriptures.
The sending out of the "spies" was about 1400 B.C. the birth of Boaz was about 1350 B.C. Since nothing is impossible with GOD, (Abraham being 100 and Sarah 90), I'm satisfied with GOD'S Scriptures rather than your "doubting and thinking".
Especially, when (Gal.4:4-7), "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. "

 

[sincerly]

(Also the Angels in the account did NOT make it clear that Jesus was "God with us" but that his name was "God is with us")

Just as "Israel" was a name Jacob used as a name----it also, signified a "prevailer with GOD and with men"/"Overcomer".
With "Immanuel", Jesus is "God with us" as Redeemer/Savior and GOD is personally "with us" as our adoptive Father.

 

[Shermana]

Matthew isn't doing any "interpolating"---that action is by you. Luke 2:42-51 is the account of Jesus remaining in Jerusalem after the feast and why.



Your "doubting and thinking" doesn't change the recorded scriptures.
The sending out of the "spies" was about 1400 B.C. the birth of Boaz was about 1350 B.C. Since nothing is impossible with GOD, (Abraham being 100 and Sarah 90), I'm satisfied with GOD'S Scriptures rather than your "doubting and thinking".
Especially, when (Gal.4:4-7), "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. "

Nuh uh.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Matthew isn't doing any "interpolating"---that action is by you. Luke 2:42-51 is the account of Jesus remaining in Jerusalem after the feast and why.

Your "doubting and thinking" doesn't change the recorded scriptures.
The sending out of the "spies" was about 1400 B.C. the birth of Boaz was about 1350 B.C. Since nothing is impossible with GOD, (Abraham being 100 and Sarah 90), I'm satisfied with GOD'S Scriptures rather than your "doubting and thinking".
Especially, when (Gal.4:4-7), "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. "

Nuh uh.

That "Nuh uh" has been repeated by the Jewish community for 2000 years---but was first shown as a characteristic in Moses' recapitulation of the events of the Exodus(Deut.5:23-29) approx.1450 years B.C.. "And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, [even] all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. For who [is there of] all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we [have], and lived? Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear [it], and do [it].
And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! ""
Isa.29:13 echos that rebellious attitude which the LORD GOD spoke to Moses, "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: "

Jesus Quoted Isaiah in Matt.15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men".

OBEDIENCE TO GOD doesn't mean as one wishes to interpret the Scriptures/messages given by GOD for a right relationship to HIM and fellow beings.

 

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Matthew isn't doing any "interpolating"---that action is by you. Luke 2:42-51 is the account of Jesus remaining in Jerusalem after the feast and why.

Your "doubting and thinking" doesn't change the recorded scriptures.
The sending out of the "spies" was about 1400 B.C. the birth of Boaz was about 1350 B.C. Since nothing is impossible with GOD, (Abraham being 100 and Sarah 90), I'm satisfied with GOD'S Scriptures rather than your "doubting and thinking".
Especially, when (Gal.4:4-7), "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. "



That "Nuh uh" has been repeated by the Jewish community for 2000 years---but was first shown as a characteristic in Moses' recapitulation of the events of the Exodus(Deut.5:23-29) approx.1450 years B.C.. "And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, [even] all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. For who [is there of] all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we [have], and lived? Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear [it], and do [it].
And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! ""
Isa.29:13 echos that rebellious attitude which the LORD GOD spoke to Moses, "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: "

Jesus Quoted Isaiah in Matt.15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men".

OBEDIENCE TO GOD doesn't mean as one wishes to interpret the Scriptures/messages given by GOD for a right relationship to HIM and fellow beings.

No, the "nuh uh" is the sarcastic answer to someone whose reply to every objection is "It's the word of God, because I say so" while conveniently avoiding the actual points of contention.

So like I said, apparently the Virgin Birth wasn't important enough for John or Mark to mention, how interesting.

And apparently either Luke or Matthew felt it was important enough to include a geneology of Joseph which was not the actual Father or in any way related to his descendency.

 

[sincerly]

No, the "nuh uh" is the sarcastic answer to someone whose reply to every objection is "It's the word of God, because I say so" while conveniently avoiding the actual points of contention.

So like I said, apparently the Virgin Birth wasn't important enough for John or Mark to mention, how interesting.

And apparently either Luke or Matthew felt it was important enough to include a geneology of Joseph which was not the actual Father or in any way related to his descendency.

Hi Shermana, you rightly used the descriptive word to express your answer---sarcasm. (the tearing apart/cutting of another as by the teeth/spoken word).
The Scriptures I gave to your "nuh uh" were not my own or because "I said so", but were from the Creator GOD in assessing the Attitude of the people whom HE Chose to take HIS Salvation Message to the entire world's population---and they continued in NOTdoing that loving Covenant action required of them.
That attitude can be seen in the parable of the "Good Samaritan"(Luke10:30-37)

shä·lōm' ! My friend, We, both, know and understand that the Sabbath Day (seventh day of the week) is GOD'S HOLY set apart, Blessed and Sanctified day of/for convocation. However, you are using the same argument as those who denounce and reject GOD'S Commands by the argument the NT doesn't specifically restate it as such. (John and mark) (Luke and Matthew) (BUT, GOD said two or more witnesses establish truth.)

ALL such arguments are from/have their origins in Gen.3
Truth isn't about what one hasn't said as a witness, but that which was seen and heard and reported. The Written accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ by the four writers gives a more expanded "Big Picture" than that of a single writer.
What anyone chooses to do with the information received in those "Gospels" will answer Pilate's Question----"What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"

 

[Muffled]

You may have answered, but I had answered again, with further clarification, but you're ignoring this "newer" reply.


No, the MESSAGE IS THE SAME (the context is the same), 7:14-17 and 8:4 are just worded differently. This is confirmed when 8:6-8 mentioned Immanuel again in 8:8 together with Rezin and Pekah (8:6, and Pekah may not be explicitly mentioned by name, but he is the son of Remaliah) and the King of Assyria (8:7), just as the complete sign (7:14-17) connect the child with the two kings (7:16) and the King of Assyria (7:17) did, as well as the child (in 8:3-4).

This child - Immanuel - is without a doubt is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Why else would Isaiah give Ahaz a sign (7:14-17) if it wasn't meant to be fulfilled during Ahaz's lifetime (and that of Isaiah's)?

What connect the sign with 7:1?



The subject (or the THEME to chapter 7) is about Ahaz receiving the sign from god via through Isaiah about the fate of Judah and that of (fates of) the two kings, when Judah was being invaded and Jerusalem being besieged (Isaiah 7:1 and 2 Kings 16:5, 16:7-9).

The King of Assyria is more than a mere object, it is part of the subject, and more importantly, part of chapter 7's sign.

If the King of Assyria is not part of the subject, then why after the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) given, the chapter is followed by further sign of the King of Assyria, being the Lord's instrument; read Isaiah 7:18-25?

What do 7:15 say?

The child (Immanuel) will eat curds and honey.



In the new JPS translation (1985), it is the people of Judah or of Jerusalem who will eat curds and honey:


Is it coincidence that the further sign about the King of Assyria (7:18-25), that people were eating curds and honey is mentioned again, in verse 22?



There are too many connections between Immanuel and to the event (7:1) that was unfolding, for you to dismiss what was happening in Isaiah 7 & 8 (as well as 2 Kings 15 (about Pekah) & 16 (about Ahaz). More so than Christian interpretation of 7:14 to Jesus.

I will have to research this and get back to you on it. After research my answer was in post 557. Your response did not address issues that I raised but only repeated what was said by the person I was answering.

Immanual is mentioned again but not as a child but as The Lord. The tie in is not to the prophecy but to the salvation of God. That is not necessarily a contemporaneous salvation and the context bers that out.

The two kings are not connected to the child. The absence of the two kings is a reality wehn the child is born.

The king of Assyria is mentioned in context with the past as a comparison to the future.

This is a different child out of context with the first sign.

I believe this has not been proven and I see no context to support it.

For this you have to know a little about how God thinks. God sees the whole picture not just the current one. For Him Messiah had already come in the future because He is there in the future.

I disagree. I believe the theme is about faith in God and His ability to deliver His people.

I believe you have not undestood what I said in the context that I said it.

This is all in context with a future prophecy beyond even the first coming of the messiah.

I do not believe this to be the case.

 

[Muffled]

Ummm, I don't think you understand the concept of why they'd be confused when he said "I am in my Father's house", your answer has nothing to do with the concept and is a total change of the issue.

It's very simple: If they knew God was Jesus's direct Father, they wouldn't have been confused.

All this about them being confused about why a special child would be in the world alone does not reflect what the text is indicating.

Matthew being a Tax collector and not a "Theologian" also does not whatsoever relate to why he listed Rahab as the Mother of someone born 300 years later. That would be called "an error". Most Jews back then knew their geneologies very well, from Tax collectors to garbage collectors.

(Also the Angels in the account did NOT make it clear that Jesus was "God with us" but that his name was "God is with us")

I don't believe that I am confused or that I changed the issue but I respect your opinion so please explain why you think this is so.

I agree and that is what I said.

I don't believe I said anything about them being confused about this. They believed Jesus was vulnerable to the dangers of this world.

I beleive Matthew knew his own pedigree but I don't think it is likely that he was well informed about others and there is no evidence that he was a Biblical scholar although there is evidence that he knew a little about the Bible. After all the Biblical scholars themselves were wrong about things so why should Matthew be different?

Isa 8 amkes it clear that Immanuel equates to God.

 

[gnostic]

Immanual is mentioned again but not as a child but as The Lord. The tie in is not to the= prophecy but to the salvation of God. That is not necessarily a contemporaneous salvation and the context bers that out.

Nothing in 7:14 say that the child Immanuel would be God, Son of God, Messiah or prophet.

The name Immanuel means "God is with us", doesn't identify Immanuel to be any of the above (God, Son of God, mess...., etc)

It just a name with specific meaning.

Take for instance, the name Jesus, which means "savior" or "deliverer". This Jesus is Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which is the same as what we called Joshua. Yeshua also means "savior" or "deliverer". Since the prophet Joshua, son of Nun, was the first to appear in the Bible, wouldn't Joshua be the savior or even the messiah.

Name are very interesting, but saying that Immanuel meant for Jesus, whether this Jesus be messiah or God himself, is pretty much doing mental contortion or mental acrobat. To me, your interpretation with names is nothing more than circular reasoning.

If name is truly can be used to denote God, messiah or prophet, then here is another example, using your (circular) logic: Elijah.

Do you know what Elijah mean?

Elijah is "God the Lord, the strong Lord". Going by your logic, that would mean the prophet Elijah is really more than a prophet; he is God.

The two kings are not connected to the child. The absence of the two kings is a reality wehn the child is born.

The king of Assyria is mentioned in context with the past as a comparison to the future.

This is a different child out of context with the first sign.

How so?

Does the child Immanuel not appear in chapter 7 at all?

You seemed to have exclude the whole chapter for just one lousy verse.

Do the two kings not appear in chapter 7?

Aren't the signs in verse 15-17 also about the future?

More importantly, do you think Immanuel in verse 14 not relate to the child (verse 15) who would eat curds and honey?

He [child Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

And Immanuel and verse 16 are unrelated? (7:16, see quote, below)

For before the child [Immanuel] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

If the child of verses 15 & 16 is not the same child as Immanuel of verse 7:14, then who is that other child?

Unless you give us plausible answers, then to ALL THE VERSES - 14, 15, 16 & 17 - then you're really twisting the meaning to Isaiah 7:14.

 

[gnostic]

The name Immanuel appeared in relation to the event in Isaiah 7:1, when Ahaz's enemies were besieging:

Don't just say it prove it. I find no tie in to the event.

It is in the SAME BL@#DY FRICKING CHAPTER!

What more evidences do you need?

Did you only read verse 14, excluding everything else in the chapter?

Man, this is why I dislike the "CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION" of what they bl@#dy called the OLD TESTAMENT. Some of you, Christians, have the tendency to read only selected verse, without reading the surrounding passage, before and after the cherry-picked verse, and twisted it beyond recognition.

Is Isaiah 7:1 not part of the chapter 7? Isn't the kings mentioned in 7:1 not the same as the reference to the "TWO KINGS" of 7:16?

Is Isaiah 7:15-17 not part of the whole sign? (The complete sign being 7:14-17.)

Can you prove that Isaiah 7:1 is not part of the sign? (And when I mean sign, I mean the complete sign (7:14-17), and not just verse 14.)

Can you prove that the sign in no way related to the Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria?

 

[sincerly]

Can you prove that the sign in no way related to the Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria?

Isa.7:14 doesn't relate to those people. The "son" who does relate to those people is seen in 8;1-18 and that son was born within 9 months of Isaiah going in to his wife.
It was to that son that Isa.7:15- 8:1-18 refers.