Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

Sincerly did you look at the thread? The Baha'is are different than Islam. They are saying the resurrection was symbolic, that it was never meant to be taken as literal, historical fact. For me it is similar to what I'm saying here in that I feel early Christians, i.e. Matthew, took things from the Hebrew Scriptures and made them fit into a Christian mythology. The Baha'is believe all religions are one, so they have to find a way to make all Holy writings fit together. I'd love to see you give your opinion on that other thread, and I won't make fun of you if you need to tell him that he's taking things out of context. But believe me, he needs to be challenged by a few more knowledgeable Christians, and you, believe it or not, are my favorite one to do the job.

 

[sincerly]

Sincerly did you look at the thread? The Baha'is are different than Islam. They are saying the resurrection was symbolic, that it was never meant to be taken as literal, historical fact. For me it is similar to what I'm saying here in that I feel early Christians, i.e. Matthew, took things from the Hebrew Scriptures and made them fit into a Christian mythology. The Baha'is believe all religions are one, so they have to find a way to make all Holy writings fit together. I'd love to see you give your opinion on that other thread, and I won't make fun of you if you need to tell him that he's taking things out of context. But believe me, he needs to be challenged by a few more knowledgeable Christians, and you, believe it or not, are my favorite one to do the job.

Hi CG D, Yes, I went through the whole of it.
It has been about 10 years since I looked into Islamic beliefs and if I'm not mistaken the Bab is an off-shoot of what Muhammad started. but claims to be independent of it. However, the other beliefs it espouses were what was seen in history prior to the syncretizing claimed by it.

CG D, with careful reading, Jesus stated that "Salvation was of the Jews". The messages to be given was to the Jew first. They were the ones who had strayed and to them were given the "Oracles of GOD" to give to the rest of lost mankind. That was the reason for the "go only to the lost sheep of Israel". They knew what was required of them from the Scriptures---but relied more on the "traditions" and "commandments" made and given by the "elders".(Mark7:1-13)

All Matthew was doing was showing where other OT prophecies which Jesus taught was fulfilled. Those things which were "shadows"/rituals done from the institution at Sinai were now fulfilled by the life and in the Teachings of Jesus.
It was a continuation of the GOD spoken and written correct relationship of mankind to GOD and to each other which the Kingdom of GOD intended/preached---THAT OF LOVE.
Baha'i is a product of the early 1800"s--and yes, like catholicism took "Progressive revelation"/ as a means of establishing itself.
Question? If my continued showing you the truth of the Scriptures hasn't produced a change of your belief's, what makes you think there would be an acceptance of my presentation by him?. However, thanks for the compliment.
Each individual on these forums will choose for themselves what they want to believe.

 

[Muffled]

You know when I was taught Christianity, I was spoon fed the right verses. "Unto us a child is born," etc. Beautiful, wonderful picture, but I was not ever told about Ahaz and his enemies. That was irrelevant. If I had bought into it, I'm sure I'd be arguing the Christian interpretation also. The strangest thing about it is you are the one arguing for taking the Bible in context. The context does not, and never will work for them. But that is not important. Making Jesus the Messiah, making Jesus God, that is what's important, even if they have to twist a few things here and there.

I believe in finding the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. Prove that what I have said is twisting. I find it is the opposite that is true.

I beleive this is not true; he has taken the verses out of context by conjuring up his own connections that aren't there.

I believe the context works to correctly interpret the verses.

Jesus is the Messiah and God in the flesh. These verses only add confirmation.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I am in the same world as you. Does taht make me you? The answer is , no, because there is no connection between me and you that incdicates that we are the same person. I bnelieve the same is true for the two children. There is no connection that shows they are the same person.

No.

I beleive this statement makes as much sense as saying the moon is made of green cheese.

Yes. So what is your point?

Isa 7:!7 starts a new prophecy.

Yes The prophecy is not mentioned until verse 14 so verse 1 is not part of the prophecy.

The prophecy does relate to them but not in the current context but in a future context in which they do not exist.

 

[Muffled]

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.



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?



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



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.

Isa 8:8 ties Immanuel in as God. If Immanuel is God in 8:8 He is God in 7:14.

I believe It is not proof positive but it is an indication. When the evidence is present as reviusly shown above, then it is a confirmation that the name reflects the reality.

I believe Jesus is not savior because of the name but is named Jesus becuase He is savior.

I beleive you are mistaken. Although the name plays an important part of the prophecy in saying that Jesus is God, the fulfillment of the prophecy depends on the fulfillment of a virgin birth which has occurred only once in history when Jesus was born.

There is no exclusion. The prophecy is contained within the chapter but that does not make the whole chapter about the prophecy. It is false reasoning. I am contained in the world and you are contained in the world but that does not make you, me nor does it make the world all about you (or me).

The prophesy is 7:14-16.

 

[gnostic]

I beleive you are mistaken. Although the name plays an important part of the prophecy in saying that Jesus is God, the fulfillment of the prophecy depends on the fulfillment of a virgin birth which has occurred only once in history when Jesus was born.

Only Christians, like yourself believe in the virgin birth.

7:14-17 doesn't denote in any way that the would be a virgin birth. Normal reading of the verse say nothing about the woman being a virgin.

7:14 say almah "young woman" not a betulah "virgin", and this almah in the context of this verse, say that the woman was already with a child, ie pregnant, but she has not given birth yet.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with a child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The prophesy is 7:14-16.

You believe the other verses are sign or prophecy? That's amazing. :sarcastic

The thing I find is that even though you admit it as part of the sign, you don't understand the full context of the sign in relation with Isaiah 7 (as in the whole chapter of Isaiah 7).

Isaiah (as in the prophet, not the book) doesn't start speaking about the sign at verse 13. He didn't stop speaking to Ahaz until the end of verse 17. That mean the complete sign is 7:14-17, AND NOT JUST 7:14-16.

And if Jesus is truly the child (Immanuel) in 7:14, then Jesus should also be the child (Immanuel) in 7:15-16.

And here is the KICKER:

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.

The thing is that the sign (about 7:16) include the TWO KINGS, as well as the child, who is none other than Immanuel.

Where do Jesus fit in with the TWO KINGS or the lands of the TWO KINGS, that will be deserted by the time the child knows how to choose good over bad?

Jesus doesn't fit the bill in 7:16. So if Jesus doesn't fit in with the 2nd part of the verse ("...the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."), then Jesus can't possibly be the child born to the young woman.

If you seriously think that Jesus is Immanuel, then - who are these TWO KINGS (in 7:16) if they are not Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram (7:1)?

Until you have some ways of linking Jesus to some TWO KINGS (as well as the lands of the TWO KINGS), then there is no way for Jesus to be the child Immanuel.

Isaiah 8:6-8, also link Immanuel (8:8) to the TWO KINGS and quite explicitly to Rezin and the son of Remaliah (Pekah) in verse 8:6, as well as to the King of Assyria (8:7).

Are you saying that Immanuel of 8:8 is not the same as the Immanuel 7:14? If so, then are you saying that there are 2 Immanuels?

That doesn't make sense.

Due to the relation between the 2 chapters (7 & 8), both relating to the sign given to Ahaz (via Isaiah), both about the TWO KINGS, both about the KING OF ASSYRIA, and both about the EVENTUAL OUTCOME of Israel and Aram, then it stand to reason that the child Immanuel has everything to do with Ahaz, and not a prophecy to be fulfilled over half-millennium later.

And if Jesus was the intended child/sign, then why did God (via Isaiah) give the sign to Ahaz during the current situation in Judah? Was the sign not meant for Ahaz? If the sign was about Jesus, then how does this sign help Ahaz or his kingdom?

Until you understand all of this, then you are simply twisting the sign with no regards of the time and place of Isaiah.

ps. I wish you would answer with your points or view, after each quoted part, instead of using one BIG quote, and using colors. It is rather confusing.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There is no exclusion. The prophecy is contained within the chapter but that does not make the whole chapter about the prophecy. It is false reasoning. I am contained in the world and you are contained in the world but that does not make you, me nor does it make the world all about you (or me).

A little bit of basic reading comprehension indicates that yes, the whole chapter is about the prophecy. Gnostic's fingers must be bleeding from all the typing he has done to show you exactly how the whole chapter is about the prophecy.

Ignoring... and yes, excluding context is exactly what you're doing.

It's very convenient to pick out one sentence from a whole chapter and declare that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the chapter. It's also illogical, and perhaps even downright stupid.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe in finding the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. Prove that what I have said is twisting. I find it is the opposite that is true.

You are at least very colorful, but how did you "learn the truth?" Who taught you how to interpret Scripture? I was taught by Catholics and Protestants how to "know" the truth, but when I listened to a Jewish interpretation, it was clear that Matthew had done quite a bit of cherry-picking--the lady crying for her children because they were no more, out of Egypt I called my son, he will be called a Nazarene, along with the virgin story. You can believe he had the "correct" interpretation, but there's problems. Was there a child in Isaiah's time? If so, was he virgin born? Of course not, there has only been one "virgin" born child. So the child in Isaiah's time fulfilled the sign but wasn't virgin born? Somebody is twisting something, and I think it was Matthew, and all Bible-believing Christians are forced to find a way to justify what he said. You only convince each other. You read into, or ignore, what you want out of Isaiah. Which amazes me, that non-Christians are the ones arguing for taking the Bible in context. You are the ones that are supposed to be saying it is God's word and people shouldn't pick and pull verses out to suit their needs. Christians don't take Judaism and build off of it. They dismantled it and took what they needed and moved on and created their own religion.

 

[gnostic]

To Muffled:

You've replied about THE NAMES and their meanings, but I would like to know what you think of this part (esp. bold & red text):

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.

If the name Immanuel means "God with us" (I think it is actually "God is with us"), and that according to the below quote that Immanuel is Jesus and Immanuel (according to some Christian beliefs that Jesus is God):

Isa 8:8 ties Immanuel in as God. If Immanuel is God in 8:8 He is God in 7:14.

If I was to use YOUR CIRCULAR THINKING when dealing with names, then the name Elijah would mean that Elijah is (or was) God, because his name means "God the Lord, the strong Lord".

So if Immanuel is equals to both "God" and "Jesus", then Elijah is similarly equals to "God".

I believe Jesus is not savior because of the name but is named Jesus becuase He is savior.

Is the name JESUS a Greek form of (Hebrew) Yeshua or Joshua as we call it in English?

Whether it be Greek or Hebrew, both Joshua/Yeshua and Jesus means either "savior" or "deliverer".

If Yeshua (Joshua) = Jesus, then Jesus was not the only who has name that means "savior", nor the first. The prophet Joshua was the first with that name and with that meaning.

I think you are putting too much attachment to the name Immanuel than it really is. To put in the proverbial saying, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

So my question about these meanings to names, is Elijah "God"?

 

[CG Didymus]

A little bit of basic reading comprehension indicates that yes, the whole chapter is about the prophecy. Gnostic's fingers must be bleeding from all the typing he has done to show you exactly how the whole chapter is about the prophecy.

Ignoring... and yes, excluding context is exactly what you're doing.

It's very convenient to pick out one sentence from a whole chapter and declare that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the chapter. It's also illogical, and perhaps even downright stupid.

I've got a couple of questions for you. Is there a difference between a "sign" and a "prophecy"? Was there a historical, real child that was the sign for King Ahaz? If so, obviously he was not virgin born and being born of a virgin had nothing to do with the sign. Also, was this sign to King Ahaz ever considered Messianic? Thanks.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I asked this question before in religious debates, but only one Christian responded. So let me try again here in Biblical debates. I would like to know if it bothers Christians that Mathew takes Isaiah chapter 7 grossly out of context. The main point of the "sign" is the age of the boy, not that his mother was a virgin or not.

In context this has nothing to do with the messiah and everything to do with the boy reaching a certain age, and then, the promise fulfilled, the two enemies of Judah would be gone, dead, done away with.

It's a beautiful story that Mathew tells, and it grew into a wonderful Christian made-up holiday. But it is out of context! If you justify this, how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views?

I think, the question that I would ask myslef, why would the Author of Isa. 7:14, says this is a sign? What was His intention? So, I think the Idea was that, in the story of the child there was something important mentioned that is to be fulfilled and through this sign a Truth maybe recognized. Much like solving a puzzle, when a "hint" is given. So, regardless of that child actually and literally exist or He was just saying a story to place a sign in it, the argument still holds that He wanted to give a sign. Now, The Authors of New Testament, have written that Jesus was born of a virgin and Matthew comes and quotes only the verse 7:14 as the sign that was given. He does not say that the whole story of the child is Jesus.
So, this whole thing relys on belief that Jesus was born from Virgin. Something that neither can be proved nor rejected.

However, Emmanuel, which means "God with us" is compatible with doctrines of New Testament, which believes Jesus was Manifestation of God with them and when this child eats "honey and butter" which represents the spiritual word of God, he becomes mature and able to recognize false from true. It is obvious that no child ever became wise from eating literal butter and honey. So, it is reasonable to say the story is figurative, not literal. In fact figurative means, there is a sign in the story which is veiled using metaphors.

 

[Shermana]

I think, the question that I would ask myslef, why would the Author of Isa. 7:14, says this is a sign? What was His intention? So, I think the Idea was that, in the story of the child there was something important mentioned that is to be fulfilled and through this sign a Truth maybe recognized. Much like solving a puzzle, when a "hint" is given. So, regardless of that child actually and literally exist or He was just saying a story to place a sign in it, the argument still holds that He wanted to give a sign. Now, The Authors of New Testament, have written that Jesus was born of a virgin and Matthew comes and quotes only the verse 7:14 as the sign that was given. He does not say that the whole story of the child is Jesus.
So, this whole thing relys on belief that Jesus was born from Virgin. Something that neither can be proved nor rejected.

However, Emmanuel, which means "God with us" is compatible with doctrines of New Testament, which believes Jesus was Manifestation of God with them and when this child eats "honey and butter" which represents the spiritual word of God, he becomes mature and able to recognize false from true. It is obvious that no child ever became wise from eating literal butter and honey. So, it is reasonable to say the story is figurative, not literal. In fact figurative means, there is a sign in the story which is veiled using metaphors.

As mentioned in another thread, the name is "God IS with us" not necessarily "God with us", and a Hebrew name does not imply "God is here with us as this person in the flesh" anymore so than Ezekiel means "God is strengthening you as this person in the flesh". It is simply a characteristic of God being conveyed in each Hebrew name.

With that said, even if Christians use the idea of Dual prophecy if they acknowledge that Isaiah 7:14 is about the Child born in Chapter 8 in addition to the child born in 7:14, they must accept that since the child born as "Immanuel" in 7:14 is not "God with us in the flesh" so thus the same cannot apply to Jesus.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I've got a couple of questions for you. Is there a difference between a "sign" and a "prophecy"?

Yes. A prophecy is anything that is communicated between God and a prophet. It may or may not have anything to do with a sign.

Was there a historical, real child that was the sign for King Ahaz?

Yes.

If so, obviously he was not virgin born and being born of a virgin had nothing to do with the sign.

Right.

Also, was this sign to King Ahaz ever considered Messianic?

No.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think, the question that I would ask myslef, why would the Author of Isa. 7:14, says this is a sign? What was His intention?

Is the 7th chapter of Isaiah 1 verse long in your bible? If not, then all you have to do is start reading from the beginning of the chapter, and keep reading to the end of the chapter. It's pretty straight forward.

So, I think the Idea was that, in the story of the child there was something important mentioned that is to be fulfilled and through this sign a Truth maybe recognized. Much like solving a puzzle, when a "hint" is given. So, regardless of that child actually and literally exist or He was just saying a story to place a sign in it, the argument still holds that He wanted to give a sign.

What?

Now, The Authors of New Testament, have written that Jesus was born of a virgin and Matthew comes and quotes only the verse 7:14 as the sign that was given. He does not say that the whole story of the child is Jesus.

The point of this thread is to show, as is evident by the title, that Matthew takes Isaiah chapter 7 way out of context.

So, this whole thing relys on belief that Jesus was born from Virgin. Something that neither can be proved nor rejected.

It certainly can be rejected. I think you meant to say "disproved". And while you're free to insist that Matthew wrote of Jesus as being a virgin birth, it is wrong of you... and indeed it is wrong of Matthew... to shoehorn this virgin birth concept into Isaiah where it doesn't belong.

However, Emmanuel, which means "God with us"

it means "God is with us". There is no reason to think this describes God becoming a human person. Emmanuel... Michael, Samuel, Ezekiel, Raphael.... all names that end in "el"... are we to conclude that everybody with these names are is God?

and when this child eats "honey and butter" which represents the spiritual word of God, he becomes mature and able to recognize false from true.

You have it backwards.
"Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good."

It is obvious that no child ever became wise from eating literal butter and honey.

It is obvious that no verse in Isaiah suggests that this would be the case, literally or figuratively.

So, it is reasonable to say the story is figurative, not literal. In fact figurative means, there is a sign in the story which is veiled using metaphors.

It's not a metaphor. It's an expression describing the land being productive and providing luxuries like cream and honey, the opposite of a land that is besieged or otherwise torn apart by war.

The basic message is that when the child is young, the threat of the two kings would cease to be a threat, so that by the time the child is mature, there will be plenty to eat.

The sign is that these things would happen during the early years of the child's life... to a woman that he knew, because the verse says "THE woman is with child". She was known to Ahaz, and she was already pregnant. Some would argue that it refers to the future... the future being IN THE SAME YEAR THE PROPHECY WAS SPOKEN. Because as I mentioned twice... Ahaz knew who this woman was... and she gave birth during Ahaz's reign. Because the sign was for him.

 

[CG Didymus]

The sign is that these things would happen during the early years of the child's life... to a woman that he knew, because the verse says "THE woman is with child". She was known to Ahaz, and she was already pregnant. Some would argue that it refers to the future... the future being IN THE SAME YEAR THE PROPHECY WAS SPOKEN. Because as I mentioned twice... Ahaz knew who this woman was... and she gave birth during Ahaz's reign. Because the sign was for him.

Is it really that simple? Is it really that obvious? No, it can't be, because how are highly intelligent Christians not seeing the problem? It seems like those retro-cycles the planets did when the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As mentioned in another thread, the name is "God IS with us" not necessarily "God with us", and a Hebrew name does not imply "God is here with us as this person in the flesh" anymore so than Ezekiel means "God is strengthening you as this person in the flesh". It is simply a characteristic of God being conveyed in each Hebrew name.

With that said, even if Christians use the idea of Dual prophecy if they acknowledge that Isaiah 7:14 is about the Child born in Chapter 8 in addition to the child born in 7:14, they must accept that since the child born as "Immanuel" in 7:14 is not "God with us in the flesh" so thus the same cannot apply to Jesus.

While I believe in Both New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures, but my interpretation is not the same as Mainstream Christians.
I don't think the Authors of New Testament said Jesus is God in flash or they believed such a thing. In my view, they believed Jesus is a divine Prophet who reveals the Word and Attributes of God among people.
With that said, the story in Isa. 7, in my view, should be understood with Figures and Symbols.
Because these prophets were inspired in dreams and visions which appears as figures.
A good example of this that I always remember is the story of Joseph and the man who dreamed that Seven lean caws ate Seven Fat Cows.
Now in that dream there was a "sign". This sign was indicating that Seven years of prosperity will be followed by Seven years of difficulty.
So, just as physically and literally these seven caws neither existed nor ate each other, likewise the story of Emmanuel who was born from a young woman, and ate butter and honey is not a literal or physical fact, but there is a sign that indicates future event.
So, in my personal interpretation The Jewish Law had a promised one, known as Messiah. The Jewish Law supposed to give birth to this Promised Messiah. Much like a woman that is pregnant with a child, and in its due time will give birth.
So, this woman symbolically represents "The Jewish Law', and the child is the Birth of a new Revelation, which is the Reality of Messiah (not the physical Jesus). And the reason that it is named Emmanuel is to say, that through this revelation, the word and will of God is revealed to people (God is with us). For as much as it is never possible for the invisible God appear with people, but His words and Will can be reflected to the World through His prophets, thus the idea that Emmanuel means appearance of God, should be understood as appearance of the Word of God through a new Prophet.

 

[CG Didymus]

While I believe in Both New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures, but my interpretation is not the same as Mainstream Christians.
I don't think the Authors of New Testament said Jesus is God in flash or they believed such a thing. In my view, they believed Jesus is a divine Prophet who reveals the Word and Attributes of God among people.
With that said, the story in Isa. 7, in my view, should be understood with Figures and Symbols.
Because these prophets were inspired in dreams and visions which appears as figures.

To talk about Daniel or the Revelation of John, I could see how we are talking about symbols. Isaiah is not dreaming. He is confronting the King of Judah. He tells him by the time the child reaches a certain age the two rulers he fears will be dead. No symbols. No figures. Matthew, on the other hand, makes all kinds of allusions to signs and symbols in the Hebrew Scriptures that point to Jesus being the Messiah. Christians take the King and Prince of Tyre and make him the devil. They take the bright and morning star and make it the devil also.

So could it be what is straight forward and meant to be a historical event in one religion becomes signs, symbols and figures in the next? Like Jesus being resurrected for Christians is literal and historical. For you, the Baha'i, it is symbolic.

Each religion has to prove itself. Why should we believe the new one? A lot of Jews tried their best not to believe, but God kept providing miracles and proofs of His existence to them. Do those proofs work for me? No, they sound like made up mythological stories, but they worked for them and I can respect that.

Jesus came along and people told his story. It was filled with miracles of healing and of raising the dead. He supposedly stopped a storm and walked on water. True? They don't sound true. They sound like ancient people telling tales to give their prophet a greater status than all the others. Next step, make him equal and the same as God. That's fine. It got people, in general, to a better place. But what did it do to Judaism? It tried to make it obsolete. But Jews are still here.

Now you as a Baha'i, to prove your prophet is better, need to make all previous religious ideas fit into your interpretation of truth. I'm sure the Baha'i would make the world a better place. Equality of men and women, religions all being one, and only one race, the human race--all those principles of the Baha'i Faith are awesome. But, you have to usurp the authority of the previous religions. The only way you can do that, and still claim that the earlier religions were true, is to re-interpret the old religions.

That is what Matthew, and I might as well add Paul in there, did to Judaism. Not that Christianity isn't a fine religion. But, they took bits and pieces of the Hebrew Bible to construct their version of the truth. Christians, of course, believe it is the right interpretation. Just like you believe you have the right interpretation of Christianity. But the Baha'i Faith, Christianity and Islam all claim to follow the same God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but all of you change and contort what the Hebrew Scriptures say. I get around it by believing that all religions have had a human element to them, that people explained things in the context of their times and culture. Sure there was truths to live by in what they said, but was it literally the "Word of God?" Inspired, yes, but not perfect and always subject to revision as society and civilization evolves. Which is so close to what you are saying as a Baha'i. It is just that I believe those stories were presented as true, but were dressed up and embellished to give them more power and authority.

Anyway, Investigate Truth, let me know what you think. And, thanks for your replies on my questions in your thread.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

To talk about Daniel or the Revelation of John, I could see how we are talking about symbols. Isaiah is not dreaming. He is confronting the King of Judah. He tells him by the time the child reaches a certain age the two rulers he fears will be dead. No symbols. No figures. Matthew, on the other hand, makes all kinds of allusions to signs and symbols in the Hebrew Scriptures that point to Jesus being the Messiah. Christians take the King and Prince of Tyre and make him the devil. They take the bright and morning star and make it the devil also.

So could it be what is straight forward and meant to be a historical event in one religion becomes signs, symbols and figures in the next?

I think two points should be considered is this story.
One is that if the Author of Isa. was writing a Prophecy or a history of past event?

If we continue reading the story, I think it becomes clear that this is a Prophecy about future. For example:

"....the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
The expression "Shall be" is a Prophecy.

Now the second point is if these prophecies are literal or figurative?
I think there are many reasons to say these are figurative. For example if we continue reading it says:

7:18 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria."


Do you think the Lord literally would hiss to fly or bees? or these are symbolic?
or when in the beginning it says:

7:15 "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

Do you think the Authors of Bible thought that butter and honey cause anyone to know and refuse the evil "literally" or they were giving signs?

 

[gnostic]

I think two points should
this story.One is that if the Aut Isa. was writing a Prophecy or a history of past event?If we reading the story, I think it becomes clear that this is a Prophecy about future.

Obviously.

If it is a prophecy, then the real question is - how far in the future?

I don't think it is too far in the future. All the clues are given in ALL 4 VERSES (7:14-17), and to WHOM (Ahaz) the sign was addressed to.

1. The sign say that the woman was already pregnant (present) - "the young woman IS WITH a child" (a clue), which would clearly exclude Mary being that "young woman", since was not born yet - and that she shall give birth to a son (future). (7:14) We learn the identity of the young woman and Immanuel in Isaiah 8:3-4, Isaiah's own wife (a prophetess) and son (Maher-shalal-hash-baz): 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria. Isaiah's son is the sign; see Isaiah 8:18.
2. The child shall eat curds and honey (future). (7:15)
3. And that BEFORE the child could know how to choose right over wrong, then the troubles that Judah have with the TWO KINGS (another clue, see 7:1 for identities of the 2 kings) would be resolved (future). (7:16) Clearly, 2 Kings 16:5-9 is referring to the same invasion of Judah by the Two Kings in Isaiah 7:1, further confirming that Ahaz was troubled by his hostile neighbors (Aram and Israel).
4. And the last clue is that of the KING OF ASSYRIA in which the TWO KINGS (back in verse 7:16) would cease to trouble Ahaz (future). (7:17) You would have to read 2 Kings 15:27-31 about the reign of Pekah of Israel and read 2 Kings 16, to learn the identity of the KING OF ASSYRIA to be Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 16:7).

All 4 verses give us some clues of when the sign will take place. And clearly the sign showed that it will take place in Ahaz's lifetime and in Isaiah's. So clearly, 7:14 Mary can't be the young woman in Isaiah 7, and that Jesus can't be her child Immanuel.

If Jesus and Mary were the shadowy figures of Isaiah 7:14, then HOW do the TWO KINGS or the KING OF ASSYRIA relate to Jesus' life?

They don't, so the sign is not about Jesus.

Matthew (as do many Christians who believed in Matthew's claim) clearly is responsible for changing the context of Isaiah 7; he ignored and excluded the whole chapter in favoring just one verse. The whole virgin birth scenario is only a Christian interpretation and claim, and not part of original context of the Hebrew text.

I agreed with poisonshady313's point that chapter 7 of Isaiah should be read from start to finish. But I would add that Isaiah 7 should be read with Isaiah 8:1-18, 2 Kings 15:27-31 and 2 Kings 16:5-6, to get the whole picture.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Obviously.

[1] If it is a prophecy, then the real question is - how far in the future?


[2] If Jesus and Mary were the shadowy figures of Isaiah 7:14, then HOW do the TWO KINGS or the KING OF ASSYRIA relate to Jesus' life?

They don't, so the sign is not about Jesus.

I agree that most likely Mary and Jesus were not the shadowy Figure, but I also don't think that Matthew also is saying Marry and Jesus are the Figures.
However, What do you think about my second point? Because I believe that is the key here. And I think my post #636 answers your two questions above, which I quote partly here:

The Jewish Law had a promised one, known as Messiah. The Jewish Law was supposed to give birth to another revelation through the Promised Messiah. Much like a woman that is pregnant 'with' a child, and in its due time will give birth.
So, this woman symbolically represents "The Jewish Law' (not Mary), and the child which the woman is pregnant with, is the Reality of Messiah (i.e the new revelation and not the physical Jesus). And I think the reason that it is named Emmanuel is because Isaiah is giving a hint that through this promised revelation, the word and will of God will be with people (God is with us would appear). For as much as it is never possible for the invisible God appear with people, but His words and Will can be reflected to the World through His prophets, thus the idea that Emmanuel means appearance of God, should be understood as appearance of the Word of God through a new Prophet.

So, now, with this interpretation the woman (The Jewish Faith) was already pregnant at the time of prophecy and the child which was the new revelation was born with Revelation of Jesus, so, then Matthew quotes that verse within the context.