Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

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?

Although it is presented as if it is unfolding as we read it, I would not doubt that it was written after the event. So then what do we do? Did Isaiah write it? Are there more than one Isaiah's? Did the prophesies and signs get fulfilled before the story was written? Who knows. However, Matthew's story was written after the events. He could have easily added a few "stories" to make his gospel more interesting. How did he know what happened with Herod, the Magi, and Joseph and Mary? Who told him the story? Why didn't Luke and Matthew compare notes and get their stories straight? Why didn't all the apostles get together and write the definitive, "This is the life of Jesus."

The question is: Can I trust the NT? Ironically, you trust it but re-define it. To you, who cares about any of it, it is all Old Testament to you. You have the new word from God through Baha'u'llah. Jesus isn't God. There is no devil. There is no hell. There was no resurrection and all the rest of it. My argument here is with fundamental Christians who preach the literal Bible but take the Jewish part of it and dismantle it. They cannot break their own rules of Bible interpretation and take things out of context.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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.

Do you understand that "the future" could be like within 1 to 10 years in the future, and not necessarily 700 years in the future?

Do you understand that "the future" still makes it possible that Isaiah and Ahaz would both live to see the fulfillment of this prophecy?

Do you understand that the only possible understanding of Isaiah 7 is that Ahaz must have lived to see the fulfillment of this prophecy, because the sign was for him?

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?

Did you not read what I had to say on the matter?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth
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.


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.

Hi Gnostic, Isa.1:1 states that Isaiah was given "The vision"--- Which he lays out in the Book. However, the vision isn't concerning only Chapt.7+8, It is about The "Children" kingdoms which HE has "brought up". What will happen to them and including glimpses of HIS Salvational plan from then to the Creation of a new heaven and earth. What is obvious is that the births in 7:14 and 8:3 were NOT the same "son".
The one born of the Virgin(7:14) will be seen/prophesied in other chapters of Isaiah.
Matthew recorded the "when the fullness of time" for the event as happened and from Joseph's perspective . Luke from Mary's. And the Angel Gabriel verified the Paternal source to the VIRGIN Mary.
Therefore, the verifying persons were Mary, Joseph, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul.
1Tim.3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. "

 

[Shermana]

1Tim.3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. "

It says HE was manifest in the flesh. Surely you're aware the KJV stands mostly alone on that one, right?

New International Version (©2011)
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.New Living Translation (©2007)
Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
International Standard Version (©2012)
By common confession, the secret of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight, kept righteous by the Spirit's might, adored by angels singing. To nations was he manifest, believing souls found peace and rest, our Lord in heaven reigning!
NET Bible (©2006)
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit; He appeared to Angels and was preached among the Gentiles; He was trusted in the world and he ascended into glory.

Luke from Mary's. And the Angel Gabriel verified the Paternal source to the VIRGIN Mary.
Therefore, the verifying persons were Mary, Joseph, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul.

The "Verifying" persons were likely those who interpolated the Virgin Birth account that John and Mark didn't think was important enough to include.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Technically, the sign as given in Isaiah 7 (particularly verses 14 to 17), is not a Jewish Law.

Not every revelation received by various prophets mean or can be labelled as "Law"...well at least according to my understanding of Hebrew literature and religion.

And the sign of Isaiah 7:14-17 are definitely not "Law".

The question - to you - would be - how would you define "Jewish Law"?

What I do know as Jewish Law come from the corpus of books attributed to Moses - the Torah. And I have not found single reference, or even vague allusions, in the Written Torah.

Now I am less familiar with the Oral Torah or the Talmud, so I don't know if the messiah is mentioned or alluded in the Talmud/Oral Torah.

Most messianic prophecy as I understand it that appeared in the Hebrew scriptures or Tanakh (or Old Testament) come from scattered references or allusions to the messiah, and the Book of Isaiah is not a book of Hebrew law.

And if you had read all the relevant chapters and passages that I had mentioned at the end of my last post, nothing in the sign indicate the child about to be born, be the messiah. Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah.

If there's supposed to be messiah in Isaiah 7 or 8, then the King of Assyria would more likely be the candidate than Jesus, because at the very least, the King of Assyria delivered the kingdom of Judah from Ahaz's enemies - Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram.

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.

Like I said earlier. Nothing in Isaiah 7, including that of verse 14, say anything or foretell that the child Immanuel is a messiah. Nothing in its say that Immanuel would be a prophet.

You're another person, like Muffled, making a mountain out of a molehill. You're twisting the verse out of context, to fit into your interpretation.

The child is nothing more than a signpost of when an event will happen. It doesn't make Immanuel into a prophet or messiah.

The signpost is that when a child reach the age before he know right from wrong (7:16) or before he could "father" or "mother" in 8:4, but when he could eat curds and honey (7:15), the lands of the TWO KINGS would be abandoned, because the King of Assyria would attack Aram and Israel and deport the people to foreign lands (2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9).

In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria.

The king of Assyria listened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir; then he killed Rezin.

Do you not see the above (2 quotes from 2 Kings) is connected to Isaiah 7:16?

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 child didn't need to do anything except do a bit of growing up. That's not the sign of prophet or messiah.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Although it is presented as if it is unfolding as we read it, I would not doubt that it was written after the event. So then what do we do? Did Isaiah write it? Are there more than one Isaiah's? Did the prophesies and signs get fulfilled before the story was written? Who knows. However, Matthew's story was written after the events. He could have easily added a few "stories" to make his gospel more interesting. How did he know what happened with Herod, the Magi, and Joseph and Mary? Who told him the story? Why didn't Luke and Matthew compare notes and get their stories straight? Why didn't all the apostles get together and write the definitive, "This is the life of Jesus."

The question is: Can I trust the NT? Ironically, you trust it but re-define it. To you, who cares about any of it, it is all Old Testament to you. You have the new word from God through Baha'u'llah. Jesus isn't God. There is no devil. There is no hell. There was no resurrection and all the rest of it. My argument here is with fundamental Christians who preach the literal Bible but take the Jewish part of it and dismantle it. They cannot break their own rules of Bible interpretation and take things out of context.

I wouldn't care what Christians do, what Baha'is do, or everyone else do or say. What I think it matters is the Truth.
If you ask me, Isa. 7:14 can be a fit that matches Jesus Revelation, then I in my view yes, it can be a fit. If you ask me if New or Old Testament were really inspired by God, that is something everyone should decide for themselves.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're another person, like Muffled, making a mountain out of a molehill. You're twisting the verse out of context, to fit into your interpretation.

Remember the story of Seven lean Caws ate Seven Fat Caws in the Story of Joseph? If not please refer to that. Then Joseph interprets the dream as Seven Years of Prosperity followed by Seven years of difficulty.
Do you think He was also twisting the dream to fit with something real?

It is not twisting in my view. This is interpreting "Figures and signs". This is about seeing the "reality" of the sign that is hidden in it. It is about the ability to see beyond the appearance.

The question - to you - would be - how would you define "Jewish Law"?

The point is that, the Jewish Faith, or the Revelation of God that came to Moses, or The Law of God that came to Moses and Jewish Prophets, or whatever you like to call it, had a promised One, it was supposed to have an offspring, an outcome, (The Messiah) like a Mother that is Pregnant with a child, and that is a Fact, not just an assumption.
Now, the Christian Revelation was born from Jewish Faith, as it came out of Jewish Faith, and this is a fact not an assumption.
The Question is can this Mother and the child be Figures that express the Reality of the facts?
That is for everyone to decide for themselves.

And if you had read all the relevant chapters and passages that I had mentioned at the end of my last post, nothing in the sign indicate the child about to be born, be the messiah. Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah.

How do we know that? can you give me a reason why you think 7:14 has nothing to do with Messiah?

If there's supposed to be messiah in Isaiah 7 or 8, then the King of Assyria would more likely be the candidate than Jesus, because at the very least, the King of Assyria delivered the kingdom of Judah from Ahaz's enemies - Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram.

Except that king did not claim he was Messiah, did he?
And Jesus effected the World in a much greater magnitude. This is undeniable.
But off course Jesus Likewise Prophecized that at the End, "The Sun shall be darkened" meaning that His Teachings which was like the Sun that gave Light to World, at someday will not give light anymore. So, if you want to Judge Jesus, you should see how in the early few centuries of Christianity, It effected Humanity in a Positive way. But that Sun is darkened now.

Like I said earlier. Nothing in Isaiah 7, including that of verse 14, say anything or foretell that the child Immanuel is a messiah. Nothing in its say that Immanuel would be a prophet.

.
.
.

The child didn't need to do anything except do a bit of growing up. That's not the sign of prophet or messiah.

I think we should interpret based on how the Author of Isa. viewed things.
What these Prophets believed was that a person is not able to know false from True, regardless how much he grows. What these Prophets believed that people need the guidance and Law of God, to know False from True.

So, when the Author said, the Child will eat Butter and Honey to know True from false, He was not thinking merely growing up. He must have thinking, by receiving the Word of God, the child can see True from False.
This is the same that Jesus said. He used similar symbols such as bread, to liken it to spiritual Word of God.
So, The child that is eating the honey and butter, in the view of Author is a Prophet that is receiving the Word of God to know true from false. Do you see that?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Do you understand that "the future" could be like within 1 to 10 years in the future, and not necessarily 700 years in the future?

Yes.

Do you understand that "the future" still makes it possible that Isaiah and Ahaz would both live to see the fulfillment of this prophecy?

Yes

Do you understand that the only possible understanding of Isaiah 7 is that Ahaz must have lived to see the fulfillment of this prophecy, because the sign was for him?

I am not sure about this. This is what the scriptures say:

7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;


It seems it is telling a sign to the house of David.
Moreover, even though apparently a sign is given to them, the actual Audience can be everyone else who believes in Torah so there is nothing that suggest these prophecies were to be fulfilled at the time a that King.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

If it is not Metaphor how do you explain these verses literally?

"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."

The Lord literally hiss for fly?


"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired..."

The Lord literally shaved their hairs?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I am not sure about this. This is what the scriptures say:

7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;


It seems it is telling a sign to the house of David.
Moreover, even though apparently a sign is given to them, the actual Audience can be everyone else who believes in Torah so there is nothing that suggest these prophecies were to be fulfilled at the time a that King.

House of David = the King.

Since Ahaz was a particularly unrighteous ruler, his name was used less often. (Similar to how Laban is referred to as an "aramean" in deuteronnomy 26. He isn't spoken of by name because he wasn't a good person.)

Plus, if you read the words, it's a conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz. Ahaz is directly being addressed as House of David.

And again... whether you believe it says that she is with child (already pregnant) or will conceive (in the future), the fact remains that it says THE young woman. i.e. a particular woman KNOWN TO AHAZ. Otherwise it would have said "a" young woman.

So yes, it is absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of this prophecy to occur during Ahaz' lifetime.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If it is not Metaphor how do you explain these verses literally?

"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."

The Lord literally hiss for fly?


"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired..."

The Lord literally shaved their hairs?

Nobody said those particular verses weren't metaphor.

Even figuratively, I haven't seen you come up with an explanation of this verse:

For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

The verses regarding the fly and the razor... it's a poetic description of the defeat of the armies of the lands of the kings that God is promising will be defeated, as per the sign to Ahaz.

If you want more specifics, go to this link:

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

and above the first verse, where it says "rashi's commentary" click "show"... and read the commentary for those verses.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

House of David = the King.

Since Ahaz was a particularly unrighteous ruler, his name was used less often. (Similar to how Laban is referred to as an "aramean" in deuteronnomy 26. He isn't spoken of by name because he wasn't a good person.)

Plus, if you read the words, it's a conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz. Ahaz is directly being addressed as House of David.

And again... whether you believe it says that she is with child (already pregnant) or will conceive (in the future), the fact remains that it says THE young woman. i.e. a particular woman KNOWN TO AHAZ. Otherwise it would have said "a" young woman.

So yes, it is absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of this prophecy to occur during Ahaz' lifetime.

In my view, the Woman as I said in my other post is NOT the virgin Marry.
This woman could symbolize the Law of Moses or Jewish Faith. The Law of Moses had a Promised One that was to be born in Future, known as Messiah. And in my personal view "Immanuel" does not seem to be the Messiah either. It seems to me, "Immanuel" symbolically represents a New People, or a new civilization that would come to existence perhaps through coming of the Messiah. That new generation supposed be more mature and be able to recognize false from True.
The Butter and Honey, might be the symbolic representation of the Spiritual Word of God, because by the guidance from God, a new generation of People may become wiser, and know false from true.
Now, this new civilization, may be the result of appearance of the Messiah, and how He guides these people.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Nobody said those particular verses weren't metaphor.

Even figuratively, I haven't seen you come up with an explanation of this verse:

For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

The verses regarding the fly and the razor... it's a poetic description of the defeat of the armies of the lands of the kings that God is promising will be defeated, as per the sign to Ahaz.

If you want more specifics, go to this link:

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

and above the first verse, where it says "rashi's commentary" click "show"... and read the commentary for those verses.

Thanks for the link. I have been looking for an online Bible from a Jewish Source, to also see the Jewish Translation, and was not able to find.

As to your question about how I come up with an explanation of the verse:

"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is probably saying, before this new generation of people (the Lad) becomes mature and become wise, the land (might be Israel) will be forsaken. It could mean the land would be void of food, and not necessarily the people. And by food can mean spirituality and guidance, as symbolized by "honey" and "butter".

The reason it calls them "bees", might be because they are the holy ones that produce honey by first eating the heavenly food, and spreading it as honey between people, then this new generation (the Lad) will become wiser.

 

[gnostic]

How do we know that? can you give me a reason why you think 7:14 has nothing to do with Messiah?

Because 7:14 is only a quarter of the complete sign. The following 3 verses (verses 15, 16 & 17) is also part of the sign, and there is no indication anywhere in those 4 verses that the child would grow up to be messiah or prophet.

How many times do I need to stress to you (and sincerly and other like-minded) that ALL FOUR VERSES MUST BE READ TOGETHER!!!!

Where on Earth do you see it say anything about the child becoming prophet or messiah?

I don't see it. The only way it is possible is through interpretation, and the interpretation would be faulty. Nothing in the 4 verses say that the child (himself) will bring about new revelation, new covenant, new law, new religion.

Have you forgotten that Judah was in state of war with the TWO KINGS? (Isaiah 7 & 8; 2 Kings 15:29, 2 Kings 16:5-9)
Have you forgotten to whom the sign was addressed to?

Did you even bother to read the COMPLETE CHAPTER?

I find it so strange that people can believe what they think they are reading, and still miss what under their noses.

The sign was given to Ahaz when his kingdom was invaded by his 2 neighbors (hence the TWO KINGS). Isaiah assured Ahaz that the King of Assyria would come to his aid.

This child you believe to be either prophet or messiah would be born to a woman in Ahaz's reign. That itself showed that the child is not a prophet. Immanuel was merely a signpost of when certain event would occur, when the boy reach a certain age.

Immanuel's name is mention again (8:8), also in relation to event that was about to occur with Rezin, Pekah and the King of Assyria (8:1-8). The identity of Immanuel is revealed to be Isaiah's son - Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

You (I know that you're not a Christian) and Christians who believed in Matthew's claim about Isaiah's verse, placed to much emphasis on the meaning of Immanuel's name, that they lose sight on what the rest of the chapter(s) is saying.

I know what you are saying about earlier that the woman (in 7:14) represents (to you, at the very least) the Jewish Law and her son as symbol of the new way or new revelation:

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.

...but I would like to see something more concrete in those verses of the sign that your claim to be true. To me, you interpretation is nothing more than speculation. From reading Isaiah 7, I don't see as being true.

Can you verify that Immanuel would be messiah? If the messiah is not Jesus, then who is it?

Muhammad? Or your Bahá'u'lláh?

What of the TWO KINGS and the KING OF ASSYRIA? Where do they come in it, and how does it relate to this messiah of yours?

The point is that, the Jewish Faith, or the Revelation of God that came to Moses, or The Law of God that came to Moses and Jewish Prophets, or whatever you like to call it, had a promised One, it was supposed to have an offspring, an outcome, (The Messiah) like a Mother that is Pregnant with a child, and that is a Fact, not just an assumption.

I have already ask you before, so I will ask you again. Where in the Torah (Law) does it say anything about messiah or the Chosen One?

I don't recall the Torah saying anything about the Chosen One. Noah was chosen, as were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God gave each of them, a covenant, sacred promise. But that's before Moses' time. David was chosen to be king. But most of the prophecy with regarding to the messiah, come from one-lined scattered verses in book of Isaiah, so David can't be the messiah.

According to the messianic prophecy and popular belief, the messiah will come from the house of David. Both Matthew and Luke gave two different family trees of line between David and Joseph, but Jesus - according to Christian faith/belief that Joseph was never Jesus' biological father, so both family trees are useless.

And neither Muhammad nor Bahá'u'lláh from David's direct line, so obviously they can't be messiah.

 

[gnostic]

It is probably saying, before this new generation of people (the Lad) becomes mature and become wise, the land (might be Israel) will be forsaken. It could mean the land would be void of food, and not necessarily the people. And by food can mean spirituality and guidance, as symbolized by "honey" and "butter".

You're forgetting that the King of Assyria had deported many people from both the land of Israel and land of Aram, first at Pekah's time, and in the later conquest of Israel, where Samaria fell (about 720 BCE) in Hoshea's reign, Pekah's murderer (about 732 BCE) and successor. Did you bother to read 2 Kings 15:29 about Pekah's reign?

When Jerusalem fell to the Neo-Babylonian army in 587 or 586 BCE, many of the citizens were similarly deported to foreign land.

The strategy is quite common practice in the ancient Near East, and both historical and archaeological evidences support that both Assyria and Babylon used this strategy of deportment of defeated enemies.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Because 7:14 is only a quarter of the complete sign. The following 3 verses (verses 15, 16 & 17) is also part of the sign, and there is no indication anywhere in those 4 verses that the child would grow up to be messiah or prophet.

I have seen these verses and discussed them in my previous post to Poisonshady313.

How many times do I need to stress to you (and sincerly and other like-minded) that ALL FOUR VERSES MUST BE READ TOGETHER!!!!

I agree.

Where on Earth do you see it say anything about the child becoming prophet or messiah?

As you have seen in my other posts, I have said, I don't think the child is a person. I think that should be viewed as a symbol.

Have you forgotten that Judah was in state of war with the TWO KINGS? (Isaiah 7 & 8; 2 Kings 15:29, 2 Kings 16:5-9)
Have you forgotten to whom the sign was addressed to?

Although the Bible apparently addresses the sign to the king, but it could in reality be addressed to the whole people, for the king represents his people.

You (I know that you're not a Christian) and Christians who believed in Matthew's claim about Isaiah's verse, placed to much emphasis on the meaning of Immanuel's name, that they lose sight on what the rest of the chapter(s) is saying.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the meaning of the name of Emmanuel.
But, "God is with us" can be viewed as a hint or a sign for appearance of a new revelation. I think this is fair judgement.

I know what you are saying about earlier that the woman (in 7:14) represents (to you, at the very least) the Jewish Law and her son as symbol of the new way or new revelation:

Actually one way to view "The Jewish Law" is that it came to prepare the way for the Birth of another revelation (regardless even if Messiah was mentioned in Torah or any other place of Hebrew Scriptures).

I am only discussing the reality of it.
This is like Sun and Its light. The Sun is a physical thing, but the Reality of it as it appears in the World is its light.
The appearance of Moses, is like the Sun, but the Reality of it, is like the light which was how it effected the people.

...but I would like to see something more concrete in those verses of the sign that your claim to be true. To me, you interpretation is nothing more than speculation. From reading Isaiah 7, I don't see as being true.

That's what a "sign" is. It is not an exact representation. It is Figurative, and difficult to interpret.

Can you verify that Immanuel would be messiah? If the messiah is not Jesus, then who is it?

How would you verify?
I would verify it if the Prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus. And to me they did, because I believe in spiritual interpretation and fulfillment of prophecies.
If you believe in literal interpretation of Prophecies, then Jesus did not fulfill them. But if you believe in Symbolic and Spiritual interpretation then He did fulfill them.

I have already ask you before, so I will ask you again. Where in the Torah (Law) does it say anything about messiah or the Chosen One?

Let's keep the discussion limited to Isaiah 7 please.

According to the messianic prophecy and popular belief, the messiah will come from the house of David. Both Matthew and Luke gave two different family trees of line between David and Joseph, but Jesus - according to Christian faith/belief that Joseph was never Jesus' biological father, so both family trees are useless.

All you say is true. However, I believe the Scriptures in this case should be interpreted Spiritually.
It says that Messiah shall sit upon Throne of David. To me "Throne of David" is a symbol for spiritual power and heavenly kingdom, and has nothing to do with biological line of Jesus.

And neither Muhammad nor Bahá'u'lláh from David's direct line, so obviously they can't be messiah.

I am not sure where you got the Idea that Muhammad or Baha'u'llah were said to be Messiah. They never claimed such a thing, neither the Baha'is or Muslims believe these two were Messiah. They believe Jesus was the king Messiah.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This woman could symbolize the Law of Moses or Jewish Faith.

Or she could be Isaiah's wife.

It seems to me, "Immanuel" symbolically represents a New People, or a new civilization that would come to existence perhaps through coming of the Messiah.

Immanuel represents the comfort that "God is with us", something a besieged and threatened people would want to know. That God is protecting them.

The Butter and Honey, might be the symbolic representation of the Spiritual Word of God, because by the guidance from God, a new generation of People may become wiser, and know false from true.

The butter and honey represent the prosperity of a land no longer ravaged by war.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're forgetting that the King of Assyria had deported many people from both the land of Israel and land of Aram, first at Pekah's time, and in the later conquest of Israel, where Samaria fell (about 720 BCE) in Hoshea's reign, Pekah's murderer (about 732 BCE) and successor. Did you bother to read 2 Kings 15:29 about Pekah's reign?

When Jerusalem fell to the Neo-Babylonian army in 587 or 586 BCE, many of the citizens were similarly deported to foreign land.

The strategy is quite common practice in the ancient Near East, and both historical and archaeological evidences support that both Assyria and Babylon used this strategy of deportment of defeated enemies.

I am suggesting the possibility that these signs may not be literal histories.
If you believe it must be interpreted literally, then your interpretation might be a good one too.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As to your question about how I come up with an explanation of the verse:

"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is probably saying, before this new generation of people (the Lad) becomes mature and become wise, the land (might be Israel) will be forsaken. It could mean the land would be void of food, and not necessarily the people. And by food can mean spirituality and guidance, as symbolized by "honey" and "butter".

The reason it calls them "bees", might be because they are the holy ones that produce honey by first eating the heavenly food, and spreading it as honey between people, then this new generation (the Lad) will become wiser.

It's all very creative... but it has nothing to do with what's being discussed in Isaiah 7.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I am suggesting the possibility that these signs may not be literal histories.
If you believe it must be interpreted literally, then your interpretation might be a good one too.

There's plenty of poetry and metaphor in the words of the prophets... even some that's used in describing the sign we're talking about.

And there are a great deal of more abstract signs and prophecies about entire peoples and cultures and truth and wisdom etc.

However, we are talking about a particular sign that was spoken by a particular prophet, addressed to a particular individual (King Ahaz), and fulfilled in that particular individual's lifetime.