Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Except that king did not claim he was Messiah, did he?
And Jesus effected the World in a much greater magnitude. This is undeniable.

I am not denying anything about Jesus, and what impact he had during and after lifetime. I am not even denying that Jesus is the Christian messiah.

Whether Jesus is the messiah or not, is not really my concern.

No. This is about Matthew (or whoever the author was) taking something out of context from Isaiah 7.

I believed that Matthew had misused and deliberately misinterpret the verse, because he completely ignored everything else in Isaiah 7.

You had agreed that Mary wasn't the woman, but you seemed not to grasp the importance of all other verses other than Isaiah 7:14 (just like few Christians who posted here), and still think it has to do with a messiah, but can't produce anything to confirm your speculation.

As to the King of Assyria:

I AM NOT SAYING that this king is the real messiah, but for the sake of argument, Tiglath-pileser III was a far more likely candidate with regards to Isaiah 7 than Jesus, because the king do have a role to play in this chapter and the next (chapter 8) than Jesus.

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.

And more importantly there are independent historical records of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria; that he did receive payment from Ahaz, and he did attack and deport people from Israel and Aram.

I am not saying that everything in Isaiah 7 or 8 can be taken literally, but Judah was under attack, and Assyria did come to Ahaz's aid, but only after being paid tribute. This is the few areas (referring to 2 Kings 15 & 16 only, not Isaiah 7 & 8) in the bible in which bible corroborated with history.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. This is about Matthew (or whoever the author was) taking something out of context from Isaiah 7.

I believed that Matthew had misused and deliberately misinterpret the verse, because he completely ignored everything else in Isaiah 7.

You had agreed that Mary wasn't the woman, but you seemed not to grasp the importance of all other verses other than Isaiah 7:14 (just like few Christians who posted here), and still think it has to do with a messiah, but can't produce anything to confirm your speculation.

Do you consider the possibility not all chapter 7 is about the same subject? I mean could it be that while apparently talking about those kings, but partially, it is alluding to Messiah as well?
Suppose I tell you a story about a fish which is 100 verses. But I tell you there is a sign in the story. So although apparently I am saying a story about a fish, I am embedding some signs in only 2 verses out of 100 verses regarding the Messiah in it with a “Figurative” language. Then later when the Messiah comes you see a match between the Messiah and some signs that were hidden in the story. Thus it helps you recognize the True Messiah, versus other False claimants. Because those False claimants did not have anything that could be matched with any signs.

It is like saying a secret to someone, but in a figurative language, so although outwardly it appears it is talking about a fish, or Two Kings, but in fact there is a sign in it for a secret matter.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

All you say is true. I also said the same to gnostic.
Consider a Book that has come from God for the guidance of His people.
What benefit for His People does it have if such a Book, describe some event about some kings or whatever that happend thousands years ago?
In my view has no significant benefit. Perhaps no benefit.
However, if there are signs in it that can lead His people to recoginition of some Truth then it is a Book that can be said has been revealed by God for guiding His people.

Having said that, Do you consider the possibility not all chapter 7 is about the same subject? I mean could it be that while apparently talking about those kings, but only in a few verses, it is alluding to Messiah as well?
Suppose I tell you a story about a fish which is 100 verses. But I tell you there is a sign in the story. So although apparently I am saying a story about a fish, I am embedding some signs in only 2 verses out of 100 verses regarding the Messiah in it with a “Figurative” language. Then later when the Messiah comes you see a match between the Messiah and some signs that were hidden in the story. Thus it helps you recognize the True Messiah, versus other False claimants. Because those False claimants did not have anything that could be matched with any signs.

It is like a wise man is saying a secret to someone, but in a figurative language, so although outwardly it appears it is talking about a fish, or Two Kings, but in fact there is a sign in it for a secret matter. So, the secret may not be known by the wrong people to take advantage, and only in its own time be revealed for the sake of good people.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

Suppose God want to tell Millions of People that in Future He will send Them a Man, and asks everyone when He comes obey Him.
Well, then many others may take advantage and claim they are that Man, and how should people recognize the True One from all those false one who pretend?
So, God gives some signs by which the True One may be know from false claiments.
Now, should this signs be easily seen and found in the Text? I don't think so, because then the False claiments can easily know those signs and pretend they are the One.
So, God, places the signs in verses using Figurative Languge, and in stories that appearently has nothing to do with the signs of that Man. This is His Wisdom. For if these signs are easily found by everyone, then how could people be saved from the False Claimants?
So, now, in this case it appears as if Isaiah chapter 7 has nothing to do with Messiah. How do we know that for sure?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am not denying anything about Jesus, and what impact he had during and after lifetime. I am not even denying that Jesus is the Christian messiah.

Ok, neither am I a Christian to have any bias toward proving Christianity. I am just discussing with rational arguments to the best of my ability.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Actually, there is a similar Prophecy in NT chapter of Revelation, that a Woman is with a child.
That woman has 12 stars on her crown and has moon under feet and sun as her cloth.
Abdulbaha interprets that, that the Woman is the Islamic Revelation that came to Muhammad. The 12 stars are the 12 Imams, and the Sun and the Moon, were the emblem of the two Empires that were under feet of Islam, for the emblem of Persia is the sun, and that of the Ottoman Empire is the crescent moon.
and the Child is the Promised one of Islam to be born from Islamic Revelation, the Mahdi, who appeared as the Bab.
So, now going back to Isaiah 7:14, it is very similar. So, that is why I interpreted the Woman as the Revelation that came to Moses, as opposed to the virgin Marry, getting the idea from Abdulbaha.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, neither am I a Christian to have any bias toward proving Christianity. I am just discussing with rational arguments to the best of my ability.

I am not saying that you're a Christian, but you are making the same assumption and interpretation on verse Isaiah 7:14 that the birth being the sign of the messiah, as that of most Christians.

You're jumping to the conclusion that Christians make that the verse (once again, 7:14 referred to a messiah (not necessarily pointing at Jesus, but a messiah nevertheless), but you can't back it up since the other verses in the sign give all indication that it is not messianic prophecy.

If one part of Isaiah's sign is about the messiah, then ALL FOUR VERSES (7:14-17) should be also about the messiah. Otherwise, the sign doesn't make any sense, and you're twisting the words (from that single verse) out of context...which is the same things Matthew and other Christians today are doing with that single (misused) verse.

None of the Jews here considered any part of Isaiah 7, let alone verse 14, to be about the messiah. Only you (Bahai) and some Christians who posted here to be make such claim about the sign being "messianic".

 

[gnostic]

Do you consider the possibility not all chapter 7 is about the same subject? I mean could it be that while apparently talking about those kings, but partially, it is alluding to Messiah as well?
Suppose I tell you a story about a fish which is 100 verses. But I tell you there is a sign in the story. So although apparently I am saying a story about a fish, I am embedding some signs in only 2 verses out of 100 verses regarding the Messiah in it with a “Figurative” language. Then later when the Messiah comes you see a match between the Messiah and some signs that were hidden in the story. Thus it helps you recognize the True Messiah, versus other False claimants. Because those False claimants did not have anything that could be matched with any signs.

Sure, there is a sign alright, but you (like sincerly and several others) seemed to fail to grasp is that there are FOUR VERSES (7:14-17) IN THAT SIGN in Isaiah 7, not ONE VERSE (7:14).

FOUR!

A partial sign is not the complete message; it is certainly not the whole sign. ALL FOUR VERSES MUST BE READ TOGETHER.

It doesn't take a bl@@dy genius to know when a woman is pregnant, that she will evenutally give birth to a child (or children if twins or more). There's chance is 50-50 that it will be a boy. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about a woman being pregnant, nor is it astonishing giving a child a name before he or she is born. Even today, some parents tried to pick a child's name before the child is born.

The true sign come from WHAT WILL HAPPEN (the future event) when the boy reached a certain age (eg. to know and choose good over bad, like in 7:15-16, or to be able to say "my father" or "my mother", in the case of 8:4).

And that one sign doesn't even hint at the child being a prophet or messiah. 7:14 doesn't say anything about what the man will grow up to be. That's what will the real sign will be, when read in its entirety.

WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Why don't you understand the reading a partial sign is utterly meaningless, if not downright dishonest. The whole sign must be read. And when I do read all four verses, I see the connection of the sign with the rest of the chapter. What I don't see is THIS STUPID MESSIAH.

I have repeated myself again and again, with sincerly. And now with you. I seemed to be wasting my time with you, as I have with sincerly.

I have asked you again and again, SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCES that the child will be the future prophet or messiah.

If you can't produce any, then the claim of messiah is really baseless speculation. Is the worse form of cherry-picking. Matthew (or whoever the hell the author was) had done it, the Christians have been doing for centuries, and now you are doing this. It is nothing more than your opinion to claim that the verse is related to the messiah.

SHOW ME evidences to support the child Immanuel being a messiah.

All you've done is twisted the ONE verse, to support your claim.

I hoped that other Bahai can demonstrate better scholarship and logic than what you've presented so far about this topic. I find it remarkable that people can continually ignore context of the entire chapter, just so they can make up some sort of rubbish to justify their religion. But that's probably the nature of Abrahamic replacement theology.

Do all Baha'i followers agree your interpretation with this Immanuel (in Isaiah 7:14) being the messiah?

Do all Baha'i ignore the context of the complete sign or the complete chapter as you have?

If they do, then they are no better than the Christians or the Muslims who take Hebrew scriptures out of context.

In any case, I am quite fed up with your posts, as I have been with sincerly. I might ignore your future posts in this thread.

 

[Poisonshady313]

All you say is true. I also said the same to gnostic.
Consider a Book that has come from God for the guidance of His people.
What benefit for His People does it have if such a Book, describe some event about some kings or whatever that happend thousands years ago?
In my view has no significant benefit. Perhaps no benefit.
However, if there are signs in it that can lead His people to recoginition of some Truth then it is a Book that can be said has been revealed by God for guiding His people.

The portion of your statement that I highlighted makes you look like a fool.

Truth is truth, regardless of whether it's past, present, or future. You can, or at least should be able to, learn from something even if that something isn't happening to you.

Having said that, Do you consider the possibility not all chapter 7 is about the same subject?

No.

I mean could it be that while apparently talking about those kings, but only in a few verses, it is alluding to Messiah as well?

No.

Suppose I tell you a story about a fish which is 100 verses. But I tell you there is a sign in the story. So although apparently I am saying a story about a fish, I am embedding some signs in only 2 verses out of 100 verses regarding the Messiah in it with a “Figurative” language. Then later when the Messiah comes you see a match between the Messiah and some signs that were hidden in the story. Thus it helps you recognize the True Messiah, versus other False claimants. Because those False claimants did not have anything that could be matched with any signs.

Sounds like fun. However, it bears no resemblance to what's going on in Isaiah 7.

It is like a wise man is saying a secret to someone, but in a figurative language, so although outwardly it appears it is talking about a fish, or Two Kings, but in fact there is a sign in it for a secret matter. So, the secret may not be known by the wrong people to take advantage, and only in its own time be revealed for the sake of good people.

That... or you're saying it's secret because you know that Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with the Messiah and you're desperate to make Matthew's statement correct, so you're twisting and inventing things AND TAKING PASSAGES OUT OF CONTEXT to force the text in Isaiah to be about Jesus.

Or maybe you don't know, but you're still desperate to make it fit.

Either way, it's wrong. The point is, the only way you could make anything be whatever you want it to be, instead of what it is, is to take it out of context... which is what this thread is about... the fact that Matthew took Isaiah out of context.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Suppose God want to tell Millions of People that in Future He will send Them a Man, and asks everyone when He comes obey Him.
Well, then many others may take advantage and claim they are that Man, and how should people recognize the True One from all those false one who pretend?
So, God gives some signs by which the True One may be know from false claiments.
Now, should this signs be easily seen and found in the Text? I don't think so, because then the False claiments can easily know those signs and pretend they are the One.
So, God, places the signs in verses using Figurative Languge, and in stories that appearently has nothing to do with the signs of that Man. This is His Wisdom. For if these signs are easily found by everyone, then how could people be saved from the False Claimants?

There are many places throughout scripture where the Messiah is referred to... sometimes explicitly, sometimes with figurative language.

Isaiah 7 is not one of them.

So, now, in this case it appears as if Isaiah chapter 7 has nothing to do with Messiah. How do we know that for sure?

Context.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sure, there is a sign alright, but you (like sincerly and several others) seemed to fail to grasp is that there are FOUR VERSES (7:14-17) IN THAT SIGN in Isaiah 7, not ONE VERSE (7:14).

FOUR!
.

I don't think you understood what I am saying. I didn't say, I disagree with you on this.
Ok, FOUR



So, what's the problem now?

In fact it is not Four only, it is from 7:10 to 7:16, which is SEVEN


Now, is it better?

While the birth of the Child in my view is related to Messiah of His Reality, the other verses is this SEVEN are just the "events" that is prophecized to happen Prior the appearance of the Messiah.

For example in 7:16:

7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

This child is a New Man, the one when Paul said:​

Ephesians 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."


The Prophecy is about creation and appearance of a New Human, through a New Prophet.



the statement "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." is a prophecy that, before the Revelation of Messiah Reaches it's maturity (i.e. before the child grows), "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

However, I don't see why should Matthew also quote all the seven verses. He is just aluding to the Part that is related to His chapter.

 

[Poisonshady313]

However, I don't see why should Matthew also quote all the seven verses. He is just aluding to the Part that is related to His chapter.

Which brings us right back to taking it out of context.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. No.

Well, it is easy to say No No. But I don't think you even understood what I am saying.
I consider that possibility that not the whole chapter 7 is about the Messiah.
It is also about events prior to the Messiah.

What it seemed to me that you ignored from my previous posts is that, I am not saying the child is the Messiah. The Woman already is pregnant with a child. The Jewish Faith was already pregnant with the advant of the Messiah, in a spiritual sense.
The people were expecting the coming of a Saviour, and this expectation already existed within the Jewish Faith (Symbolized by the Younge Woman). Now before this child actually born, and the actual Reality of Messiah or His advant appear to people, many other events and prophecies were made in chapter 7, which are related to the time Prior to Messiah. What you are missing is that you are assuming that I am saying all those evens are related to the time of after Jesus birth. The Child is not Jesus.
That is like the Sun. Before Morning the Sun still exist in the world, but it has not appeared yet outwordly.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The true sign come from WHAT WILL HAPPEN (the future event) when the boy reached a certain age (eg. to know and choose good over bad, like in 7:15-16, or to be able to say "my father" or "my mother", in the case of 8:4).

I am not so sure, the Child in 8:4 is Not the same as Immanuel. This is another one.

If they are the same, why would they have different names? Why from begining it does not keep the same name? why changing it?

And that one sign doesn't even hint at the child being a prophet or messiah. 7:14 doesn't say anything about what the man will grow up to be. That's what will the real sign will be, when read in its entirety.

WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Because, you ignored even though I repeated this many times. The child in 7:14 is Not the Person of Messiah, in my view. That child is the Growth of the Light of Messiah. It is the Revelation of Messiah.


The Child that 7:14 is talking about, is the Reality of Messiah that had not appeared yet. It is not "the Person of Jesus". it is His light which had not appeared yet.

This is why even 500 years before the birth of Jesus, the child existed. Those Jews were looking for a Saviour, so His Reality existed as a child that is not born yet. The Jewish Faith was pregnant with the Reality of Messiah, before the birth of Jesus.

And the Birth of the Child does not have anything to do with the birth of Jesus, but it has to do with the Birth of the Revelation of Jesus at about age 30.

And the growth of child is not the growth of Messiah, but the progress of Revelation of Jesus in the World.

And that "before the child knows bad or good" should not be interpreted as "before Jesus knows bad and good" but it means, before the Revelation of Christ grows enough to give the Knowledge to the World.

I think you are reading everything literally, and I believe to read it symbolically and spiritually. That is why there is a miscommunication here.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're jumping to the conclusion that Christians make that the verse (once again, 7:14 referred to a messiah (not necessarily pointing at Jesus, but a messiah nevertheless), but you can't back it up since the other verses in the sign give all indication that it is not messianic prophecy.

So, let's start from beginning:


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?"

To me this means that, God will never be tired of sending Guidance to people to create a New Human who is Righteous. He will not get weary, or frustrated no matter how many Guidance and Revelations He sends to guide His people. So, now saying, I will not get tired, and I have planned to send you another Saviour to save you from wrong.​

Next:​

7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (or younge woman is more correct) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."​

To me this means, the Lord will give a sign that shows the Lord is not wearied from the sin and transgression of people, but has willed the creation of a new human, through the revelation of Jesus. by new human I mean, a human with new way of life and better undestanding.​

This child is a New Man, the one when Paul said:​

Ephesians 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

Next:​

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

This means to me, before this new human, is able to walk in the right path, He shall need to eat the spiritual food from God (butter and honey symbols for word of God)​

This food, is the spiritual food that Jesus was talking about.

Next:​

7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."​

This mean before the New Revelation causes the new human to follow the right path, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.​

Which are these two kings? you tell me now.
These are just prophecies Prior to early Christianity.
So, I don't know why you are saying I am taking things out of context?​

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Context.

See my last post for gnostic above.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In any case, I am quite fed up with your posts, as I have been with sincerly. I might ignore your future posts in this thread.

I suggest, take some rest and come back, we will continue.

 

[Poisonshady313]

But I don't think you even understood what I am saying.

You asked a simple question. I gave you a simple answer.

I consider that possibility that not the whole chapter 7 is about the Messiah.

Could you consider the possibility that nothing in chapter 7 is about the Messiah?

What it seemed to me that you ignored from my previous posts is that, I am not saying the child is the Messiah. The Woman already is pregnant with a child. The Jewish Faith was already pregnant with the advant of the Messiah, in a spiritual sense.
The people were expecting the coming of a Saviour, and this expectation already existed within the Jewish Faith (Symbolized by the Younge Woman).

You misunderstand the Jewish concept of the Messiah. You also misunderstand the Jewish concept of a Savior. (hint: Messiah does not equal Saviour.)

Now before this child actually born, and the actual Reality of Messiah or His advant appear to people, many other events and prophecies were made in chapter 7, which are related to the time Prior to Messiah. What you are missing is that you are assuming that I am saying all those evens are related to the time of after Jesus birth. The Child is not Jesus.
That is like the Sun. Before Morning the Sun still exist in the world, but it has not appeared yet outwordly.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Poisonshady313]

See my last post for gnostic above.

So, let's start from beginning:


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?"

This is your first mistake. Verse 13 is not the beginning. Chapter 7 begins with verse 1.

If you can't understand that this line: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

is a direct comment to the wicked King Ahaz, then nothing else you say regarding this chapter will matter.

To me this means that, God will never be tired of sending Guidance to people to create a New Human who is Righteous. He will not get weary, or frustrated no matter how many Guidance and Revelations He sends to guide His people. So, now saying, I will not get tired, and I have planned to send you another Saviour to save you from wrong.

To me this means that instead of reading the chapter as a whole, you prefer to just make things up.

Next:

7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (or younge woman is more correct) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."​

To me this means, the Lord will give a sign that shows the Lord is not wearied from the sin and transgression of people, but has willed the creation of a new human, through the revelation of Jesus. by new human I mean, a human with new way of life and better undestanding.

I thought you said that the child isn't Jesus. How did Jesus get back into this?

Next:​

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

This means to me, before this new human, is able to walk in the right path, He shall need to eat the spiritual food from God (butter and honey symbols for word of God)​

This food, is the spiritual food that Jesus was talking about.

Consider for a moment the possibility that you're using a poor translation of Isaiah, and that the butter and honey is not meant to be the cause of the knowledge to refuse good and evil, but that the child will eat butter and honey when he is old enough to know to refuse good and evil.

Next:

7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."​

This mean before the New Revelation causes the new human to follow the right path, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.​

Which are these two kings? you tell me now.
These are just prophecies Prior to early Christianity.
So, I don't know why you are saying I am taking things out of context?​

Because you are. None of what you said reflects the context of the passages being discussed.​

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Investigate Truth,
Christianity explains the symbolism of the Hebrew Scriptures also but a lot different than the Baha'is. Adam and Eve sinned, causing all of humankind to be cursed. The only way to be redeemed is through a perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The NT explains God's purpose. It explains the "true" meaning and "symbolism" of the Hebrew Scriptures. That purpose is way different than what Jews thought God was telling them. It's funny how Christianity thinks it knows Jewish Scripture better than the Jews, but now with the Baha'is? Where are you going with all of this? Are you saying that none of the religions understood their own writings?