Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Super Universe]

Of course there was some interbreeding, just not on a large scale til modern times, I'd bet the grand majority of that ancient interbreeding was due to the women being taken as slaves and War booty. And the rest was from Apostates who didn't care much about the religion to begin with, like nowadays.

So what's your point, and what does have to do with my response to your reply? The grand majority of Jews I'd largely bet come from very isolated communities who never interbred willfully.

My point was defensive. Jay called me a racist so I pointed out that Jews have historically been one of the most racially pure groups of humans.

You just jumped in to defend Judaism.

 

[Shermana]

Oh well in that case, I completely agree with you. It's outright bigoted dishonesty to say that there's been no racial segregation among us for most of our history. We are indeed one of the most homogenous peoples in history.

 

[sincerly]

Isaiah 7:14 "The Sign of Immanuel" says that the virgin will conceive a child and call him Immanuel-"God is with us".

Jesus was conceived by Mary and her husband Joseph in the normal way. The idea of the virgin birth was written into the book of Matthew as an attempt to convince Jew's that Jesus truly was the messiah.

The name Jesus was given to Mary in a dream where she saw the angel Gabriel. The reason Jesus did not choose the name Immanuel is because Jesus did not bestow upon to earth to fulfill ancient human (Jewish) prophecy but instead to fulfill universal prophecy. Jesus did not wish to lead the Jews into war against the Romans, which is what the Jews wanted and expected in a "messiah".

Jesus mission was to experience life on the earth and then die before He could arrise and truly earn the title of God's representative.

SU, Your supposition(s) is/are non-sequitur(s). They contradict the other witnesses and the Prophets.

You keep trying to put everything into simple and narrow human perspectives instead of universal perspectives.

Not a human perspective, but the Holy Spirit inspired given forcast for that "Universal Kingdom" when this Earth with its heavens will be "made new".

 

[Super Universe]

SU, Your supposition(s) is/are non-sequitur(s). They contradict the other witnesses and the Prophets.



Not a human perspective, but the Holy Spirit inspired given forcast for that "Universal Kingdom" when this Earth with its heavens will be "made new".

I don't follow your ancient human beliefs. They were simply wrong about many things.

What did I post that contradicts "the other witnesses and the prophets"?

The earth will be made new? And you think you understand what that really means?

 

[Harmonious]

And what is the racial make up of the Jews? Uh, lets see, there is some white, some more white, and, uh, well, it's all white and it's going to stay that way under the guise of "tradition", isn't it?

There is white, and black, and Mediterranean, and Eastern Asian, and Arabic, and Indian, and South American, and... Well, Jews come in all different shades and shapes.

I wonder where you are getting your information.

 

[Harmonious]

So some Jews migrated to the east in ancient times and interbred with those outside of their racial group?

Isn't that against the Jewish tradition of maintaining racial purity?

You realize, I hope, that converts to Judaism can come from anywhere?

There is no "racial purity" as much as there is "staying within the faith."

 

[sincerly]

I don't follow your ancient human beliefs. They were simply wrong about many things.

What did I post that contradicts "the other witnesses and the prophets"?

The earth will be made new? And you think you understand what that really means?

SU, According to your beliefs, of course the Creator GOD of all things has been wrong about many things---and especially concerning the TRUTH about HIMSELF and JESUS CHRIST as the PROPITIATION FOR SINFUL MANKIND.

Yes, I believe that which the Bible has stated rather than the "Book of Urantia".
Isa.8:20 is the Answer to your "seeking" to/in the "book of urantia". And , You are endowed with the freedom to choose.

 

[Shermana]

You realize, I hope, that converts to Judaism can come from anywhere?

There is no "racial purity" as much as there is "staying within the faith."

Except for Levites and Cohens of course.

 

[Harmonious]

Except for Levites and Cohens of course.

As long as Cohanim marry born Jews, it doesn't matter what "race" they come from.

Levites can marry any non-married Jewish girl they wish.

 

[Shermana]

As long as Cohanim marry born Jews, it doesn't matter what "race" they come from.

Levites can marry any non-married Jewish girl they wish.

As long as the Father is "Racially" Israelite and a blood-born Levite/Cohen of course.

And the fact that a Cohen must marry only a blood-born daughter of a Jew, convert or not, is something to consider.

Wait...what's this from Chabad?

6. He may not marry a woman whose father is not Jewish (even if her mother is).

Ah, now even the Matrilneal descent only half applies!

 

[Harmonious]

As long as the Father is "Racially" Israelite and a blood-born Levite/Cohen of course.

No. The born daughter of Jew (who isn't a divorcee, prostitute, or has otherwise slept with a non-Jewish man) can marry a Cohen.

And Cohanim who don't observe even this much lose their status as Cohanim.

Any available Jewish woman at all can marry a Levite.

Lubavitchers are a bit stricter than I've listed, and say that even the granddaughter of a convert is unavailable to a Cohen. But that is the custom of Lubavitch.

Every family of Cohanim has their own customs of stringencies on this, which might be above and beyond what Jewish law states.

 

[Shermana]

You misunderstand what I meant there:

The Cohen and Levite must still nonetheless come from an unbroken bloodborn chain from Levi and Aaron directly.

 

[Harmonious]

The Cohen and Levite must still nonetheless come from an unbroken bloodborn chain from Levi and Aaron directly.

This is true. Well... Cohanim must come from Aaron, and Levi'im must come from Levi, but otherwise, yes.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Most Christians would take whatever Matthew say (or wrote about) at face value, because to them he is AUTHORITATIVE, being a evangelist and all...though in actual fact we really don't know who wrote those gospels, including the one titled the Gospel According To Matthew.

So most (Christians) would accept Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as being the right one and the only one.

As you would have noticed, I used the word "most", because I don't think all are in agreement with Matthew's interpretation of that verse.

But getting back to that verse. I'd agree that many (Christians) would accept the formal interpretation, without investigating further of the verse's context. It doesn't take a genius to accept what the evangelists say to be true; no real scholarship whatsoever.

Not only does Matthew took the verse (7:14) out of context, he ignored the rest of surrounding text, hence 88% of the chapter (7). One you've claimed (not referring to "you" personally, CG, but Christians in general) this verse is about Mary as the virgin mother and Jesus being the infant, the original context of the verse (as well as the entire chapter) is lost. And there lie the true problem with Matthew's interpretation, to cherrypicking a single verse or two, and forget the rest, as if the text surrounding 7:14 doesn't exist.

The chapter mentioned Ephraim and Samaria, the Arams (and Damascus) and the Assyrians. And though it does mention the House of David, which the Messiah is supposed to be of that line, Jesus' own line to David is tenuous at best. So I doubt this Immanuel had anything to do with the Messiah. Why did Matthew ignore the rest of the chapter 7? Why do many Christians ignore the rest of the chapter 7?

For Matthew's interpretation to be true in shape or form, then Jesus should be involved in some ways to the Arams and the Assyrians, or even to Ephraim, but Jesus is not.

It is like the other verse in Isaiah that many Christians (not all Christians) choose to ignore the surrounding the verses: eg Isaiah 14:12. Many Christians seemed to think that the verse referred to Lucifer-Satan-Devil, and forget the rest of the verses (14:3-27) is actually about the King of Babylonia.

 

[sincerly]

Most Christians would take whatever Matthew say (or wrote about) at face value, because to them he is AUTHORITATIVE, being a evangelist and all...though in actual fact we really don't know who wrote those gospels, including the one titled the Gospel According To Matthew.

Hi gnostic, seeing things not end up/come out as one wants it to or expects it to finish is very disconcerting to many. While the Apostles acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah they had been waiting "centeries to Come upon the earth's scene and Acknowledged tha Jesus was, also, the SON of the Living GOD, they had conflicting doubts. They had been taught and believed that Jesus would be the one who would free the Nation of Israel fron the bongage of the Roman Empire. They didn't Believe that Jesus would be Killed. They knew, but ignored those most important teachings.
Can one really fault them in one sense, since we are guilty of the same philosophy??. Therefore, it is vital for one the "fully know" who Jesus IS and why HE came for the PURPOSE which HE DID and WHO SENT HIM to complete the mission HE "Fulfilled".
The is only one source that has that information OR that the even Gave it in the first place. It was given In those Inspired Scriptures so that ALL can KNOW and be informed of the very information which GOD armed each individual with to Be prepared for a place in HIS Kingdom.

God said HE would give the "Sign". Is it really to hard to Believe that the "same sign" could be used so that another group of prople would understand and Believe?? In Isa.7:14, the "Sign" was that the People of GOD would be carried into Babylonian captivity for seventy years--- The two nations which were out to destroy the people GOD said wouldn't be able to accomplish their GOAL---GOD did the resisting of them. That was some approx. 150 years prior to Babylon's capture of Jerusalem.(and taking the people to Babylon) Or about 760 years prior to the birth of Jesus Christ in fulfillment of the Prophecy--for the people of that time.

Jesus used the "sign" of Noah concerning HIS Resurrection. This was approx.900 Years after Jonah'S mission. Therefore, GOD isn't limited to "using a means of communicating a truth" to different peoples.
Eve's "seed" was passed down to every female from her day to Mary.(the "Fulfillment".)

So most (Christians) would accept Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as being the right one and the only one.

As you would have noticed, I used the word "most", because I don't think all are in agreement with Matthew's interpretation of that verse.

But getting back to that verse. I'd agree that many (Christians) would accept the formal interpretation, without investigating further of the verse's context. It doesn't take a genius to accept what the evangelists say to be true; no real scholarship whatsoever.

Not only does Matthew took the verse (7:14) out of context, he ignored the rest of surrounding text, hence 88% of the chapter (7). One you've claimed (not referring to "you" personally, CG, but Christians in general) this verse is about Mary as the virgin mother and Jesus being the infant, the original context of the verse (as well as the entire chapter) is lost. And there lie the true problem with Matthew's interpretation, to cherrypicking a single verse or two, and forget the rest, as if the text surrounding 7:14 doesn't exist.

The chapter mentioned Ephraim and Samaria, the Arams (and Damascus) and the Assyrians. And though it does mention the House of David, which the Messiah is supposed to be of that line, Jesus' own line to David is tenuous at best. So I doubt this Immanuel had anything to do with the Messiah. Why did Matthew ignore the rest of the chapter 7? Why do many Christians ignore the rest of the chapter 7?

For Matthew's interpretation to be true in shape or form, then Jesus should be involved in some ways to the Arams and the Assyrians, or even to Ephraim, but Jesus is not.

It is like the other verse in Isaiah that many Christians (not all Christians) choose to ignore the surrounding the verses: eg Isaiah 14:12. Many Christians seemed to think that the verse referred to Lucifer-Satan-Devil, and forget the rest of the verses (14:3-27) is actually about the King of Babylonia.

Matthew is one of the eleven who Believed Jesus and DID Acknowledge Jesus Christ as Having the "TRUTH". "Where else could we go?
The principles and messages can be applied from one era to another, but the actual events and "players"(Earth's nations and human beings) in the narative ---Not so.
Neither did the King of Babylon "fall from heaven" nor was ever in heaven or could be in heaven to place his throne above that of GOD. There is an individual Being who was and was shown to be Casted out of heaven because of his arrogant and defying attitude as seen in those verses and eslewhere.
The Babylonian King had those same traits as seen in Dan.4, but was finally wise enough to acknowledge the One True GOD as discribed in the Bible.

It is one's free will to choose that which is "pleasing in one's own eyes".
The Apostles didn't write "cunningly devised fables"---,but "exceeding great and precious Promises;"

 

[Shermana]

Let me state again, I think it's very possible that the "Gospel to the Hebrews' of which Matthew is most likely a redacted version of, had no such implication, and that this may have been added later by the redactor(s).

 

[gnostic]

The principles and messages can be applied from one era to another, but the actual events and "players"(Earth's nations and human beings) in the narative ---Not so.
Neither did the King of Babylon "fall from heaven" nor was ever in heaven or could be in heaven to place his throne above that of GOD. There is an individual Being who was and was shown to be Casted out of heaven because of his arrogant and defying attitude as seen in those verses and eslewhere.

It is an allegory. You're taking it to literally.

You have heard of metaphor or simile, haven't you?

The fact that entire passage from verses 3 to 27 is all about the King of Babylonia. It is comparing him to the morning star, doesn't mean that he was actually and physically the planet Venus.

The Roman religion (and in Roman myth) used to call the morning star - hence Lucifer, son of dawn (or goddess of morning). That St Jerome would translate Hebrew text which referred to the morning star or the Son of Morning to Lucifer, doesn't mean that morning star referred to the Christian Devil or Satan. You're forgetting that Jesus was called the morning star too, in one of the verses of Peter's epistles and in the last chapter of Revelation.

Jesus was also referred to as the Lamb, do you think he was literally a young sheep?

Isaiah 14:12 just mean that the Babylonian empire has reach its zenith, but it would eventually collapse...even then, that's no great revelation or great mystery because all empires throughout history, rise above their humble beginning, only to fall to stronger enemy, or simply fade away to oblivion.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The principles and messages can be applied from one era to another, but the actual events and "players"(Earth's nations and human beings) in the narrative ---Not so.
Neither did the King of Babylon "fall from heaven" nor was ever in heaven or could be in heaven to place his throne above that of GOD. There is an individual Being who was and was shown to be Casted out of heaven because of his arrogant and defying attitude as seen in those verses and eslewhere.

It is an allegory. You're taking it to literally.

You have heard of metaphor or simile, haven't you?

The fact that entire passage from verses 3 to 27 is all about the King of Babylonia. It is comparing him to the morning star, doesn't mean that he was actually and physically the planet Venus.

The Roman religion (and in Roman myth) used to call the morning star - hence Lucifer, son of dawn (or goddess of morning). That St Jerome would translate Hebrew text which referred to the morning star or the Son of Morning to Lucifer, doesn't mean that morning star referred to the Christian Devil or Satan. You're forgetting that Jesus was called the morning star too, in one of the verses of Peter's epistles and in the last chapter of Revelation.

Hi gnostic, "to literally"??? No! That same "evil being" has many identifying labels/names/identities in the Scriptures. I would counter that you are to lax/"unbelieving"/"unknowing" "in your understanding"of who he is or his reason for "falling" from the high position that was assigned him from his creation.

Sure, I understand "metaphors"/"similes"/"parables"/ "allegories"/etc.----And "facts" as related by the Creator GOD of ALL THINGS. GOD didn't make/create Human Beings to leave them in ignorance concerning HIM and HIS PLANS for a right relationship to HIMSELF and the rest of mankind. Therefore, The plan of salvation was prepared and in place even before Mankind/Human Beings disobeyed.

The King of Babylon(Nebuchadnezzar(607BC--took Jerusalem and JUDAH captive) GOD Inspired Isaiah to write/record Isa.14: (712BC)
As Daniel reveals, It is GOD who sets up and brings down kingdoms. God Knew the attitude/attributes of Nebuchadnezzar and predicated his rule and fall because of his similitude desires --like "Lucifer/Satan."

The Roman Empire and Religion wasn't a factor until after the Greek Empire Ruled the known world.

Jesus was also referred to as the Lamb, do you think he was literally a young sheep?

No!, but HIS death upon the Cross was symbolic of those "young without blemish" animals which were sacrificed as the Propitiation for the Sins of the one who did the "offering" of it for that prupose.

Isaiah 14:12 just mean that the Babylonian empire has reach its zenith, but it would eventually collapse...even then, that's no great revelation or great mystery because all empires throughout history, rise above their humble beginning, only to fall to stronger enemy, or simply fade away to oblivion.

Again, Isaiah wrote that Prophecy before the Babylonian Empire came to power. GOD revealed to Nebuchadnazzer that he was that "Empire" and that his Empire would be followed by three others.( That fact has been TRUE---Other Nations/Powers have attempted world domination without success.)
God's Kingdom will finally be the Power of the New Earth(Isa.66:22-23)----After "Time has declared to be no more" for this Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Hi gnostic, "to literally"??? No! That same "evil being" has many identifying labels/names/identities in the Scriptures. I would counter that you are to lax/"unbelieving"/"unknowing" "in your understanding"of who he is or his reason for "falling" from the high position that was assigned him from his creation.

You're reaching...and you're cherry-picking a couple of verses, and completely ignoring the rest of verses that surrounded the text.

What does verse 14:12 to do with the creation?

Nothing in the entire allude to anything about the creation, even metaphorically. Certainly nothing, literally. Where does it refer to the creation in any way?

How do you make sense of verses 14:3-27, if that verse referred to Satan-Lucifer-Devil?

The whole picture of verses 3 to 27 is missing if you believe it is the Devil, and not the Babylonian king.

Have you ever ask what the Jews think about Isaiah 14?

They will tell you the same thing I am telling you: the identity of the Son of Morning or the morning star, or whatever you want to call it, is the king of Babylonia, and not Satan. And if you know Hebrew, then they would have never call this morning star - "Lucifer".

But let get back on topic. This is about Isaiah 7:14.

If Isaiah was referring to Jesus being the Messiah, then all of chapter doesn't make sense, because the chapter referred to Ephraim and Samaria and to the Aram kingdom (as well as Damascus), and lastly to the kingdom of Assyria.

Isaiah supposedly lived in the time of Ahaz, king of Judah. And according to the verse after the mention of Immanuel, it speak of Assyria coming down to his kingdom, in which God will use a razor from Assyria and shave Ahaz's head.

If this child is supposed to be Jesus, then where are the Assyrians? Whose king's head have been shaven in Jesus' time?

If Jesus is the sign of Immanuel, then the entire chapter doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you care to explain this inconsistencies in Isaiah's revelation in chapter 7, if you agree with Matthew's interpretation to verse 14?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi gnostic, "to literally"??? No! That same "evil being" has many identifying labels/names/identities in the Scriptures. I would counter that you are to lax/"unbelieving"/"unknowing" "in your understanding"of who he is or his reason for "falling" from the high position that was assigned him from his creation.

You're reaching...and you're cherry-picking a couple of verses, and completely ignoring the rest of verses that surrounded the text.

What does verse 14:12 to do with the creation?

No! The Bible tells/gives the understanding of the Origins of the World as we know it and all that was Created upon it. One of those Beings was Created in another place and then placed on this world. That being seen in Isa.14:12. The Scriptures are not limited to just a few verses at the time, but have many individual narratives all simulataneous and continuing to an ultimate "goal/end of the on-going/completed/ factual salvation accounting".
The principles given in each/All Scriptures are active and on-going. Therefore, Satan's multiple names are used as metaphors in discribing others/things which are/or have attributes of a similar nature.

You do recognize that Isaiah is, also, speaking prophetically/Future tense(even from that day). Chapters 11+12 is still futuristic.

Nothing in the entire allude to anything about the creation, even metaphorically. Certainly nothing, literally. Where does it refer to the creation in any way?

How do you make sense of verses 14:3-27, if that verse referred to Satan-Lucifer-Devil?

The whole picture of verses 3 to 27 is missing if you believe it is the Devil, and not the Babylonian king.

Read my post from previously slowly.

If Isaiah was referring to Jesus being the Messiah, then all of chapter doesn't make sense, because the chapter referred to Ephraim and Samaria and to the Aram kingdom (as well as Damascus), and lastly to the kingdom of Assyria.

Isaiah supposedly lived in the time of Ahaz, king of Judah. And according to the verse after the mention of Immanuel, it speak of Assyria coming down to his kingdom, in which God will use a razor from Assyria and shave Ahaz's head.

If this child is supposed to be Jesus, then where are the Assyrians? Whose king's head have been shaven in Jesus' time?

If Jesus is the sign of Immanuel, then the entire chapter doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you care to explain this inconsistencies in Isaiah's revelation in chapter 7, if you agree with Matthew's interpretation to verse 14?

Prophecy may take many years to fulfill. Daniel was told to seal up his visions "until the end". Those are being fulfilled presently. That "seed"/prophesied in Gen.2:15 is the same as Isa.7:15 speaks of and Matthew acknowledged the fulfillment of it.