Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[John Martin]

My concern is not whether is it is original or foreign or biblical. My only concern is whether the concept of virgin birth has any meaning for us today. The physical virginity is not important but spiritual virginity is important and it has relevance for all times. It means it is necessary to become spiritual virgins in order to give birth to the God is eternity, the God of today. This is valid for all, both men and women, and for all times. All the other aspects and considerations are not very important.

 

[Muffled]

Christianity is not entirely about living up to a standard. It is more about Jesus living in us. For some this is easier than for others.[/QUOTE ]

The 2nd sentence, if taken literally, sounds like demonic possession. :devil:

Do we need to be exorcized? LOL

I can't speak for others but I beleive having God as my possessor is not the sme as having a demon.

 

[Muffled]

I think that's the biggest difference between Christians. Some just don't have that spark of love in them. They might know a lot and think they have Jesus in their hearts, but it just don't seem like it.

I was in church a long time before I was saved. One can not assume that everyone in church is saved.

But another thing, it is amazing how often we all misspell words or omit words or use the wrong word. Which concerns me with who and how the Bible came to be.

I believe this is due to the fact that you don't understand how God works. He leaves in the inconsequential errors because it isn't worth His time expunging them.

I've heard theories of multiple Isaiahs. Now with Investigate Truth, I've heard a completely symbolic interpretation of the Bible. With words that might mean one thing but really mean something slightly different, like young maiden or virgin, and sentences like a woman will have a child or a woman is with child, there is so much room for colorful interpretations.

There are words and phrases that fall into arcaic use. For instance no one today says "with child" but say pregnant instead. For all we know "young maiden" and "virgin" were used interchangeably. We argue the meaning based on culture and what is a sign and what is not.That seems reasonable to me.

You sound like a very independent Christian thinker. What do you do when you feel your take on a verse is the right one and the majority view is wrong? That's kind of like what is happening here.

I always listen to what people say even when one is in the minority but I don't consider a majority point of view proof that the view is correct. I believe that view must be proven.

The majority takes Matthew as the word of God but so is Isaiah. They seem to be saying very different things for very different reasons. The one verse from Isaiah fits into Matthews story just fine until I looked at the whole of the chapter. I'm not coming from a place where I assume or "know" that Matthew is correct. When I look at it from a non-Christian view, it looks as if whoever wrote Matthew took only a piece of a story, a piece of a sign and spun it into the story he wanted to tell.

I agree. It appears that way. However it is more likely that some people were looking for prophesy to be fulfilled and that is what Matthew is saying, that he can see that the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.

I know you and Sincerly and others mean well, because you believe that is the real truth, but I'm worried that your Christian bias doesn't allow you to be completely objective in your analysis of the situation. I've asked many times, if you were in a discussion on a Bible doctrine with a Christian sect, what would you do if they were basing their belief on only a partial verse taken out of context? Well, in a way Judaism and Christianity are sects of the same religion. What should Jews do when the majority of Christians take one verse and make it a prophesy about a virgin birth that happens 700 years later? Christians are doing exactly what Investigate Truth is doing--coming up with figurative and symbolic reasons to make it all work.

I don't see it that way. The context was that the prophecy was not fulfilled and it is legitimate to see that it was fulfilled by Jesus. The Jews are so biased that they are unwilling to believe that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy. They try to argue them all away. I don't believe it is bias that convinces me that a virgin birth has occurred only once in history and that the child was significant to the people of Israel.

But that only convinces believers. I know too many nominal Christians that don't think about those things. They don't want to think have to think about their questions and doubts. That is why this is so important. If Matthew made up the virgin birth then something is really wrong here. If the NT is absolutely true then we should all join in and follow Jesus. Is it without a doubt really true? I don't know. It seems a little flaky in a few places and this thing about a virgin birth is a biggy.

I believe that a virgin birth speaks of a suprnatural God who is worth following more than powerless and sinful men. This is not a departure from the supernatural nature of God in the OT so why would it be less likely in the NT?

 

[Muffled]

Every religion has a different story. How do you explain that? The Greeks and Romans had their own religion during the time of Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? Islam and the Baha'is build off of both Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? They say it is from the one true God, yet it contradicts what Catholic and Protestant Christianity says. So I'm sure you would have to say that their Scripture isn't true--What do you call it? Myth or just plain false? What should a modern Jew say about the NT? Does it fulfill the prophecies correctly? To them, following their Scripture, that you say is true, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus and Christianity isn't true. So who do I believe? You or them? You both can prove your points by Scripture.

The Greek Roman and Norse myths (and even Vedic scripture) speak about the gods and do not claim to be the word of an all powerful God.

I call the Qu'ran the word of God but the Hadith tends to be myth at best. Ba'hai scripture appears to be that of an illuminati and I would include Buddha in that category or as the Buddhists say a boddhavista.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Greek Roman and Norse myths (and even Vedic scripture) speak about the gods and do not claim to be the word of an all powerful God.

I call the Qu'ran the word of God but the Hadith tends to be myth at best. Ba'hai scripture appears to be that of an illuminati and I would include Buddha in that category or as the Buddhists say a boddhavista.

I was hoping to get a "green" quote from you but maybe next time. People have dreams, visions, hear voices, get inspired. I'm usually only arguing against the fundamental Christian view as being the only way, because it makes everybody else wrong. I like people like Joseph Campbell and Gnostic because they look at the purpose of myth. They don't see it as the absolute accurate retelling of a historical event, even though, it might have been based on a real event. Since all "Holy" books can change lives for the better, I believe their is something true in all of them. Because they all tell a different story, I believe they are telling a different story--a story that relates to them and their culture. The fundamentist Jesus story does work. It might be the real truth. But, since they say the Bible and its authors are virtually perfect (because God is the real author), I'm throwing out questions to challenge that.

Simple things like yoga, to a fundy Christian it is wrong. But when my back gets tight, I do yoga stretches. Is yoga from the devil? I doubt it. Seriously, why would the devil invent yoga? I think yoga fits well with Hindu society. That is part of their way to find truth. I know a lot of Christians that physically are a mess. They could use a little yoga, but they are nervous because they might be opening the door to let the devil in.

Which brings in the superstitious aspect of religion. Within Judaism and Christianity there are so many ideas floating around about the spiritual world. Should we wear amulets or paint lamb's blood on our doorposts? Should I call a priest to cast out the evil spirit when my daughter gets sick? The NT has superstitious sounding things in it. It was how people thought in those days. Is it the truth today? Not necessarily, we are finding natural causes to things that were once thought to be the "gods" doing things to us.

So with the Bible and fundamentalists, can they justify Matthew taking only one verse and spinning it into a virgin birth story? They can, but it's not a perfect and it goes against a basic Bible no no of taking things out of context. Many, mostly Gnostic, have shown the flaws in their interpretation. Your views are a little different than the fundamentalist Christians, what do you think? I think a virgin story is perfect for telling the Jesus story to ancient Greeks and Romans, but is it the real historical truth? Or, a good myth to get people to believe in something worth believing in, the spiritual truth of Jesus?

 

[sincerly]

Gnostic, How is it that my first sentence is "craps"--- when your acknowledgement is the same?
Again, that claim of "she--is with child"---is interpolated. The "hareh" is in the future tense.-----"imperfect"---to be completed.

So is "virgin birth", that's an interpolation.

And "virgin" instead of "young woman" is clearly a mistranslation if it isn't an interpolation.

When are you going to get it through your thick head that betulah means "virgin", not almah?

Hi Gnostic, The words "virgin birth" are not found in the KJV, however, you have posted "is with child " as being in the JPS. That is an interpolation---which you cannot deny.
Are you denying now that all female children from birth are NOT "virgins"? That fact is so until the context of the message declares the status has changed.

This thread is about Matthew 1 & 2, not Luke's gospel, and it is completely different stories. Adding Luke to Matthew's version only complicate the already badly written fiction.

As Luke wrote(1:1-4), "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us[/coor], Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

While Matthew and Luke are different "writers", they are writing concerning the same subject matter---the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
The only "fiction" is that which has been generated to fill your "signature lines".

Togather the writers produced a more complete understanding of ""ALL" that which is most surely believed among us". John added that even what was expressed in written word would NOT tell the whole of the understanding.

But, from your position, it is easy to see that the Truth is opposed to the "myths" you choose to generate. Again, your choice.

And nothing in Matthew say that Mary had been informed her pregnancy beforehand.

So who's interpolating? You are, by mixing Matthew's version with Luke's.

Gnostic, Of Course, Matthew didn't write about Mary's conversation/visit with the Angel/Gabriel, Matthew was speaking concerning Joseph's encounter with the Angel.

There is NO "Interpolating" of Matthew into Luke to make one book--They are independent of each other. They augment each other. Your's is a desperate claim, because it is unsupported by Scripture.

And this whole you-woman, me-man, and "being one flesh" is nothing more than misdirecting the subject of what Isaiah was writing in his verse, and what Matthew had misused in his own passage, and the Mary-Jesus story.

You have done nothing to-date, except twist your own gospels, until it no longer is Matthew's story, nor Isaiah's.

Congratulations, sincerly. Your dishonesty and illogical reasoning have just dismantled gospel into nothing but incoherent sham.

And does God encourage you to lie for him about the scriptures? Does he encourage you to making things up in his name or in Jesus' name?

The misdirection isn't by the Gospel writers, but by your conclusions. The Scriptures still remain true.

The Gospels continue to tell the same narrative which I have shown and You have claimed to be "myths".---"sham".

The Scriptures are plain enough for those who have made GOD their GOD---
Or "myths" for those who believe them such.

 

[sincerly]

Is it without a doubt really true? I don't know. It seems a little flaky in a few places and this thing about a virgin birth is a biggy.

Hi CG D, Just a comment with this question.
You have doubts concerning a virgin birth(Not as the result of a human male), and that is greater than The same Creator GOD producing everything one sees(and don't see) from nothing?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
You claim not to know, but you have taken the position that the Scriptures are just myths basically

Every religion has a different story. How do you explain that? The Greeks and Romans had their own religion during the time of Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? Islam and the Baha'is build off of both Judaism and Christianity. What do you call their "Scripture"? They say it is from the one true God, yet it contradicts what Catholic and Protestant Christianity says. So I'm sure you would have to say that their Scripture isn't true--What do you call it? Myth or just plain false? What should a modern Jew say about the NT? Does it fulfill the prophecies correctly? To them, following their Scripture, that you say is true, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus and Christianity isn't true. So who do I believe? You or them? You both can prove your points by Scripture.

I apologize for the lateness in answering this----was overlooked in the posts.

Yes, what about those "other religions? And for that matter the other people who hold those religions about the world .
The world has had four so-called world Empires which were centered about the Mesopotamian region. These were all advancements of one kingdom over the others.
Babylon was the first followed by Medio-persia, then Grecian, and finally the Roman.
As I said, Kingdoms prior to those.
At this point, secular history gives little information--other than existed and had "gods", etc.. Therefore, since the Hebrews were involved in the Babylonian Captivity let's look at the Scriptural origins and movement of Mankind.
The Garden of Eden was from the river discriptions in that Mesopotamian area.
The wickedness of mankind brought a destruction of Mankind to a remnant of eight persons.
Those eight persons all had a knowledge of GOD, but within a hundred years, their disobedince (at babylon) had caused GOD to confuse the language and scatter the inhabitants into all the world.
Some retained knowledge of the true GOD and others perverted their beliefs to many other "gods" made by their hands and beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Creator GOD.
Thusly, GOD called Abraham out from his father and idol worshiping to HIMSELF.
There were some good and bad comparisons between those other "beliefs" and those GOD gave.
Job believed in a end-time resurrection. There are those who believe in a "reincarnation"---multiple times. "Ye shall not surely die" is the basis for the living in one and the "seed' of the woman in the "blood of the Lamb" the basis of the other.

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by sincerly
... you have taken the position that the Scriptures are just myths basically

They are meaningful spiritual stories for and about the Hebrew people. But, everybody has their stories. The other stories from other people get discarded. But Christians make the only important and true one the Hebrew story, because that story, you say, was given by the one true God. Fine. Is it literal? No, not perfectly literal because some things are symbolic. We have to figure out what was meant by what was said. That creates various, conflicting interpretations. So how literal do we want to get and how literal should we get?

In Isaiah chapter 7 what was the obvious and most literal explanation of what's going on? A kid is born and he eats his curds and honey and before he knows to choose good over evil, the two kings are done away with. That sounds easy. The sign was for King Ahaz and Judah. It happened, sign completed. Is there symbolic things in that? I don't know? What does "curds and honey" mean? "Old enough to refuse evil and choose good"? I don't know? But what do they have to do with the Messiah? That's what is important. Can you tie those verses in with Jesus? Gnostic has asked several times about the two kings. What do they have to do with Jesus?

But let's go on. "...in that day" Which day? What is Isaiah talking about now? Does it still relate to what he said earlier? "...the Lord will whistle for the fly"? He goes on with several more "in that day". What is he talking about? I have no clue. Something symbolic is going on. Who's interpretation should I listen too? Who's interpretation makes more sense? A Jewish one or a Christian? Tell me, what does all that mean to a Christian? Does it relate to Isaiah's time? Or, if chapter 7 is a Messianic prophecy, then how does all that relate to Jesus?

Sure, your explanations of the "virgin" giving birth works fine for you and other Christians, but can you take the whole of what Isaiah said here and tie it in with Jesus? That would solve the complaint about Christians, through Matthew, cherry-picking the verse. This is no small matter. If you can pull it off, it could change the minds and hearts of a lot of people. Thanks Sincerly, you always give well-reasoned and well-thought out answers. This one, to me, will be a big one.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, Of Course, Matthew didn't write about Mary's conversation/visit with the Angel/Gabriel, Matthew was speaking concerning Joseph's encounter with the Angel.

If what you say is true that Matthew was writing Joseph's encounter, then Luke's source would be that of Mary's perspective, but who was Matthew's source for Joseph's perspective?

Was "Joseph" Matthew's source?

There is NO "Interpolating" of Matthew into Luke to make one book--They are independent of each other. They augment each other. Your's is a desperate claim, because it is unsupported by Scripture.

*sigh*

If you bother to read what you had quoted from me, you would see that I was saying that YOU, and I mean "you", sincerly, are the one trying to interpolate the 2 independent stories together as if they are one story.

I was saying that Matthew was interpolating Luke's infancy story, or that Luke was interpolating Matthew's version. It is YOU...and I mean "you"...are the one mixing 2 separate stories together. When you do that mixing, then you are the one actually interpolating.

You keep saying "interpolating" but it would seem that you don't even know what it mean, since you can't even see what you are doing. You're in self-denial!

You write of what Matthew was writing, but then you go and put bits-and-pieces of Luke's writing into Matthew's writing. That's "interpolating".

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, Of Course, Matthew didn't write about Mary's conversation/visit with the Angel/Gabriel, Matthew was speaking concerning Joseph's encounter with the Angel.

If what you say is true that Matthew was writing Joseph's encounter, then Luke's source would be that of Mary's perspective, but who was Matthew's source for Joseph's perspective?

Was "Joseph" Matthew's source?

Hi Pappi, Luke 1:1-4, When Matthew and Luke "took in hand" to write what "is most surely believed by us", it was by personal and eyewitness accounts.

Originally Posted by sincerly
There is NO "Interpolating" of Matthew into Luke to make one book--They are independent of each other. They augment each other. Your's is a desperate claim, because it is unsupported by Scripture.

*sigh*

If you bother to read what you had quoted from me, you would see that I was saying that YOU, and I mean "you", sincerly, are the one trying to interpolate the 2 independent stories together as if they are one story.

I was saying that Matthew was interpolating Luke's infancy story, or that Luke was interpolating Matthew's version. It is YOU...and I mean "you"...are the one mixing 2 separate stories together. When you do that mixing, then you are the one actually interpolating.

I read it and understood it. Your "I was saying" confirms the interpolating was yours.
When I used interpolating by you it was in conjunction with the "is with child" passages/interpretation by the JPS---which isn't what the message/language written indicated.

You keep saying "interpolating" but it would seem that you don't even know what it mean, since you can't even see what you are doing. You're in self-denial!

That looks like classic projectiveism.

You write of what Matthew was writing, but then you go and put bits-and-pieces of Luke's writing into Matthew's writing. That's "interpolating".

Writing/presenting that which the narritive has given doesn't change the meaning.

 

[gnostic]

Hi Pappi, Luke 1:1-4, When Matthew and Luke "took in hand" to write what "is most surely believed by us", it was by personal and eyewitness accounts.

Wow!

Look, if Mary was Luke's source and provided an eyewitness account for Jesus' conception and birth, as given in Luke 1 & 2, because Luke wrote his story more in Mary's perspective, and then you said that Matthew had written his account more in Joseph's perspective view, then the question is who was Matthew's source(s) or eyewitnesses?

You did write (especially emphasis in the bold and red):

Gnostic, Of Course, Matthew didn't write about Mary's conversation/visit with the Angel/Gabriel, Matthew was speaking concerning Joseph's encounter with the Angel.

It is a simple question, sincerly:

Who was Matthew's source(s)?

Was it Joseph? Mary? The Magi? Herod the Great? John the Baptist?

Who?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Pappi, Luke 1:1-4, When Matthew and Luke "took in hand" to write what "is most surely believed by us", it was by personal and eyewitness accounts.

Wow!

Look, if Mary was Luke's source and provided an eyewitness account for Jesus' conception and birth, as given in Luke 1 & 2, because Luke wrote his story more in Mary's perspective, and then you said that Matthew had written his account more in Joseph's perspective view, then the question is who was Matthew's source(s) or eyewitnesses?

You did write (especially emphasis in the bold and red):
Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, Of Course, Matthew didn't write about Mary's conversation/visit with the Angel/Gabriel, Matthew was speaking concerning Joseph's encounter with the Angel.

It is a simple question, sincerly:

Who was Matthew's source(s)?

Was it Joseph? Mary? The Magi? Herod the Great? John the Baptist?

Who?

Hi Gnostic,In neither of my answers above did I even hint that Mary was Luke's "source" and "perspective" is your interpolative changing of my meaning.

From what the Scriptures/narrative reveals, Matthew and Jesus relied upon the written word as the "source" for all that was "fulfilled".
Luke24:27, 44-48, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.....And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things."

Matt.28:19-20, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen."

1Cor.15:3-8, " For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

The fact that "many took in Hand to" record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and no persons name was given as a source of information doesn't deter me from accepting that which was recorded.

 

[gnostic]

The fact that "many took in Hand to" record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and no persons name was given as a source of information doesn't deter me from accepting that which was recorded.

None of which (you've quoted) prove in any way that Isaiah's verse denote or hint at - a virgin birth.

You can no doubt believe what you believe, still doesn't change the fact that have misused and misinterpret Isaiah's verse, nor that you have ignore the context of the complete sign (7:14-17) or you ignoring the sign's relation to the rest of the chapter (Isaiah 7) and the current event that took place in this chapter.

If the sign has to do with Jesus centuries, then why give this sign to Ahaz?

Is the child in Isaiah 7:15-16 not Immanuel? Is Immanuel not the child who eat honey and curds bu before he know right from wrong, that the people of two kings (Pekah & Rezin) would be deported by Assyria?

 

[CG Didymus]

...you have ignore the context of the complete sign (7:14-17) or you ignoring the sign's relation to the rest of the chapter (Isaiah 7) and the current event that took place in this chapter.

If the sign has to do with Jesus centuries, then why give this sign to Ahaz?

Is the child in Isaiah 7:15-16 not Immanuel? Is Immanuel not the child who eat honey and curds bu before he know right from wrong, that the people of two kings (Pekah & Rezin) would be deported by Assyria?

In post 789 I asked Sincerly these questions:

In Isaiah chapter 7 what was the obvious and most literal explanation of what's going on? A kid is born and he eats his curds and honey and before he knows to choose good over evil, the two kings are done away with. That sounds easy. The sign was for King Ahaz and Judah. It happened, sign completed. Is there symbolic things in that? I don't know? What does "curds and honey" mean? "Old enough to refuse evil and choose good"? I don't know? But what do they have to do with the Messiah? That's what is important. Can you tie those verses in with Jesus? Gnostic has asked several times about the two kings. What do they have to do with Jesus?

But let's go on. "...in that day" Which day? What is Isaiah talking about now? Does it still relate to what he said earlier? "...the Lord will whistle for the fly"? He goes on with several more "in that day". What is he talking about? I have no clue. Something symbolic is going on. Who's interpretation should I listen too? Who's interpretation makes more sense? A Jewish one or a Christian? Tell me, what does all that mean to a Christian? Does it relate to Isaiah's time? Or, if chapter 7 is a Messianic prophecy, then how does all that relate to Jesus?

Sure, your explanations of the "virgin" giving birth works fine for you and other Christians, but can you take the whole of what Isaiah said here and tie it in with Jesus? That would solve the complaint about Christians, through Matthew, cherry-picking the verse. This is no small matter. If you can pull it off, it could change the minds and hearts of a lot of people. Thanks Sincerly, you always give well-reasoned and well-thought out answers. This one, to me, will be a big one.

Do you have any clue what the rest of the chapter refers to? I really don't think a Christian can tie the whole chapter and whole sign to the Messiah.

 

[gnostic]

Do you have any clue what the rest of the chapter refers to? I really don't think a Christian can tie the whole chapter and whole sign to the Messiah.

Not all Christians believed that the sign referred to virgin birth or Jesus.

Like FallingBlood and Green Kepi very early on the thread, don't share the more traditional view of other Christian members here. Sadly, they are in the minority.

And I believed that we can never convince them no matter how many evidences are shown to them. They (not all Christians) are too entrenched in their belief and church dogma. They will choose to reinterpret the passage of one verse at the expense of the whole chapter - simply to turn Jesus into the messiah.

Clearly the sign...and I mean the complete sign, which is Isaiah 7:14-17...is related to what was happening early in the chapter (7:1) where Ahaz was in a war against Pekah and Rezin. 2 Kings 15 & 16 confirmed the war that took place, and Assyria involvement in that war. The sign is not just about the birth of child or bestowing a name to the son, but the child's age is the sign (as a marker) of when the war will come to an end. BUT they don't see what is right front of them, or they refuse to see it.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CG Didymus
Do you have any clue what the rest of the chapter refers to? I really don't think a Christian can tie the whole chapter and whole sign to the Messiah.

Not all Christians believed that the sign referred to virgin birth or Jesus.

Like FallingBlood and Green Kepi very early on the thread, don't share the more traditional view of other Christian members here. Sadly, they are in the minority.

And I believed that we can never convince them no matter how many evidences are shown to them. They (not all Christians) are too entrenched in their belief and church dogma. They will choose to reinterpret the passage of one verse at the expense of the whole chapter - simply to turn Jesus into the messiah.

Clearly the sign...and I mean the complete sign, which is Isaiah 7:14-17...is related to what was happening early in the chapter (7:1) where Ahaz was in a war against Pekah and Rezin. 2 Kings 15 & 16 confirmed the war that took place, and Assyria involvement in that war. The sign is not just about the birth of child or bestowing a name to the son, but the child's age is the sign (as a marker) of when the war will come to an end. BUT they don't see what is right front of them, or they refuse to see it.

Yes, 2Kings chapters15-17 does concern what is happening in Isaiah chap.1-10. Both kingdoms of the Israelites(Israel and Judah) have rebelled against GOD just as prophesied in Lev.25:2 and in Chap.26:21-39 that is occurring to the inhahitants---scattering and punishment(by other "nations") because of their disobedience.
The issue isn't just the events in the human lives at that time period, but in the reconciliation of as many as will be reconciled(acknowledge their transgression and REPENT) submitting to the righteous Laws given By GOD for harmonious living. That is the Scriptural message---even today.
I understand the need to claim "myth" rather than Truth---it is spelled out in your "signature line".

Ahaz showed by his payments who he placed his trust(belief) in. God said those enemies plans would not come to pass and reminded Ahaz that HIS Plans previously declared would occur in the end.
Isaiah's son with the prophetess would/did fulfill the present conditions.

Those eight who entered the Ark were in the "minority", also. As were the Three who escaped the destruction of Sodom.

Those with itchy ears to hear pleasing doctrines contrary to the teachings given by GOD are the ones the Scriptures state will not enjoy the----their made conclusions. The Scriptures are the source which determined that Jesus is/was the Messiah. That one verse doesn't void that fact. The Disciples acknowledged that fact prior to any "Gospel" being written.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, 2Kings chapters15-17 does concern what is happening in Isaiah chap.1-10. Both kingdoms of the Israelites(Israel and Judah) have rebelled against GOD just as prophesied in Lev.25:2 and in Chap.26:21-39 that is occurring to the inhahitants---scattering and punishment(by other "nations") because of their disobedience.

I'd agreed everything except this Leviticus 25:2.

2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When you enter the land that I am giving you, the land shall observe a sabbath for the Lord.

Again, you're interpolating something that is not related to what we have been discussing and have no bearing with Isaiah 7, let alone with the sign.

Leviticus 25:2 is more of commandment or law, not a prophecy, and it related to Joshua' conquest into Canaan. And even when they assign and settled the 12 tribes to various lands in Canaan, there were tribal, not kingdoms.

The issue isn't just the events in the human lives at that time period, but in the reconciliation of as many as will be reconciled(acknowledge their transgression and REPENT) submitting to the righteous Laws given By GOD for harmonious living. That is the Scriptural message---even today.

More craps from you.

Isaiah 7, verses 15, 16 and 17, are all part of the sign. Verse 14 is only a partial sign, and what really matter is reading the sign as it was meant to be read together.

And all 4 verses related to the current condition in Judah, and what was due to happen by the time child - Immanuel - would reach the age that he can eat honey and curds (7:15-16) but before he know the difference between right and wrong (7:16), and that Assyria (7:17) would intervene in the war and have people deported from the two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:16; 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 16:5-9).

In what parts of Isaiah 7 (or even Isaiah 8) hint at even reconciliation. Again, more interpolation from you.

I understand the need to claim "myth" rather than Truth---it is spelled out in your "signature line".

You keep bringing up me being interested in myths, so what?

I don't really care, because this thread is about context of chapter, which I know and believe that Matthew had taken it out of context. I know that I have read the chapter without interpolation nor taking the chapter out of context, which the same can be said about you. You have repeatedly taken it out of context, you keep posting unrelated verses that have no relation to what we are discussing.

Ahaz showed by his payments who he placed his trust(belief) in. God said those enemies plans would not come to pass and reminded Ahaz that HIS Plans previously declared would occur in the end.

I know all this. I was the one keep bringing up 2 Kings 16 up. I know that Ahaz is not a good king, but rebellious one. But it doesn't change the fact that sign in Isaiah 7 was given to Ahaz.

Isaiah's son with the prophetess would/did fulfill the present conditions.

Present condition?

It was the only condition. The sign made it very clear the child is related to the event with the two kings and the king of Assyria.

Haven't I been saying all along that Isaiah's son is the child of the sign?

I keep telling you that both Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8 are related to each other.

And because of the similarities between these 2 chapters, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz are the one and the same.

Those eight who entered the Ark were in the "minority", also. As were the Three who escaped the destruction of Sodom.

More BS interpolations.

 

[CG Didymus]

...They will choose to reinterpret the passage of one verse at the expense of the whole chapter - simply to turn Jesus into the messiah.

Clearly the sign...and I mean the complete sign, which is Isaiah 7:14-17...is related to what was happening early in the chapter (7:1) where Ahaz was in a war against Pekah and Rezin. 2 Kings 15 & 16 confirmed the war that took place, and Assyria involvement in that war. The sign is not just about the birth of child or bestowing a name to the son, but the child's age is the sign (as a marker) of when the war will come to an end. BUT they don't see what is right front of them, or they refuse to see it.

Do you have some thoughts on the rest of the chapter? I asked earlier.

"...in that day" Which day? What is Isaiah talking about now? Does it still relate to what he said earlier? "...the Lord will whistle for the fly"? He goes on with several more "in that day". What is he talking about? (For Sincerly) What does all that mean to a Christian? Does it relate to Isaiah's time? Or, if chapter 7 is a Messianic prophecy, then how does all that relate to Jesus?

It gets strange, the Lord will "shave" people with a razor? I ignored all these verses myself until Investigate Truth brought them up with his interpretation of the symbolism. If we look at the context, the "in this day" becomes important. Is it more proof that it was in Isaiah's time and none of the verses were meant to be a prophesy about the coming Messiah?

 

[gnostic]

Do you have some thoughts on the rest of the chapter? I asked earlier.

After the sign (7:14-17) had been given, the rest of chapter (Isaiah 7:18-25) is poetic and highly symbolic description of Assyria.

The sign was less symbolic than the rest of chapter (7:18-25). Isaiah 7:18 and onward are filled with metaphoric symbols.

Despite Assyria being a kingdom filled with disbelievers (well, they have their belief of their own pantheon), it is not inconceivable that God of Israel would use other nations, to either save or punish the Israelites for turning their back on him.

From what I understand the bible, God would sent one of his chosen people's enemies, to conquer the Israelite, in punishment or retaliation for worshipping other deities, for instance in the Book of Judges. When the Israelite worship God again or repented, he would send a judge to drive off the enemies.

In the case of Isaiah 7 & 8, the King of Assyria was an equivalent to a judge, sent to save Judah, even though Ahaz was not really an obedient or faithful king, the sign was still given to Ahaz.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand verses from 18 to 25, because it is far too metaphorical for my taste, but I do know that Assyria is God's instrument in the sign, and neither Jesus nor any other messiah claimants is part of this sign.