Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

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.

Hi CG D, I aplolgize for the lateness in answering this specifically for you. I have incorporated some of the things with other posts and my prioritiies in answering has been more disorganized.

Where do you see the "Bible Narratives as just Hebrew? And that differientiation started with Abraham.(Who was born about 1950 years after Adam was created from the Dust of the earth.)
Yes, the Followers/Believers in the true Creator GOD were later called "Hebrews" meaning "from beyond". The Israelites who came into the land of Canaan--"from beyond".
All peoples went out from the Tower of Babel into all the earth and took their versions of the Narratives heard orally "from the Beginning". Those who believed in the True GOD didn't have to add to or deminish the powers of the GOD they worshiped. The ones who made gods with their own hands did so.
King Abimelech(Gen.20:1-6)knew what GOD expected concerning Adultery---and received warning---but Abraham also knew the attitudes of idol (god) worshiping peoples.(Having come out of that environment.)

One can not spiritualize away the literal miracles which were done by GOD to strengthen the Israelites foundation of trusting in HIS POWER AND ABILITY to care and protect the people in all situations.
"Symbolic" didn't quinch the thirst nor satisfy physical hunger.
Gen.3:15 was one verse among some on going current happenings which was and still is partially to be fulfilled.(The Bible's Focus is in bringing all the lives of earth's final/Population from Adam to the last person to be born in one culminating event.)

Isaiah's Book/writing wasn't centered on just Chapters 7+8? Nor was Isaiah the only Prophet sent to warn the two wayward rebellious ----northern kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah.
As Isaiah wrote the northern kingdom would cease to "be a people". The Samaritian people (northern kingdom) were scattered into many other nations and peoples from those nations were brought in to populate that area.

The "kid that was born and ate the curds and honey" and was the sign to Ahaz was Isaiah's son by the prophetess as seen in 8:18, "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion."

Ahaz did evil in the sight of GOD, but still thought himself ok and continued to seek ;after others rather than the "strength and protection" of the LORD GOD.(see 8:20) The sign of Isa.7:14 was GOD reminding Ahaz of another pair who disobeyed and the plan remains the same.(Gen.3:15)---and " If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established."
The last acts of Ahaz. 2Chron.28:20-25,27. "And Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not. For Ahaz took away a portion [out] of the house of the LORD, and [out] of the house of the king, and of the princes, and gave [it] unto the king of Assyria: but he helped him not. And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD: this [is that] king Ahaz.For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, [therefore] will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the LORD, and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem. And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD God of his fathers. ......And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, [even] in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead. "

7:14 has to do with the prophesied Messiah---"God with us".
8:3 has to do with the eater of "curds and honey"---"in making speed to the spoil he hasteneth to the prey". And that is what the king of assyria did.

The two kings had nothing to do with 7:14---only the son in 8:3, 18.
The "in that day" is brought to light in 7:18 when the Lord who has readied the chastizement to occur calls for the invasion and those kings hasten with speed to overflow their boundries and the borders of Judah.
The annual crops will not be grown((just briers and thorns in the land). The remnant of people in the devastated land will be sustained on milk/butter and honey.

7:14 is one of many passages related to the Messiah. Isaiah begins with a call to Repentance and ends with the redeemed of the world and the new heavens and new earth.

 

[gnostic]

The two kings had nothing to do with 7:14---only the son in 8:3

Who is the child in 7:15, if it isn't Immanuel?

15 He (child) shall eat curds and honey by the time he (child) knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

And isn't the child in 7:16 also Immanuel?

16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

Clearly the child - Immanuel - is linked to what would happen to the two kings and two kingdoms when Immanuel reached a certain age. You have to be downright stupid, to not see that!

I am certain the child that of verses 15 & 16 is Immanuel, for why else would verse 14 be part of the complete sign? No other child is named in Isaiah 7.

And I am certain that this Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz, because both speak of the ruins of two kingdoms because of the King of Assyria (7:16-17 and 8:4), when the child reached a certain age. It is the child's age that is the sign's marker of what would occur.

And the reason why I am so confident that Maher-shalal-hash-baz is Immanuel is because Immanuel appeared again in connection to the King of Assyria and to the two kings, in the following verses:

6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Again, you're context of the complete sign (7:14-17)? Why do you ignore all of Isaiah 7? Why do you keeping doing this?

You are either utterly blind (ignorant) that you can't see what's right in front you or you see it but deliberately change the meaning (which would make you utterly dishonest).

If Jesus is supposed to fulfil partial sign, then he should fulfil all the sign given in Isaiah 7. And the reason why Jesus didn't fulfil any part of the sign, including that of 7:14, because the sign was never about him.

 

[sincerly]

Who is the child in 7:15, if it isn't Immanuel?

His name will be "Mahershalalhashbaz."

And isn't the child in 7:16 also Immanuel?

His name will be "Mahershalalhashbaz."

Clearly the child - Immanuel - is linked to what would happen to the two kings and two kingdoms when Immanuel reached a certain age. You have to be downright stupid, to not see that!

The child's name that is "linked to the two kingdoms" whose aim is to vex the kingdom of Judah and place a king of their choosing there is ""Mahershalalhashbaz."
clearly that is seen in 8:18.

I am certain the child that of verses 15 & 16 is Immanuel, for why else would verse 14 be part of the complete sign? No other child is named in Isaiah 7.

Have you forgotten that "chapter and verses" were placed in the "Writings/Scriptures" many centuries later? Also, vs.14 was a sign that Isaiah was instructing Ahaz on GOD'S behalf and not just speaking on his own.
Mahershalalhashbaz's "sign" started at vs.15

And I am certain that this Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz, because both speak of the ruins of two kingdoms because of the King of Assyria (7:16-17 and 8:4), when the child reached a certain age. It is the child's age that is the sign's marker of what would occur.

And the reason why I am so confident that Maher-shalal-hash-baz is Immanuel is because Immanuel appeared again in connection to the King of Assyria and to the two kings, in the following verses:

8:7-8, "Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, [even] the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach [even] to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel. "

The basic meaning of "Immanuel" is "God with us" or "with us is God". Therefore, the plea was "GOD with us" as Assyria advances "making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey".
2Chron.28:20-25,27. "And Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not. For Ahaz took away a portion [out] of the house of the LORD, and [out] of the house of the king, and of the princes, and gave [it] unto the king of Assyria: but he helped him not. And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD: this [is that] king Ahaz.For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, [therefore] will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel.

Again, you're context of the complete sign (7:14-17)? Why do you ignore all of Isaiah 7? Why do you keeping doing this?

You are either utterly blind (ignorant) that you can't see what's right in front you or you see it but deliberately change the meaning (which would make you utterly dishonest).

If Jesus is supposed to fulfil partial sign, then he should fulfil all the sign given in Isaiah 7. And the reason why Jesus didn't fulfil any part of the sign, including that of 7:14, because the sign was never about him.

Because you are not acknowledging that which GOD has shown. Your accusations are reminisent of those of Adam and Eve. However, Isaiah's book did/does speak of the Messiah and HIS prophesied activity, but 8:2 was the son/sign for this encounter and that was-- "Mahershalalhashbaz."-

 

[gnostic]

His name will be "Mahershalalhashbaz."

Yes, the child is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, even though he is never named in Isaiah 7 by that name. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is indeed the child in 7:15-16.

Immanuel is the child that is named in Isaiah 7, and he is child who is in 7:15-16. Isaiah 7:14-17, 8:3-4 and 8:6-8 are what linked Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz together. It only make sense if Immanuel is/was Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Since Immanuel is linked to 7:14-17 and to 8:3-8, Immanuel is linked to the King of Assyria and to the two kings.

However, Isaiah's book did/does speak of the Messiah and HIS prophesied activity, but 8:2 was the son/sign for this encounter and that was-- "Mahershalalhashbaz."-

Neither Isaiah nor God explicitly speak of the messiah. The messiah is only inferred to, alluded to, but the word "messiah" is never used in the Book of Isaiah, or any other book in the OT. We both know that messiah means "anointed one". The only person that is referred to as the "anointed" is Cyrus of Persia; this is found in Isaiah 45:

Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped
to subdue nations before him
and strip kings of their robes,
to open doors before him—
and the gates shall not be closed:

But Cyrus is long after Isaiah's time or the time of the sign, so this chapter is no doubt a later addition, not written by Isaiah, and written after the Exile.

So, Cyrus is a non-Jewish king, seemingly "anointed", hence could be the messiah.

Isaiah 7:14, however, say nothing about the messiah. Messiah is not even alluded to.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes, the child is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, even though he is never named in Isaiah 7 by that name. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is indeed the child in 7:15-16.

Immanuel is the child that is named in Isaiah 7, and he is child who is in 7:15-16. Isaiah 7:14-17, 8:3-4 and 8:6-8 are what linked Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz together. It only make sense if Immanuel is/was Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Since Immanuel is linked to 7:14-17 and to 8:3-8, Immanuel is linked to the King of Assyria and to the two kings.



Neither Isaiah nor God explicitly speak of the messiah. The messiah is only inferred to, alluded to, but the word "messiah" is never used in the Book of Isaiah, or any other book in the OT. We both know that messiah means "anointed one". The only person that is referred to as the "anointed" is Cyrus of Persia; this is found in Isaiah 45:



But Cyrus is long after Isaiah's time or the time of the sign, so this chapter is no doubt a later addition, not written by Isaiah, and written after the Exile.

So, Cyrus is a non-Jewish king, seemingly "anointed", hence could be the messiah.

Isaiah 7:14, however, say nothing about the messiah. Messiah is not even alluded to.

The gospel writers lifted lines out of their ancient scriptures, what we refer to as the OT. The idea was to rewrite ancient stories in order to reflect the current times, the method is called midrash and it has been brought up on this thread already. That is what is going on here and there are many examples of it.

 

[CG Didymus]

The gospel writers lifted lines out of their ancient scriptures, what we refer to as the OT. The idea was to rewrite ancient stories in order to reflect the current times, the method is called midrash and it has been brought up on this thread already. That is what is going on here and there are many examples of it.

Lines get lifted by a lot of people. Early Christians "lifted" lines out of Isaiah to come up with Lucifer from the Morning Star and Satan out of the Prince and King of Tyre. They came up with lines that made Mary immaculately concepted and Jesus as God. Protestants took some of those "doctrines" and added a few of their own, but different sects and denominations pick and choose different things. We have to check it out for ourselves and figure out who is right or more right since Christianity does change over time.

What I'm questioning is--Did Matthew do the same thing? Of course he is considered "inspired" now, but the people that first proclaimed that so were very much related to the same Church fathers that evolved into the Catholic Church, whom the Protestants say made a lot of mistakes in creating their version of Christianity. Could they have been wrong about Matthew? Was it even Matthew that wrote it? Since many people in that day believed that being born half human half god to be normal, did Matthew make it up? And the big question, do believers ask themselves the really hard questions or do they block doubts and questions from their mind? Are we believing in the reality of Jesus or the legend of Jesus? I'm not sure. What do you think?

 

[sincerly]

Yes, the child is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, even though he is never named in Isaiah 7 by that name. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is indeed the child in 7:15-16.

Immanuel is the child that is named in Isaiah 7, and he is child who is in 7:15-16. Isaiah 7:14-17, 8:3-4 and 8:6-8 are what linked Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz together. It only make sense if Immanuel is/was Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Since Immanuel is linked to 7:14-17 and to 8:3-8, Immanuel is linked to the King of Assyria and to the two kings.

Not "since" that is your interpolation---Just as with your JPS interpertation of "almah" meaning "with child".
"Maher-shalal-hash-baz" was introduced in Chapter eight and specifically is linked to the Prophetess and the kings as seen in 8:18.
7:14 is related to Ahaz's belief in what Isaiah has told Ahaz in regards to it isn't going to happen.-----Which the context and 2Kings confirmed Ahaz as disbelieved by seeking help from Assyria.

Neither Isaiah nor God explicitly speak of the messiah. The messiah is only inferred to, alluded to, but the word "messiah" is never used in the Book of Isaiah, or any other book in the OT. We both know that messiah means "anointed one". The only person that is referred to as the "anointed" is Cyrus of Persia; this is found in Isaiah 45:
"Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;"

But Cyrus is long after Isaiah's time or the time of the sign, so this chapter is no doubt a later addition, not written by Isaiah, and written after the Exile.

Gnostic, your: "The messiah is only inferred to, alluded to, but the word "messiah" is never used in the Book of Isaiah, or any other book in the OT. We both know that messiah means "anointed one". The only person that is referred to as the "anointed" is Cyrus of Persia; this is found in Isaiah 45:" is only partly true. Thanks for acknowledging there is a "Messiah" in the scriptures. The word "Messiah" is used twice in Daniel.9:24-25.(more later)
Yes, Isaiah's vision extended to Hezekiah, the last king of Judah when the Israelites went into Babylonian captivity.
Yes, GOD prophesied and called Cyrus by name as HIS "anointed" to free the Israelites from that captivity. You should read more of those chapters and the "I Will"---future happnings.
Isa. 55:11, "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it."

The Hebrew word "Mashach"/"Mashiyach" does mean "anointed one". It is seen 39 times and was conferred upon Priests, Prophets, Kings, places and things.
Daniel 9:24-27, reads, "
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

It was all done on time and Jesus is/was the Messiah designated in agreement with other of Isaiah's prophecies.

So, Cyrus is a non-Jewish king, seemingly "anointed", hence could be the messiah.

Isaiah 7:14, however, say nothing about the messiah. Messiah is not even alluded to.

Daniel specified the time of the real Messiah's arrival.
Disbelief in that which GOD has said is a sign.(Ahaz as a professing believer of GOD's should have known.)

 

[steeltoes]

Lines get lifted by a lot of people. Early Christians "lifted" lines out of Isaiah to come up with Lucifer from the Morning Star and Satan out of the Prince and King of Tyre. They came up with lines that made Mary immaculately concepted and Jesus as God. Protestants took some of those "doctrines" and added a few of their own, but different sects and denominations pick and choose different things. We have to check it out for ourselves and figure out who is right or more right since Christianity does change over time.

What I'm questioning is--Did Matthew do the same thing? Of course he is considered "inspired" now, but the people that first proclaimed that so were very much related to the same Church fathers that evolved into the Catholic Church, whom the Protestants say made a lot of mistakes in creating their version of Christianity. Could they have been wrong about Matthew? Was it even Matthew that wrote it? Since many people in that day believed that being born half human half god to be normal, did Matthew make it up? And the big question, do believers ask themselves the really hard questions or do they block doubts and questions from their mind? Are we believing in the reality of Jesus or the legend of Jesus? I'm not sure. What do you think?

.



I think that all we have is a story and that the gospel writers were creative. Was Jesus modeled after Isaiah's suffering servant? It appears so. According to this wiki article: "The passage of 'Isaiah 53' is known for its interpretation and use by Christian Theologians and Missionaries, many of whom identify the servant to be Christ Jesus. Many Christians view the entire chapter, and particularly this passage to refer to the Passion of Christ as well as the absolution of sins believed to be made possible by his sacrificial death." Isaiah 53 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Poisonshady313]

Neither Isaiah nor God explicitly speak of the messiah. The messiah is only inferred to, alluded to, but the word "messiah" is never used in the Book of Isaiah, or any other book in the OT. We both know that messiah means "anointed one". The only person that is referred to as the "anointed" is Cyrus of Persia; this is found in Isaiah 45:



But Cyrus is long after Isaiah's time or the time of the sign, so this chapter is no doubt a later addition, not written by Isaiah, and written after the Exile.

So, Cyrus is a non-Jewish king, seemingly "anointed", hence could be the messiah.

Isaiah 7:14, however, say nothing about the messiah. Messiah is not even alluded to.

Slow down there, chief...

In the Tanach, moshiach (anointed/messiah) is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Though it is worth pointing out that not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah.

 

[gnostic]

*

Not "since" that is your interpolation---

What in the bl@#dy hell are you talking about "since"?

Just as with your JPS interpertation of "almah" meaning "with child".

Now you are pi$$ing me off, because you putting words off in my mouth.

Are you illiterate?

I never said that almah means "with child".

I kept saying that almah mean "young woman", time and time again. :banghead3: Are you an illiterate fool. :jester3:

You say "virgin", but I say "young woman".*


The simple fact that almah only means "young woman", it say nothing about the status of virginity.

Where it say "...will conceive and give birth to a son, and" in NIV or "...shall conceive, and bear a son, and..." in KJV, both NRSV says "...is with child and shall bear a son, and...", and JPS writes "...is with child and about to give birth to a son.".

Noticed the red parts from each translation. Where it say "shall conceive" or "will conceive", when actual fact both NRSV and JPS state "is with a child". That's where "is a child" come from, not directly from almah.

So to drive that in your illiterate brains of yours, almah means "young woman", not "is with a child".

 

[sincerly]

Slow down there, chief...

In the Tanach, moshiach (anointed/messiah) is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Though it is worth pointing out that not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah.

Hi PS, I know that it is contrary to what you want it to say, but you have failed to acknowledge Gabriel's being sent by the LORD to inform Daniel of the matter---""Unto the Messiah the prince"--- the same Gabriel who informed Mary that she was to be the long awaited mother of the "SEED" declared by GOD in Gen.3:15.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I am happy to oblige. no doubt there are some in Christian circles who see the devil behind everything. I believe that is contrary to reality. Yoga tends to be guilty by association. It is associated with Hinduism which isn't Christianity and therfore to be avoided. The demonic aspect would be to get too friendly with gods spiritually which invites the possibility of recieving a demon. If one can do yoga without the relgious baggage, I suspect it has physical benefits. I use breathing exercises while I exercise and it helps but I don't associate the breathing exercises with religion so I don't have any baggage.

There's something wrong with being wrong? Everyone makes mistakes including me and I am happy to find out that I am wrong so that I can correct my thinking. Howwever people who always have to be right even when they are not never learn anything.

I think that smacks of hogwash. I believe the whole concpet of myth is that one can't really know what happened so to say that something couldn't have happened is just as stupid as to insist it did.

I believe that when God speaks it is more than a story except when He says He is telling a story. This places the writing in a different category from myth where the truth can't be known because there is no doubt in my mind that God knows the truth.

I believe that is a preposterous statement. I don't believe one can know how people thought in the past. I also don't believe everyone thought the same way any more than that happens today. What shall we say, that Pasteur was just as superstitious as the people of his day who believed disease was caused by vapors? I don't believe people are finding natural causes but are attributing natural causes whether it is realistic to do so or not. For instance there are those in our day who say that people who are healed had a spontaneous recovery. They wish to attribute a natural cause to a supernatural event but that does not mean that they are right.

If Matthew had taken something out of context I could see the point but I believe that is not the case. However I do see people taking Isaiah out of context to refute Matthew.

I don't beleive it is a question of what I think but of what God actually said. You can think that but in my opinion it is not logical. No one in the day of Jesus is going to know about the virgin birth because it won't be written until they are dead. I believe that God does not lie and that the virgin birth took place just as Isaiah predicted it would.

 

[CG Didymus]

If Matthew had taken something out of context I could see the point but I believe that is not the case. However I do see people taking Isaiah out of context to refute Matthew.

I don't beleive it is a question of what I think but of what God actually said. You can think that but in my opinion it is not logical. No one in the day of Jesus is going to know about the virgin birth because it won't be written until they are dead. I believe that God does not lie and that the virgin birth took place just as Isaiah predicted it would.

Thanks for the green. On the question of who took who out of context. Even if the woman was a virgin and never had sex with a man and conceived and gave birth to a son, the context of Isaiah chapter seven goes on to talk about the boy, what he will do and what will happen when he gets older. In context, how does that describe the Messiah or Jesus? Plus, it would make a woman in Isaiah's time a first virgin before Mary. So logically that can't be right. So logically, the woman in Isaiah's time wasn't a virgin, the verses are not about the Messiah, but, were about the child and what would happen to the two kings.

On your point about the people not knowing about the virgin birth until the gospels got written brings up a good question: When did the virgin birth story start getting told? It didn't come out until after Jesus was gone to heaven? Why didn't Mark, John, Paul or Peter talk about it? But since Greek and Romans had stories of their gods having sex with humans, why couldn't a "myth" be fabricated to create the "legend" of Jesus the God/man? That would be pretty impressive. Look at what it does today, it is still impressive. But, did it really happen? Can we know how people thought in those days? Did they make up stories to embellish the truth about their history? We still make legends out of our heroes by bending the truth a little.

 

[sincerly]

On the question of who took who out of context. Even if the woman was a virgin and never had sex with a man and conceived and gave birth to a son, the context of Isaiah chapter seven goes on to talk about the boy, what he will do and what will happen when he gets older.(/quote]

Hi CG D, What is "out of context" is the thinking 7:14 and 8:3 are the same sign. 7:7 says the two kingdom's "evil counsel" would NOT "come to pass".
However,Assyria would be the "Mahershalalhashbaz" (sign 8:18) which overflows his bounderies and speedily goes for the spoil/booty. (8:4,7)

7:14 is a sign because of Ahaz's disbelief. A Sign AhAZ SHOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH already.

A woman's ova by itself doesn't become fertile---therefore, couldn't naturally conceive and bear a son. Mary was made "pregnant" by the Holy Spirit--fulfilling the Gen.3:15 prophecy and that with the "SON OF GOD"---JESUS.

The unbelief and rebellion of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah wouldn't prevent that from occuring. In 9:6-7, Isaiah expresses more concerning that 7:14 Child(whose birth is still many years in the future. And Isaiah isn't finished speaking futuristically concerning Jesus and the culmination of all things.)

In context, how does that describe the Messiah or Jesus? Plus, it would make a woman in Isaiah's time a first virgin before Mary. So logically that can't be right. So logically, the woman in Isaiah's time wasn't a virgin, the verses are not about the Messiah, but, were about the child and what would happen to the two kings.

Very nicely!--GOD with us. No! HIS/that birth didn't occur during Isaiah's time---but was prophesied by Isaiah. The Child born to the Prophetess was the Sign in regards to the King of Assyria's conquest and Isaiah already had one son.

On your point about the people not knowing about the virgin birth until the gospels got written brings up a good question: When did the virgin birth story start getting told? It didn't come out until after Jesus was gone to heaven? Why didn't Mark, John, Paul or Peter talk about it? But since Greek and Romans had stories of their gods having sex with humans, why couldn't a "myth" be fabricated to create the "legend" of Jesus the God/man? That would be pretty impressive. Look at what it does today, it is still impressive. But, did it really happen? Can we know how people thought in those days? Did they make up stories to embellish the truth about their history? We still make legends out of our heroes by bending the truth a little.

NO! GOD isn't man who finds it convient to LIE ever since the disobedience experience in Eden.

The Birth of "A"/The Messiah was looked for from Gen.3:15. Prophesied as the "Lamb to take away the sins of the world". John 1: gives acknowledgment of the Messiah's being looked for by the people before Jesus came to be Baptized and the "Wisemen" paid homage at Jesus Birth. and they got their information from Daniel's prophecies and captivity 500 years earlier.

Luke1:1-4 and Paul(1Cor.10:6,11) answer you question, That you might know the certainty of those things, which you have been instructed.(paraphrased)
written examples which happened to them and for our admonition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

It's a creative re-interpretation of Judaism, as is every other time the New Testament quotes the Hebrew traditions. Christianity was a new religion. If it interpreted things the same way as it always had been interpreted, Christianity would be an old religion and there would be no "New" testament.

And the following reasoning is completely irrelevant, "how are you different than other religions and cults that take verses out of context to prove their views" -- because if Christianity recycled the same interpretation, then you could criticize them for being no "different than other religions and cults."

 

[gnostic]

It's a creative re-interpretation of Judaism, as is every other time the New Testament quotes the Hebrew traditions. Christianity was a new religion. If it interpreted things the same way as it always had been interpreted, Christianity would be an old religion and there would be no "New" testament.

Now that's a far more sensible view than I got from either Sincerly and Muffled.

Here have a frubal, A_E. Please ration your frubals, for who know when Armageddon will come.

Yes, I can accept that Christians (including the author of Matthew's gospel, whoever he may be) had reinterpret the Hebrew scriptures, including Isaiah 7:14 passage.

But other Christians should realized that Matthew had changed the meaning of this verse. The way they read, it no longer part of Isaiah 7 (chapter) or have anything relating to the event occurring in Isaiah (book) and the book of Kings (2).

The problem here, is that the Christians might else redacted the entire chapter(s) from their Old Testament Bible, and just kept ONLY VERSES that they think related to Jesus, because everything else is no longer Hebrew Bible.

I can accept that Christian traditions are not the Hebrew/Jewish traditions. I can accept that Christians have their own belief system, which include Jesus being the messiah, the miracles he performed, the sermons & parables he taught, and his death and resurrection.

That's not problem for me.

My problem is that Christians, like Muffled and Sincerly won't admit that passages that they interpret to be Jesus the Messiah is no longer Hebrew scriptures, because they have selectively changed the original context of those passages.

I know the Christian interpretation to Isaiah 7:14, that Jesus is Immanuel and that Mary is the "virgin". I had even this view, years before I even recheck to see if it is so (and my view had changed).

Before my view had changed, I didn't check if Matthew's claim to be true and didn't reread Isaiah 7, because I had taken his claim at face value. I am more thorough in my reading now then when I was younger, so I often check sources, And I take the precaution of reading more than just a single verse; I reread whole chapter to see how the verse fit in with the rest of the chapter.

They stubbornly and blindly refused to see that there was an original context that the partial sign related to Ahaz and Judah, and the 3 kings (Israel, Aram and Assyria). They also refused to see that the sign (Isaiah 7:14) is only a partial sign to the whole sign - which is Isaiah 7:14-17.

Until they admit that there is even Hebrew scriptures with Hebrew-Jewish contexts, as being separate from Christian contexts and Christian interpretations, then we are going to go round in circle.

I can accept your statement that I had quoted from your reply, and be quite happy to leave at that. But as long as they don't see that their way are not the only way to interpret Isaiah 7, I will stay maintain my side of the argument as being more than equally valid to their.

And I don't think CG Didymus is wrong. Matthew did take the verse (7:14) out of context, not only with that verse, but with the rest of the chapter too. But Sincerly and Muffled don't see that...or they refused to see it. And there lay, our problems.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And I don't think CG Didymus is wrong. Matthew did take the verse (7:14) out of context, not only with that verse, but with the rest of the chapter too. But Sincerly and Muffled don't see that...or they refused to see it. And there lay, our problems.

I don't that Didymus is wrong, either. I think that he's asking the wrong question.

For example, do you really think that "context" mattered in ancient Jewish/Christian (the time period we're talking about) or even rabbinic exegesis?

Matthew's interpretation is completely legitimate within his context.

 

[CG Didymus]

...I think that he's asking the wrong question.

For example, do you really think that "context" mattered in ancient Jewish/Christian (the time period we're talking about) or even rabbinic exegesis?

What is the "right" question? My question revolves around Christians that claim to take the Bible as literal and require people to take it in context. Yet, when it comes to using the Hebrew Scriptures as proofs of Jesus being the Messiah. They take things out of context themselves. With Matthew, we have a gospel writer that weaves his story around partial quotes like he would be "called" out of Egypt, "Rachel weeping for her children, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

If there wasn't problems with what the Hebrew Scriptures really said and what Christians tell us they say, then why wouldn't all of us believe? There are issues. If a man really was born of a virgin, healed the sick and raised the dead and then rose from the dead, why wouldn't we all fall on our knees and accept him as God? There are reasons to doubt. It's not just that we love darkness. It's not that we must be blind and refuse to see. Many of us tried to be Christian. I was raised Catholic--was I right to question it and eventually leave it? I was taught a non-denominational, fundamentalist form of Christianity. Were they right? A Pentecostal friend said "No." She said they don't believe in the "full-gospel." They don't believe in "tongues" and some of the other "gifts."

Catholics, Orthodox, and all the Protestants use the Bible to prove their case. Which one is right? Or, is their source the problem? Is it too vague on too many issues? Is there too many ways to interpret the Bible? How accurate are these "eyewitnesses" that told their stories to the gospel writers? Are contradictory things going on in the gospels? It seems like it. So, what are the "right" questions to be asking?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous
...I think that he's asking the wrong question.

For example, do you really think that "context" mattered in ancient Jewish/Christian (the time period we're talking about) or even rabbinic exegesis?

What is the "right" question? My question revolves around Christians that claim to take the Bible as literal and require people to take it in context. Yet, when it comes to using the Hebrew Scriptures as proofs of Jesus being the Messiah. They take things out of context themselves. With Matthew, we have a gospel writer that weaves his story around partial quotes like he would be "called" out of Egypt, "Rachel weeping for her children, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Hi CG D, I have sat at the computer on several previous occasions intending to comment on this thread, but never came to the point of pressing the "send button".
Jesus said to those doubting Jewish leaders of HIS Time, "...if you had believed Moses, you would believe me"...
There was nothing wrong with the information/instructions which GOD gave to those people which were called out of Egyptian bondage. Those were the principles which Jesus taught for 3 1/2 years and died on the cross to fulfill those HE CAME TO FULFILL as the Redeeming Savior of Mankind.
Those are the same Scriptures/Principles which Paul and the rest of the Disciples were asked to "Go ye and teach/Preach" to the entire world.
That was the Mission which those called out of Egypt, as Abraham's descendants(Israelites) were originally to share with all of earth's population. That is why it is called the "Everlasting Gospel". (Heb.4:2)

Therefore, the correct question should have been---"Why didn't the Jewish Leaders acknowledge the Messiah? OR "Why is it so hard to Believe GOD when evidence was presented to human beings through-out the ages from Creation even to today?

If there wasn't problems with what the Hebrew Scriptures really said and what Christians tell us they say, then why wouldn't all of us believe? There are issues. If a man really was born of a virgin, healed the sick and raised the dead and then rose from the dead, why wouldn't we all fall on our knees and accept him as God? There are reasons to doubt. It's not just that we love darkness. It's not that we must be blind and refuse to see. Many of us tried to be Christian. I was raised Catholic--was I right to question it and eventually leave it? I was taught a non-denominational, fundamentalist form of Christianity. Were they right? A Pentecostal friend said "No." She said they don't believe in the "full-gospel." They don't believe in "tongues" and some of the other "gifts."

CG D, Where did GOD say one would find HIM? You have eliminated three, but have you taken the "Source of Truth" as the standard by which all other information is assessed? As Jesus said, "Search the Scriptures" and Paul attested, "They searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so."

Catholics, Orthodox, and all the Protestants use the Bible to prove their case. Which one is right? Or, is their source the problem? Is it too vague on too many issues? Is there too many ways to interpret the Bible? How accurate are these "eyewitnesses" that told their stories to the gospel writers? Are contradictory things going on in the gospels? It seems like it. So, what are the "right" questions to be asking?

The "seems like it" is the problem with "conclusions" which are twisted by one in an effort to continue to doubt and not obey-----even that one Commandment which James assures if one is disobedient to is just as fatal as not obeying any of them.

The Question to be asked of self is "Is my Creator GOD satisfied with me?" OR as others have stated, "Is The Bible and all in it a Myth?"

 

[John Martin]

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?

There is no point of arguing whether Mathew takes Chapter 7 of Isaiah out of context. What is important is whether the symbol of virgin birth has any relevance for our spiritual life. The concept of virginity is an archetypal symbol, which has a universal value. Virginity is not necessarily physical but also spiritual. Spiritually a virgin is one who discontinues the God of the past and gives birth to the God of eternity, the God of now. The God of the past divides humanity and desires continuity. In this vision the present is not free but serves the past. The past uses the present in order to go to the future. It means the present is not original, not creative. A spiritual virgin is one who discontinues the past makes the present free and original. it gives birth to the God of today. The God of today unites humanity. A spiritual virgin also says' my life is not my life but God's life, my actions are not my actions but God's actions and my children are not my children but God's children'. The Child or the truth born of a virgin breaks down all the barriers and creates one God, one creation and one humanity. Christmas is not happened only one's in the past it has to happen each moment of one's life. If the physical parents are able to say, 'our children are not our children but God's children' they become virgin parents. if a person says' my actions are not my actions but God's actions' then that person becomes a virgin parent. That is the celebration of Christmas. Jesus said, 'the works which I do are not my own but the Father who dwells in me does his works'. A spiritual virgin experiences God a Emmanuel, God within. Every person one day has to become a spiritual virgin. Mary and Joseph were only foster parents to Jesus. Jesus was God's child. Mary and Joseph were like nannies for God's child. Mary giving birth without Joseph is the symbol of freedom from the continuity of the past and giving birth from eternity.
Every human being(not only women but also men) is invited to become a spiritual virgin. Physical virginity is only a symbol for spiritual virginity. without becoming spiritually a virgin no one can give birth to God in the soul, no one can give birth to Emmanuel.
Hence even if Mathew used it out of context we can make it relevant for our spiritual life today.