Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Muffled]

Two things have to happen for the Christian that wants to use Isaiah 7:14. The girl has to get herself pregnant without sexual intercourse and, second, the "is with child" has to change so that the event didn't happen in Isaiah's time but in Jesus' time. In context a young girl with child works as a sign. For the Christian they have to be creative in making this one verse prophetic and then disregard the context. For the Jew it seems crazy to think that for 700 years you had a prophecy about the Messiah being born of a virgin, in Bethlehem, then going to Egypt, while boys two years old and younger were being killed by Herod's men and then, when it all happened, according to "prophecy," you didn't believe he was the true Messiah? How would that make any sense? Or, Matthew cherry-picked verses and created "prophesies"? Thanks for your input. CG

So how does one know which one of the thousands of girls pregnant was bearing "God with us." I believe there is no context to say that there is one. If there was supporting evidence for Isaiah's son he would fit the context but there isn't any.

 

[sincerly]

I use the New American Standard but for on-line references I use The American Standard because I can get it on my computer for free.

Hi Muffled, FYI, you may look into/try www.blueletterbible.com which is free and one has access to many versions and other features.

 

[gnostic]

So how does one know which one of the thousands of girls pregnant was bearing "God with us."

By reading the next 3 verses in Isaiah 7 - Isaiah 7:14-17.

That's the complete sign - 7:14-17.

Matthew (or whoever the real author is) had only quoted one verse.

And then you would have to compare this (complete) sign with the rest of the chapter 7. 7:1-13 showed that Ahaz and his kingdom, Judah, was in trouble (with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram), hence God's sign of reassurance. The sign also revealed the role that the King of Assyria would play in this crisis (7:14-25).

The identities of woman (almah in 7:14) and child (Immanuel in 7:14-16) are revealed to be Isaiah's own wife (the unnamed prophetess) and child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) in 8:1-8.

Isaiah 7 (the complete chapter) can be divided to 2 main parts:

1. Isaiah reassuring Ahaz over the crisis, which included the sign - Isaiah 7:1-17.
2. Isaiah's symbolic description of Assyria (or its king, which is revealed to be 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-9, a contemporary of Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and Isaiah) - Isaiah 7:18-25.

Are you saying that centuries after is not after? I believe that would be illogical.

Sure it is after. But the sign 7:14-17 is about the child reaching a certain age (7:15 and 7:16) when the crisis with Aram and Israel are resolved.

By the time of Jesus, there were no kingdoms of Israel, Aram or an empire called Assyria.

I don't know why you are struggling to grasp reading these chapters from start (verse 1 for Isaiah 7 & 8) to finish (verse 25 for Isaiah 7, verse 22 for Isaiah 8), and seeing how they are all related.

It is too late for Jesus to fulfill Isaiah 7:14-17.

You are forgetting Isaiah 8:5-8, in which Immanuel's name reappeared again, in connection with Rezin, son of Remaliah (which is Pekah) and the King of Assyria.

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before[c] 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.

Jesus isn't contemporary to these 3 kings (mentioned in 8:6-7 or 8:3-4 or 7:1-17), but this child (Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz; they are one and the same) is.

Try reading Isaiah 7 & 8, and not just one verse 7:14 while excluding everything else. When I see a Christian selective read a verse while ignoring the entire chapter, I find that person being dishonest with their readings and interpretations.

I use the New American Standard but for on-line references I use The American Standard becasue I can get it on my computer for free.

That's NASB isn't it?

Have you tried the Biblegateway?

It includes NASB, NIV, NRSV, KJV and many more, including the bible in foreign languages.

But when reading the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament), I preferred the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation, also known as NJPS or New JPS.

NJPS relied on the Hebrew Masoretic Text to based their translation on, and not one the Greek LXX.

While KJV also relied on Masoretic Text, it often used the Greek Septuagint Bible (LXX). The KJV translators should have used the Hebrew text instead of Greek translation for Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew would have also used Septuagint instead of texts written Hebrew. I believed that the LXX translators had mistranslated ha'almah harah. And KJV compounded this mistranslation by relying on mixture of Hebrew and Greek in a single chapter, instead of just using one.

Some modern translations, like NIV and NASB continued to make the same mistakes as the KJV translators did.

In Hebrew, the meaning for harah can have both singular masculine verb (eg. "to conceive", "will conceive" or "shall conceive") and singular feminine adjective (eg "is pregnant").

Since almah is a singular feminine noun, then harah should also have a feminine voice. Hence when these two words are used together, then the English translations should be something like these "young woman is pregnant" or "pregnant young woman".

Or ha'almah harah can accurately translated to "young woman with child".

Look, I had created a new topic some weeks ago, concentrating on the word harah than on almah. This topic include my reasoning and comparison of the word harah being used in other biblical verses, like Genesis 16:11 for instance. See ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant".

 

[sincerly]

By reading the next 3 verses in Isaiah 7 - Isaiah 7:14-17.

That's the complete sign - 7:14-17.

Matthew (or whoever the real author is) had only quoted one verse.

Hi Gnostic, Matthew was associated with the "Child/SON" this verse alluded to for 3 1/2 years. and that whole first Chapter was bringing together for the Jewish Community the fulfillment of the Beliefs/promises given by GOD for their understanding. Matt.1:16, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
In that 3 1/2 years, the affimation was made by those disciples that Jesus was ,indeed, the "SON of the Living GOD" Whom they believed and worshiped.
Matt.16:16. "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". (see also, Matt.14:33; 27:54; Mark3:11; 11:1; 15:39 John 1:34, 49; 11:27)

Matthew1:17 brings in this time frame of Isaiah's writing(7:14) "So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations. "

Daniel(9-25-27), who was in that Babylonian captivity, gave this prophetic announcement concerning that Birth ----which the "wise men of the east" understood and the Jewish leaders rejected. "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,..."

Matthew recorded correctly and the Magi and some Jewish persons were "seeking" because of the Scriptures and John the Baptist was preaching---"we have found".

And then you would have to compare this (complete) sign with the rest of the chapter 7. 7:1-13 showed that Ahaz and his kingdom, Judah, was in trouble (with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram), hence God's sign of reassurance. The sign also revealed the role that the King of Assyria would play in this crisis (7:14-25).

Gnostic, the phrase "GOD with us" isn't limited to Isaiah---Nor is the Israelites problems with the surrounding nations.Just as the Roman Empire broke up so had the Israelite kingdom---Northern and the Southern--- as the prophets had warned and both rejected the prophets.

The whole book of Isaiah is concerning the warning and the ultimate of HOPE in repenting. (which didn't happen and captivity was assured----But 66:21-23 speaks of a new earth and new heavens---still future-- which will include believers form all nations.)
Ahaz was reminded as a sign(Gen.3:15; Isa.7:14) if he believed in the GOD(The Creator) who he claimed yet refused to believe instead of other men(Assyria) for strength and help.(8:20)

The identities of woman (almah in 7:14) and child (Immanuel in 7:14-16) are revealed to be Isaiah's own wife (the unnamed prophetess) and child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) in 8:1-8.

No Gnostic, the Scriptures Do not reveal that which you claim---that is your eisegesis. The son of the prophetess is NOT the "GOD WITH US", but the "In making speed to the spoil, he hasteneth the prey".----- seen in "the riches of Damacus and the spoil fo Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." and then continue throughout Judea. GOD is only with the Obedient remnant who go into captivity as directed because of their disobedience.

Isaiah has other passages related to this same virgin born child.
Isaiah acknowledged(8:18) that he and his sons are the signs relating to the kingdoms about them with aggressive motivations.

Look, I had created a new topic some weeks ago, concentrating on the word harah than on almah. This topic include my reasoning and comparison of the word harah being used in other biblical verses, like Genesis 16:11 for instance. See ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant".

Yes, you did, and it still is faulty exegesis and a lot of eisegesis.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, the phrase "GOD with us" isn't limited to Isaiah---Nor is the Israelites problems with the surrounding nations.Just as the Roman Empire broke up so had the Israelite kingdom---Northern and the Southern--- as the prophets had warned and both rejected the prophets.

Which is really after the fact.

Judah and Israel were already divided into 2 kingdoms, by the time of Isaiah and the other prophets. All the prophets from Isaiah to Daniel were writing during the division or after the fall of Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE (in the case of Jeremiah and Daniel).

They have predicting anything that didn't already happen.

The whole book of Isaiah is concerning the warning and the ultimate of HOPE in repenting. (which didn't happen and captivity was assured----But 66:21-23 speaks of a new earth and new heavens---still future-- which will include believers form all nations.)

And if you read the Book of Isaiah properly, then you would see that Isaiah was often speaking of Jacob, whose other name - Israel - became the eponymous name of either the 12 tribes or that of northern kingdom.

The whole repenting and warning related to Jacob/Israel or to the nation (again either of the 12 tribes or the northern kingdom of Israel), not to the invention of the new religion, which increasingly had less Jewish blood by the end of 1st century CE.

Christianity became religion, more for the gentile than for the Jews or Israelite. So Isaiah's prophecies in his book have been rendered largely useless, by the Christians.

The Christians have largely discarded most of prophecies, signs and warnings, but keeping just a little over one handful of verses of Isaiah's, which they have distorted, most notably Isaiah 7:14 and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (52-) 53.

No Gnostic, the Scriptures Do not reveal that which you claim---that is your eisegesis.

And yours is not a distorted exegesis?

That's truly double-standard and self-denial.

You claimed that I am using exegesis, but you are doing the same thing, and doing a poor job at it.

To say or claim that Immanuel has nothing to do with the 4 kings (Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the king of Assyria) and their respective kingdoms, is be in self-denial. To ignore 3 out of the 4 verses (Isaiah 7:14-17) in the sign, is nothing short of dishonest exegesis.

Everything you have written in this topic (and similar threads) is nothing more than your opinion, your belief and your own pathetic attempt at exegesis.

What do you think you're doing when you're trying to connect 4 selected but unrelated verses, in 4 different books (Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:22-23 and Revelation-something), into one thing about the supposed messiah.

Is that not exegesis, then what is it?

BTW, please write "exegesis", not "eisegesis". It's damn annoying that you don't spell "exegesis" right, when you try to use this word in your posts, here and elsewhere.

 

[Muffled]

Hi Muffled, FYI, you may look into/try www.blueletterbible.com which is free and one has access to many versions and other features.

The ASV isn't that bad and I grew up on KJV so the language difference isn't a difficulty for me.

I could get the NASB for a price and the same goes for the "blue" site but I can't see bothering looking stuff up on that site when there isn't much difference.

 

[Muffled]

By reading the next 3 verses in Isaiah 7 - Isaiah 7:14-17.

That's the complete sign - 7:14-17.

Matthew (or whoever the real author is) had only quoted one verse.

And then you would have to compare this (complete) sign with the rest of the chapter 7. 7:1-13 showed that Ahaz and his kingdom, Judah, was in trouble (with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram), hence God's sign of reassurance. The sign also revealed the role that the King of Assyria would play in this crisis (7:14-25).

The identities of woman (almah in 7:14) and child (Immanuel in 7:14-16) are revealed to be Isaiah's own wife (the unnamed prophetess) and child (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) in 8:1-8.


Isaiah 7 (the complete chapter) can be divided to 2 main parts:

1. Isaiah reassuring Ahaz over the crisis, which included the sign - Isaiah 7:1-17.
2. Isaiah's symbolic description of Assyria (or its king, which is revealed to be 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-9, a contemporary of Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and Isaiah) - Isaiah 7:18-25.

Sure it is after. But the sign 7:14-17 is about the child reaching a certain age (7:15 and 7:16) when the crisis with Aram and Israel are resolved.

By the time of Jesus, there were no kingdoms of Israel, Aram or an empire called Assyria.

I don't know why you are struggling to grasp reading these chapters from start (verse 1 for Isaiah 7 & 8) to finish (verse 25 for Isaiah 7, verse 22 for Isaiah 8), and seeing how they are all related.

It is too late for Jesus to fulfill Isaiah 7:14-17.

You are forgetting Isaiah 8:5-8, in which Immanuel's name reappeared again, in connection with Rezin, son of Remaliah (which is Pekah) and the King of Assyria.



Jesus isn't contemporary to these 3 kings (mentioned in 8:6-7 or 8:3-4 or 7:1-17), but this child (Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz; they are one and the same) is.

Try reading Isaiah 7 & 8, and not just one verse 7:14 while excluding everything else. When I see a Christian selective read a verse while ignoring the entire chapter, I find that person being dishonest with their readings and interpretations.



That's NASB isn't it?

Have you tried the Biblegateway?

It includes NASB, NIV, NRSV, KJV and many more, including the bible in foreign languages.

But when reading the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament), I preferred the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation, also known as NJPS or New JPS.

NJPS relied on the Hebrew Masoretic Text to based their translation on, and not one the Greek LXX.

While KJV also relied on Masoretic Text, it often used the Greek Septuagint Bible (LXX). The KJV translators should have used the Hebrew text instead of Greek translation for Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew would have also used Septuagint instead of texts written Hebrew. I believed that the LXX translators had mistranslated ha'almah harah. And KJV compounded this mistranslation by relying on mixture of Hebrew and Greek in a single chapter, instead of just using one.

Some modern translations, like NIV and NASB continued to make the same mistakes as the KJV translators did.

In Hebrew, the meaning for harah can have both singular masculine verb (eg. "to conceive", "will conceive" or "shall conceive") and singular feminine adjective (eg "is pregnant").

Since almah is a singular feminine noun, then harah should also have a feminine voice. Hence when these two words are used together, then the English translations should be something like these "young woman is pregnant" or "pregnant young woman".

Or ha'almah harah can accurately translated to "young woman with child".

Look, I had created a new topic some weeks ago, concentrating on the word harah than on almah. This topic include my reasoning and comparison of the word harah being used in other biblical verses, like Genesis 16:11 for instance. See ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant".

I believe you are in error on this. Yahweh had already given Ahaz reassurance. And Ahaz in effect said it was enough. However God was not giving a sign to Ahaz but to the house of David which does not limit it to the present time: Isa 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:

There is no biblical evidence for this.

I believe that fits the concept of the prophecy.

I have no struggle. I believe Jesus is in me pointing out erroneous views.

I believe there is no evidence that it is too late.

I have not forgotten and I believe the name Immanuel is not associated with Isaiah's son.

However I believe the sign says nothing about being contemporary.

I have used that source but I believe it is biased in its translation in favor of Judaism.

I didn't have any colors left to get to the rest and long answers are tiring.

 

[gnostic]

I have not forgotten and I believe the name Immanuel is not associated with Isaiah's son.

Well, it is certainly not a name associated with Jesus.

None of Jesus' contemporaries or later called him by "Immanuel". Even though Matthew himself quoted Isaiah 7:14, he never called Jesus by "Immanuel".

And even if you believe this Immanuel to be a title and not name, Matthew (or any other NT authors) ever referred to Jesus with such title.

A lot of people gave names to child in the OT, but it is senseless to take it literally.

So saying that Jesus is or was Immanuel is based solely on your belief, which really means jack-$#@. There are no evidences to link Jesus with Immanuel.

What linked Immanuel to Maher-shalal-hash-baz is 7:15-17 to 8:3-4. And the child in 7:15-16 is the same child in 7:14; Immanuel is the child in 7:15-16, which linked Immanuel to the Two Kings and to the King of Assyria, as do Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:1-8. And verse 8 mentioned Immanuel again. You'd have to be blind to not see that.

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.

Is the child in 7:16 not the child Immanuel (in 7:14)?

Who are the kings of the Two Lands mentioned in Isaiah 7:16? Are these two lands - Israel and Aram?

Are verses 15-17 not part of the sign?

Why or why not to any and all questions above?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Gnostic, the phrase "GOD with us" isn't limited to Isaiah---Nor is the Israelites problems with the surrounding nations.Just as the Roman Empire broke up so had the Israelite kingdom---Northern and the Southern--- as the prophets had warned and both rejected the prophets.

Which is really after the fact.

Judah and Israel were already divided into 2 kingdoms, by the time of Isaiah and the other prophets. All the prophets from Isaiah to Daniel were writing during the division or after the fall of Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE (in the case of Jeremiah and Daniel).

They have predicting anything that didn't already happen.

Jeremiah was in the first group to go into Babylonian captivity and Daniel a little later.approx,607--588 BC.
None of the prophets after the split of the kingdoms were predicting that would happen. That which they were writing about was the apostate that was happening in those two "kingdoms" which would lead to both being destroyed---and leading to the Babylonian captivity. Which did occur.

Originally Posted by sincerly
The whole book of Isaiah is concerning the warning and the ultimate of HOPE in repenting. (which didn't happen and captivity was assured----But 66:21-23 speaks of a new earth and new heavens---still future-- which will include believers from all nations.)

And if you read the Book of Isaiah properly, then you would see that Isaiah was often speaking of Jacob, whose other name - Israel - became the eponymous name of either the 12 tribes or that of northern kingdom.

The whole repenting and warning related to Jacob/Israel or to the nation (again either of the 12 tribes or the northern kingdom of Israel), not to the invention of the new religion, which increasingly had less Jewish blood by the end of 1st century CE.

Christianity became religion, more for the gentile than for the Jews or Israelite. So Isaiah's prophecies in his book have been rendered largely useless, by the Christians.

The Christians have largely discarded most of prophecies, signs and warnings, but keeping just a little over one handful of verses of Isaiah's, which they have distorted, most notably Isaiah 7:14 and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (52-) 53.

Again, Gnostic, Just as you fail to see Jacob/"Israel" in their reality role, you fail to see that Judaism/Christianity are one. Also, that distinction is not recognized by many "professing Christians".
GOD only made one race of humans. NO Jews nor Gentiles. "Gentiles" is just another name for "gowy" nations/peoples and The Israelites became a nation/peoples. They were, also, "strangers"---and the descendants of Abraham were ""strangers"/"ger".

GOD has never been "respecter of persons" as noted above; HIS plan of Salvation included any and all who would choose HIM as their GOD and Obey HIM.

"Jacob" means "usurper" and "Israel" means "prevailer or over comer". Isaiah speaks of those who through that "seed of the woman"/that "virgin birth"(without the seed of any human male) would be the Messiah/"God with Us"----would, in the end, inhabit that earth made new---as overcomers/prevailers/true "Israelites". That is the point of Rom.9:4-8; Gal.3:26-29.

Originally Posted by sincerly
No Gnostic, the Scriptures Do not reveal that which you claim---that is your eisegesis.

And yours is not a distorted exegesis?

That's truly double-standard and self-denial.

You claimed that I am using exegesis, but you are doing the same thing, and doing a poor job at it.

To say or claim that Immanuel has nothing to do with the 4 kings (Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the king of Assyria) and their respective kingdoms, is be in self-denial. To ignore 3 out of the 4 verses (Isaiah 7:14-17) in the sign, is nothing short of dishonest exegesis.

Everything you have written in this topic (and similar threads) is nothing more than your opinion, your belief and your own pathetic attempt at exegesis.

What do you think you're doing when you're trying to connect 4 selected but unrelated verses, in 4 different books (Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:22-23 and Revelation-something), into one thing about the supposed messiah.

Is that not exegesis, then what is it?

BTW, please write "exegesis", not "eisegesis". It's damn annoying that you don't spell "exegesis" right, when you try to use this word in your posts, here and elsewhere.

Eisegesis is a word and has a definition. Look for it.
And the Scriptures do confirm the messages presented them---spite of your particular manipulations.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by muffled
I have not forgotten and I believe the name Immanuel is not associated with Isaiah's son.
Originally Posted by muffled
I have not forgotten and I believe the name Immanuel is not associated with Isaiah's son.

Well, it is certainly not a name associated with Jesus.

Matt.16:15-17, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "
The group was asked and Peter answered.
John put it this way.(6:68-69), "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God".

 

[gnostic]

Matt.16:15-17, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "
The group was asked and Peter answered.
John put it this way.(6:68-69), "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God".

I see Jesus being called Christ. I see Jesus being the son of God. Both of them are titles, not names.

If Immanuel is a name or title, then it would be quite easy for Jesus being called Immanuel, somewhere in the letters or gospels, or even that wack-job called Revelation.

BUT I don't see in either verse where Jesus is called "Immanuel".

Don't you think that if Jesus was Immanuel, he would be called Immanuel?

Nowhere was he ever given that name in the gospels or letters.

Again, more distortion and words twisting from you.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So how does one know which one of the thousands of girls pregnant was bearing "God with us." I believe there is no context to say that there is one. If there was supporting evidence for Isaiah's son he would fit the context but there isn't any.

ha'almah. THE young girl. Someone known to Ahaz. Hell, she might have even been in the room at the time, whilst Isaiah pointed to her or nodded his head in her direction.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Matt.16:15-17, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "
The group was asked and Peter answered.
John put it this way.(6:68-69), "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God".

I see Jesus being called Christ. I see Jesus being the son of God. Both of them are titles, not names.

If Immanuel is a name or title, then it would be quite easy for Jesus being called Immanuel.

BUT I don't see in either verse where Jesus is called "Immanuel".

Don't you think that if Jesus was Immanuel, wouldn't you think that he would be called Immanuel?

Again, more distortion and words twisting from you.

Hi Gnostic, The twisting and distortions are from you.
The in context name of Matthew(1:21) is, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins".
The prophetic name given(Gen.3:15; Isa,7:14) was/is "Immanuel" because HE would "live and dwell among us"---as John(1:14) pointed out.

 

[sincerly]

ha'almah. THE young girl. Someone known to Ahaz. Hell, she might have even been in the room at the time, whilst Isaiah pointed to her or nodded his head in her direction.

Hi PS, (Isa.7:14)" Behold, a virginעלמה `almah

shall conceive,הרה hareh and bearילד yalad a son,בן ben

I see almah, but not "ha'almah"?????

 

[CMike]

No, a "young woman"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see almah, but not "ha'almah"?????

Just perfect. You don't know where to look and you don't understand what you see.

הָעַלְמָה הָרָה ​

And you actually presume to explain Isaiah to the Jews. What a pitiful joke.

 

[gnostic]

The in context name of Matthew(1:21) is, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins".

Now you're being downright dishonest.

Immanuel and Jesus have totally different meaning.

Immanuel means "God is with us".

Jesus is an Anglicized Latin form (Latin is Iesus, for Latin has no letter "J", nor do Greek for that matter) for Greek name Iesous (Ἰησοῦ&#962 for Yehoshua or the Aramaic Yeshua, which we know it in English to be Joshua. And it means "savior" or "redeemer".

But you must remember that Jesus was the first person to be called Yehoshua or Joshua. The first known Joshua was Moses' successor. Joshua who led the Israelites into Canaan in an invasion, and settled them in their respective tribal lands.

So if you were to take the meaning of names literally, then Joshua was the 1st savior or redeemer, not Jesus.

But I don't take names etymology as seriously nor literally as you do.

Hi PS, (Isa.7:14)" Behold, a virginעלמה `almah

shall conceive,הרה hareh and bearילד yalad a son,בן ben

I see almah, but not "ha'almah"?????

I know that you are addressing your reply to Poisonshady313, so I am not going to argue with you, whether it's ha'almah or almah.

But looking at your transliteration and translation in your quote, I'll have to say that you are wrong with your translation (that you used) of harah into "shall conceive".

But "shall conceive" in Hebrew harah, is a masculine verb, and almah isn't a male.

In the proper context, harah has to have a feminine voice, not masculine, especially if you are using feminine noun, which in this case is - almah. So in a feminine voice, the proper context for ha'almah harah is that harah would be a feminine adjective, which is "pregnant".

So ha'almah harah should be translated and literally read as

"young woman is pregnant"​

That's the proper translation, if read literally, but you can also paraphrase this translation with the same context as one of the following:

1. "pregnant young woman"
2. or "young woman with child"

Most modern translations, like NRSV and NJPS (and the original JPS) use 2) harah "with child".

And even though KJV doesn't use "with child" for Isaiah 7:14, KJV does use harah "with child" in the following verses:

1. Genesis 16:11, when the angel spoke to Hagar "Behold, thou art with child";
2. Exodus 21:22, one of the law against hitting a pregnant woman: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child";
3. Jeremiah 31:8, "the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together".

I have already have OP in another thread ha'almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant", where I have stated why harah is a feminine adjective (hence, "is pregnant"), not masculine verb ("will conceive").

If Hebrew is to be read with confidence, then the English translation must accurately match the context and grammar of Hebrew text.

 

[sincerly]

Just perfect. You don't know where to look and you don't understand what you see.

הָעַלְמָה הָרָה
​

And you actually presume to explain Isaiah to the Jews. What a pitiful joke.

Hi Jay, I didn't write the Scriptures nor did I place the mesoretic text in that fashion, but "(Isa.7:14)" Behold, a virgin עלמה`almah shall conceive, הרה hareh and bear ילד yalad a son, בן ben

Isn't the same--almost--but not quite the same as you have produced, But that is because of the tense difference, isn't it??? The imperfect-- the conceiving/being pregnant is "future"/Shall be".

Jay, I don't joke when it comes to the Creator of all things. It is a serious matter --in fact--a matter of life or death.

The Scriptures attest that the Jewish Nation(Except tor that Remnant) took the incarnation as a Joke.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jay, I didn't write the Scriptures nor did I place the mesoretic text in that fashion, but "(Isa.7:14)" Behold, a virgin עלמה`almah shall conceive, הרה hareh and bear ילד yalad a son, בן ben

Isn't the same--almost--but not quite the same as you have produced, But that is because of the tense difference, isn't it??? The imperfect-- the conceiving/being pregnant is "future"/Shall be".

You simply haven't a clue ...

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The in context name of Matthew(1:21) is, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins".

Now you're being downright dishonest.
Immanuel and Jesus have totally different meaning.

"Dishonest?" That is the message given to Joseph in a dream to explain Mary's being "with Child/pregnant." and the Angel's telling of the name Jesus would go by as HE Taught as GOD Directed.

Matthew then states that all of this was done that the prophet's words would be fulfilled.(and quoted from Isa.7:14)
Before Matthew wrote the Gospel, Jesus had declared to all the disciples who were gathered starting with Moses and all the Prophets that which was written in their writings ---concerning HIM, and all was fulfilled.
Just because it doesn't fit your agenda to discredit the Scriptures, doesn't make it not so.

But you must remember that Jesus was the first person to be called Yehoshua or Joshua. The first known Joshua was Moses' successor. Joshua who led the Israelites into Canaan in an invasion, and settled them in their respective tribal lands.

Jesus Christ/Joshua will be the leader of the Redeemed into the "literal promised land"--My Father's house has many abodes/mansions for the Redeemed of all ages and all nations who have/are making the right preparations.

I know that you are addressing your reply to Poisonshady313, so I am not going to argue with you, whether it's ha'almah or almah.

But looking at your in your quote, I'll have to say that you are wrong with your transliteration and translation (that you used) of harah into "shall conceive".

Gnostic, that "transliteration and translation" was not done by me, but those of the mesoretic text into the English language. To you as to Jay, "I didn't write the scriptures nor did I place the mesoretic text in that fashion, but "(Isa.7:14)" Behold, a virgin עלמה`almah shall conceive, הרה hareh and bear ילד yalad a son, בן ben

But "shall conceive" in Hebrew harah, is a masculine verb, and almah isn't a male.

Gnostic, the conceived/pregnant as seen in that passage is hareh in blue---not harah". Future tense as you were informed concerning on the other thread.

I have already have OP in another thread ha'almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant", where I have stated why harah is a feminine adjective (hence, "is pregnant"), not masculine verb ("will conceive").

If Hebrew is to be read with confidence, then the English translation must accurately match the context and grammar of Hebrew text.

Your twisting of the Hebrew makes your writings suspect and detracts from the truths seen in the Hebrew.

A third thread concerning the same subject will not make your conclusions any more true.