Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Fletch]

I believe If a young girl isn't a virgin she is stoned to death in the time of Isaiah.

Hi Muffled,

I do not recall Tamar nor Dinah ever being stoned, but they lived before Isaiah I guess, where did you find this information you are giving to this forum? I hope it is not from thin air.


Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die : 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried , and there was none to save her.

Also a girl having a child is not a sign because it happens all the time.

A girl had a child that was a sign in Isaiah 8 and in Hosea 1. How can that be if you are right?

my wife was young when our first was born, does that mean she fulfills the prophecy?

You could go up to a huge number of virgin females and say you shall conceive and bear a child, indeed it does happen all the time.

A sign is somethng unusual like turning water into blood.

Something as common as a rainbow was a sign for Noah and an iron pan was for the house of Israel. Is an iron pan that unusual????

A sign is something that is seen. Ahaz, unless a time traveling gynecologist, would not have seen any sign. Joseph, Mary's husband, closer than any one else, did not see any sign.

I believe that is total fantasy. There is no evidence that any such girl had a child called Immanuel.

There indeed is evidence, one is the word "behold" and the other evidence is the Hebrew text has the second person feminine "you" will name him Immanuel(something Mary never did,"they" did in the NT storybook). Both Isaiah and Ahaz are not female.

Do you have evidence that any girl had a child named Mahershalalhashbaz other than here in 8?

I believe this is a case where the null hyposthesis applies. If it was someone that Ahaz knew then wouldn't we expect God to name her instead of saying a young girl?

While the KJV has "a virgin", the Hebrew text does not use an indefinite article, but instead has the definite article, meaning it was the female they were both beholding.

See thls footnote from the Christian Netbible:

2 tn Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this&#8221 in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name&#8221 later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.

All for now,
Fletch

PS

i believe Jesus fulfills the prophecy of a virgin giving birth and claims to be God in the flesh which fulfills the meaning of Immanuel.

Jesus never ate butter and honey, five years later everyone was in Isaiah 7:22, right when Immanuel would have started to refuse evil and choose good.

"God with us", means God is on the side of. Never that God dwells with man on earth. NEVER, not found in Scripture. "WIth us" means on the side of. See here:

2 Chron 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built !

Immanuel was also for another prophecy and I agree it was to the house of David, namely Hezekiah, Ahaz's son. It was when Assyria came to the neck of Judah.

Isaiah 8:8 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 . ...10 Take counsel together , and it shall come to nought ; speak the word, and it shall not stand : for God is with us.

Here was the fulfillment when Assyria was at Judah's neck:

2 Chron 32:8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Also note that God's arm is not flesh( Jesus' is).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And you place "Wikipedia" and the human originators from it as "authoritive?

The "Adversary" of GOD'S TRUTH continues.

Lol

Oh the irony.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
And you place "Wikipedia" and the human originators from it as "authorities?

The "Adversary" of GOD'S TRUTH continues.

Lol

Oh the irony.

Yes, Isn't it. Approx. 2000 years ago Jesus brought to the attention of the Scribes and Pharisees the fact that they placed more confidence/authority in the "Traditions and commandments made by men than that given by GOD." Mark 7. To this day that is still so for the greater part of the Jewish people.
Rightly, it was said, "Your house is left unto you desolate." Matt.23:38; Rom.10:22-21; Isa.65:1-9
The Remedy seen in the Scriptures is still Believe, Confess, Repent and Submit while life is present with one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Originally Posted by sincerly
And you place "Wikipedia" and the human originators from it as "authorities?

The "Adversary" of GOD'S TRUTH continues.



Yes, Isn't it. Approx. 2000 years ago Jesus brought to the attention of the Scribes and Pharisees the fact that they placed more confidence/authority in the "Traditions and commandments made by men than that given by GOD." Mark 7. To this day that is still so for the greater part of the Jewish people.
Rightly, it was said, "Your house is left unto you desolate." Matt.23:38; Rom.10:22-21; Isa.65:1-9
The Remedy seen in the Scriptures is still Believe, Confess, Repent and Submit while life is present with one.

Right because Jesus wrote all that.

Oh the sweet irony.

 

[gnostic]

Ahaz isn't the last in the house of David is he?

Sure, Muffled. I didn't say Ahaz was the last, so I don't know why you're presuming that I did. Unless, your question was rhetorical.

Certainly God knows his name having addressed him earlier. I believe you are saying that God must have made a mistake by geberalizing this instead of making it specific but I beleive God does not make mistakes.

Many people in the bible gave names to their children that connect to god, doesn't mean that the children were gods themselves.

The name, Immanuel - "God is with us" - is not really all that important. The sign wasn't so much a child would be born, but about certain event would take place (Isaiah 7:15-17) when Immanuel reached a certain age (Isaiah 7:15-16).

These are part of the sign of Immanuel's age:

15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 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. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria."

The event is "...the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted." plus this "The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria."

Other than Isaiah 8:6-8, Immanuel is never mentioned again, in the Hebrew scriptures.

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.

And it is these verses (8:5-8) that Immanuel with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:1-4) and with Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14-17) are connected to the Two Kings and the King of Assyria.

Isaiah 8:18 also indicated that Isaiah himself and his children were the signs.

 

[CG Didymus]

...The sign wasn't so much a child would be born, but about certain event would take place (Isaiah 7:15-17) when Immanuel reached a certain age (Isaiah 7:15-16).

These are part of the sign of Immanuel's age:

The event is "...the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted...

That is the most important part of this argument, the sign was not a child born to a woman who never had sex, it was the age of the child. Why is it obvious to all the Jews that have responded and to you and I? Why and how do Christians justify turning the "sign" into a virgin born child 700 years later and ignore the rest of the verses that continue to talk about the sign and how it relates to the situation facing King Ahaz and the Jews at that time?

 

[Fletch]

That is the most important part of this argument, the sign was not a child born to a woman who never had sex, it was the age of the child. Why is it obvious to all the Jews that have responded and to you and I? Why and how do Christians justify turning the "sign" into a virgin born child 700 years later and ignore the rest of the verses that continue to talk about the sign and how it relates to the situation facing King Ahaz and the Jews at that time?

Hi CG Didymus,
Isaiah 28 speaks of a large false snare rest for the weary religion that speaks with another tongue(i.e. not Hebrew) with weaned from the milk teachers that uses the Hebrew Scriptures, here a little and there a little, to snare them into their covenant with death that they think will hide them from the wrath to come in the end times.

Fletch

 

[gnostic]

That is the most important part of this argument, the sign was not a child born to a woman who never had sex, it was the age of the child. Why is it obvious to all the Jews that have responded and to you and I? Why and how do Christians justify turning the "sign" into a virgin born child 700 years later and ignore the rest of the verses that continue to talk about the sign and how it relates to the situation facing King Ahaz and the Jews at that time?

If the sign was truly about the virgin conception and virgin birth of messiah, then why bring up Ahaz and the event that were happening in Judah and neighbors up at all? Why in this chapter? Why include the other 3/4 of the sign (7:15-17), if this part of the sign has nothing to do with Mary/Jesus?

Why do Christians ignored the most essential part of the sign?

The event is not the conception or birth itself, but the event that was happening presently in Judah (7:1-2), and the event of how the hostilities will end (Isaiah 7:15-17) when the child reached a certain age.

I believed that Christians need some sorts of justification of why Jesus is their messiah. But with all the ambiguous and debatable re-wording of the single verse, to justify the virgin birth, that make other (non-Christian) people question Christians reasoning, then I would think that it would have been far better if Matthew didn't include Isaiah's verse in the gospel. Matthew (or whoever the real author was) should have left out Isaiah's sign.

Another questionable quote by Matthew, with regarding to the verse is the one relating to the massacre (of all boys 2 or under) at Bethlehem, ordered by Herod the Great, after Jesus' birth.

Not only is there no other literary references to such massacre, or historical evidences to confirm such event taking, Jeremiah's verse seemed quite out of place in Matthew 2.

Mathew quoted in Matthew 2:18, the verse in Jeremiah 31:15:

Thus says the Lord:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children;
she refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are no more.

When anyone read just this one verse, you can twist in any way you can. And it is another quote from Matthew that I don't agree with.

But if you read the whole chapter (31) along with that verse, then clearly it is not about Jesus, Herod or the dead boys of Bethlehem.

The children in verse 15, and Rachel's weeping are all symbolic to the event of 722 BCE in Israel (northern kingdom), when Israel's capital - Samaria - had fallen to the Assyrians. Large portion of the population in Samaria were deported to other parts of Assyria's empire. And people from other (non-Israelite) kingdoms that Assyria had conquered were settled in Israel, including the land that have been traditionally assigned Ephraim.

The people of Ephraim weren't the only ones who were deported out of Israel by the Israelites, as can be seen in 2 Kings 15:29, during the time of Pekah and Ahaz of Judah.

Of course, there are several faults to Jeremiah's chapter:

1. The only thing tying Rachel to Ramah was that she died there giving birth to Benjamin.
2. Jeremiah speak of Ephraim and Samaria. Samaria didn't exist in Rachel's time.
3. And Rachel never met her grandson, Ephraim.

So Rachel's mourning for children is all symbolic, and shouldn't be taken as literal.

The whole chapter of Jeremiah is also about Israel returning from exile. That didn't happen in Jeremiah's time, and it is not likely to happen ever.

 

[sincerly]

Right because Jesus wrote all that.

Oh the sweet irony.

Hi FM, NO! Matthew, Paul and Isaiah wrote those posted statememts.

 

[sincerly]

Isaiah 8:18 also indicated that Isaiah himself and his children were the signs.

Yes, that was Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz.

 

[sincerly]

That is the most important part of this argument, the sign was not a child born to a woman who never had sex, it was the age of the child. Why is it obvious to all the Jews that have responded and to you and I? Why and how do Christians justify turning the "sign" into a virgin born child 700 years later and ignore the rest of the verses that continue to talk about the sign and how it relates to the situation facing King Ahaz and the Jews at that time?

Hi CG D, the event was (Isa.7:16), "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. "

 

[sincerly]

Hi CG Didymus,
Isaiah 28 speaks of a large false snare rest for the weary religion that speaks with another tongue(i.e. not Hebrew) with weaned from the milk teachers that uses the Hebrew Scriptures, here a little and there a little, to snare them into their covenant with death that they think will hide them from the wrath to come in the end times.

Fletch

Hi Fletch, You need to re-read Isa,28 because (vs7)it was the false priest and prophets of Israel(Jews) who were giving the false report and GOD was sending HIS prophets with the correct messages trying to gather true believers to the right message.

 

[sincerly]

The whole chapter of Jeremiah is also about Israel returning from exile. That didn't happen in Jeremiah's time, and it is not likely to happen ever.

Hi Gnostic, The fact is that there was a Babylonian Captivity of Judah; and an exile of seventy years; and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple are history.

Because you don't want to believe---doesn't make it NOT THE TRUTH.

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, The fact is that there was a Babylonian Captivity of Judah; and an exile of seventy years; and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple are history.

Because you don't want to believe---doesn't make it NOT THE TRUTH.

You're being tiresome.

You don't know what I believe to be history or the truth, and that you think that you do, just showed how arrogant you are.

And did I say anything that the Babylonian Captivity didn't exist or the rebuilding of the temple?

Can you read mind now?

You are putting words I didn't say or write.

What I said that Jeremiah 31 is about Israel - the northern kingdom. This chapter is about how Rachel weep because the people Ephraim and Samaria have gone (in 722 BCE), but it is also about how Israelites would return; it is a message of hope.

Jeremiah 31 (or that of verse 15) is not about the massacre at Bethlehem in Herod's time.

I am not disputing against Jeremiah's writing of chapter 31. What I do find questionable is Matthew's claim that this relate anything to do with the aftermath of Jesus' birth.

You and I are not at the same page. You should read my comment before you argue against something that I am talking about.

 

[Fletch]

Hi Fletch, You need to re-read Isa,28 because (vs7)it was the false priest and prophets of Israel(Jews)

Hi Sincerely,
Thanks for the reply.

The house of Israel/Ephraim/ten tribes are not Jews. Jews are of the house of Judah and consist of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. This contrast is seen in 2 Kings 16.

The house of Israel/ten tribes and the house of Judah have been separate since just after Solomon and will not be reunited until Ezekiel 37 and Hosea 1 comes to pass.

The false snare religion with weaned from the milk teachers and a covenant with death does not come down until the end times.

who were giving the false report and GOD was sending HIS prophets with the correct messages trying to gather true believers to the right message.

I did not see a false report, it says the false snare religion takes the Hebrew Scriptures here a little and there a little to snare people in. The prophets are part of God's word, the false teachers use it, that means the prophets were already printed.

I'll make a thread with Isaiah 24 and 28's detailed descriptions listed when I get a chance.

Fletch

PS

The fact is that there was a Babylonian Captivity of Judah; and an exile of seventy years; and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple are history.

Thank you for showing me that Jeremiah is a true prophet, he actually spoke about you, YES YOU!
Jer 33:24 Considerest thou not what this people(like Sincerely) have spoken , saying , The two families which the LORD hath chosen , he hath even cast them off ? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return , and have mercy on them.

Have you made Joel a true prophet yet?
Joel 2:17 Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say , Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? 18 Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi CG D, the event was (Isa.7:16), "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. "

So that is the event that the sign relates to? I agree with that. A child is born gets to a certain age and then the event happens, the two kings are "forsaken."

 

[sincerly]

Hi Gnostic, The fact is that there was a Babylonian Captivity of Judah; and an exile of seventy years; and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple are history.

Because you don't want to believe---doesn't make it NOT THE TRUTH.

You're being tiresome.

You don't know what I believe to be history or the truth, and that you think that you do, just showed how arrogant you are.

And did I say anything that the Babylonian Captivity didn't exist or the rebuilding of the temple?

Can you read mind now?

NO, I don't read minds, but I have read that which you have espoused and claim to be truth rather than error to support your belief in producing myths.(yes, I do see that as your goal in all these posts dealing with the Scriptures.)

As Jesus said to Saul/Paul, "It is hard(tiresome) to kick against the pricks of the truths of the Scriptures. But your are free to do so to your hearts content as long as it pleases you.

That is correct, you didn't say, because it would shown that GOD is the Almighty GOD that knows the end of things from the beginning. A GOD that you claim is a "myth".

You are putting words I didn't say or write.

What I wrote was in line with what Isaiah had written from 1:1- 66:24
That writing/book of Isaiah covered the reigns of four of the kings of Judah.
Ahaz attributed to GOD his own traits of being powerless, Therefore, the sign given to him concerning the "seed of the woman" in the form of "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
The "seed of the woman" would be the same powerful GOD who had "created all things". It would crush out all evil in the restoration of all things as Chapter 66 indicated in that prophecy.

Ahaz choose to seek the king of Assyria rather than the GOD he claimed to partially believe. (As seen in Isa. 8:20).

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. What I said that Jeremiah 31 is about Israel - the northern kingdom. This chapter is about how Rachel weep because the people Ephraim and Samaria have gone (in 722 BCE), but it is also about how Israelites would return; it is a message of hope.

Jeremiah 31 (or that of verse 15) is not about the massacre at Bethlehem in Herod's time.

I am not disputing against Jeremiah's writing of chapter 31. What I do find questionable is Matthew's claim that this relate anything to do with the aftermath of Jesus' birth.

Of course you find it questionable, How else would one find the prophecies of the Scriptures declared by GOD be interpreted by one who declares that the Scriptures are a myth and the God revealed in them a myth.

Herod did slaughter those Children. "they are not"/were killed. All who have died---are not . However, because Jesus lived and died for all who choose to believe in HIS death burial and resurrection for their payment of sin and its penalty, those are declared innocent and will be "gathered" as Jeremiah reported. Even as Ezekiel declared of those "dry bones". That day is not far from being fulfilled.

Matthew reported correctly. Believe "myth"---if you so desire.

You and I are not at the same page. You should read my comment before you argue against something that I am talking about.

Had I believed the things you posted, we would not have had all these posts. It is the Scriptures which are testifying against your "myths".

 

[CG Didymus]

Is this an accurate quote from you? Or, is it out of context?

 

[CG Didymus]

It is the Scriptures which are testifying against your "myths".

What do you call the Scriptures of the Hindu's? Like let's say the Bhagavad Gita? You might very well call it myth wouldn't you? Why do you think it is not the truth? Because it doesn't line up with your beliefs? Yet, it's true to them. So let's look at your Scriptures. Why don't most Jews believe Jesus is their Messiah? Because it doesn't line up with their Scriptures. They could careless about a virgin birth. It is not one of their prophecies about their Messiah.

Christianity is fine, wonderful. It's great, in a lot of ways. But which version of it? Your Scriptures have enough ambiguity in them by themselves, but throw in the Hebrew Bible and Christians are all over the place in their beliefs. If they can't agree on what is the truth, how can they be trusted? How can their Bible be trusted? It has some good points, but it also has a lot of mythological things in it. A rapture? A war in heaven with good angels fighting bad angels? A return of the King of Kings on a white horse? An anti-christ and a beast? Who knows, it might be true. But let's ask a few questions and double check a few "prophecies" to make sure it's true. So far Ramah weeping and the "ha almah harah" sound like someone was making up a good story. And the story of Satan and hell? That's Christian mythology not Jewish.

The Christian "mythology" is amazing. Dead people coming out of their graves and walking around town. Jesus dead three days and comes back to life. He walked on water and healed people. And even his birth, fantastic, a virgin birth, amazing, but true? It sounds to unreal to be fact. So what is wrong with questioning the "fantastic." Why trust what some ancient writer said about Jesus, after all, Matthew wasn't there at the birth, neither was Luke. Who were their sources and why do they tell different stories? It sounds like religious mythology, and then, add in the non-canonical stories. Now they are some very creative stories. But, I'll bet you don't believe them. Why, because the writers weren't credible, and they had some agenda. Who doesn't?

 

[sincerly]

Is this an accurate quote from you? Or, is it out of context?

Originally Posted by gnostic
I am not disputing against Jeremiah's writing of chapter 31. What I do find questionable is Matthew's claim that this relate anything to do with the aftermath of Jesus' birth.
Originally Posted by gnostic
I am not disputing against Jeremiah's writing of chapter 31. What I do find questionable is Matthew's claim that this relate anything to do with the aftermath of Jesus' birth.
Originally Posted by gnostic
I am not disputing against Jeremiah's writing of chapter 31. What I do find questionable is Matthew's claim that this relate anything to do with the aftermath of Jesus' birth.

My answer to that was:

Of course you find it questionable, How else would one find the prophecies of the Scriptures declared by GOD be interpreted by one who declares that the Scriptures are a myth and the God revealed in them a myth.

Herod did slaughter those Children. "they are not"/were killed. All who have died---are not . However, because Jesus lived and died for all who choose to believe in HIS death burial and resurrection for their payment of sin and its penalty, those are declared innocent and will be "gathered" as Jeremiah reported. Even as Ezekiel declared of those "dry bones". That day is not far from being fulfilled.

Matthew reported correctly. Believe "myth"---if you so desire.