Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

The interpreters of Matthews words have been wrong in many ways. Men do tend to over-read into such texts.

The interpreters are wrong, because Matthew's (or whoever wrote this gospel) own interpretations were wrong about Isaiah's verse, as well as that of Jeremiah's verse about Rachel.

None of Matthew's uses of verses from old prophets were in any way valid in Jesus' time or that of the evangelists'.

Like you have said in earlier post:

Matthew may well have simply used a writer's prerogative (or the angel that spoke a speaker's prerogative) being as this child would serve a similar purpose unto the people in their day, unrelated to Isaiah's day in any way but by the waning hope of the people needing boosting by some sort of a sign from God that God was yet with them.

Matthew had taken liberty with Isaiah's verse, by ignoring the verse that were important part of the sign.

The sign wasn't about the birth of child himself, but when the son reached a certain age that will change the tide of the war (Isaiah 7:1-2) between Ahaz and the Rezin-Pekah alliance. The sign referred to the events in 2 Kings15:29-31 and 16:5-9.

Both chapters talk of the wars and the sign (Isaiah 7 & 8, and clearly verse 8:18 state that sign was Isaiah himself and his children were the signs of things to come?

It is not a coincidence that Isaiah 7 and 8 have so many things in common.

And those signs had nothing to do with the "messiah" or with Jesus. And it had nothing to do with virgin birth; that Matthew using the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, and interpreting as he saw fit...which really had nothing to do with WHAT the verse is actually saying.

Selectively reading only one verse is taking the whole sign or the whole chapter out of context, a misrepresentation of the text, and because it had specifically change focus from the war in Judah to that of Jesus, then it is a Christian propaganda.

Muffled and other Christians can believe whatever they want, it mean very little when you considered this is not a Christian text. It is just Christian using or twisting the book for their own purpose, but that has nothing to do with the truth.

 

[gnostic]

Their musing is just what people do when they do not really understand something and it is not only quite normal but also is common to us all.

I think a lot of us understand what the verse saying, what we don't agree with, is Matthew's spin in Isaiah's verse and we don't agree with Christian teaching and interpretations.

I used to believe as muffled do now. I nearly join my sister church. My understanding was the same as church teaching. But I was younger then, and back then I didn't think to question the Christian stance, didn't think to challenge it. Back then, I didn't think that it matter it was Jewish book and that Jews might have a different understanding to this same verse, because

A) I didn't know any Jew personally, when I was a teenager.
B) I lived in neighbor and suburb that were mostly Christians - Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics.
​

So basically I was surrounded by Christian neigborhood and Christian friends, so I was heavily influenced by Christian teaching.

So I do understand Christian side of things. I just no longer have to agree with the church teaching on this matter.

I am quite sure that others were brought up with by Christian parents or Christian background. So for you, to to say we don't understand scriptures, it is just "generalizing". You have no idea what our backgrounds are, so I don't you have the right to judge that we are just "musing", as you would call it.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

I think a lot of us understand what the verse saying, what we don't agree with, is Matthew's spin in Isaiah's verse and we don't agree with Christian teaching and interpretations.

I used to believe as muffled do now. I nearly join my sister church. My understanding was the same as church teaching. But I was younger then, and back then I didn't think to question the Christian stance, didn't think to challenge it. Back then, I didn't think that it matter it was Jewish book and that Jews might have a different understanding to this same verse, because

A) I didn't know any Jew personally, when I was a teenager.
B) I lived in neighbor and suburb that were mostly Christians - Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics.
​

So basically I was surrounded by Christian neigborhood and Christian friends, so I was heavily influenced by Christian teaching.

So I do understand Christian side of things. I just no longer have to agree with the church teaching on this matter.

I am quite sure that others were brought up with by Christian parents or Christian background. So for you, to to say we don't understand scriptures, it is just "generalizing". You have no idea what our backgrounds are, so I don't you have the right to judge that we are just "musing", as you would call it.

Edited: I somehow posted to the wrong person in the wrong thread with a totally different comment made by that other person in mind.

Sorry about that. But so long as I am here I will read your post and reply to it.

You said, "I think a lot of us understand what the verse saying, what we don't agree with, is Matthew's spin in Isaiah's verse and we don't agree with Christian teaching and interpretations."

But is that really Matthew's spin or is it actually only the spin of those interpreting what Matthew said. Tell me what you think I said? Do you think I was saying that Matthew was saying Jesus is God? Because I wasn't. Thus when you say, quote, "So I do understand Christian side of things", do you really? Do you understand the side of Christianity which does not see Matthew as teaching that Jesus is God and does not see Matthew as teaching that Isaiah 7 is a prophecy directly concerning Christ?

You said, "So basically I was surrounded by Christian neigborhood and Christian friends, so I was heavily influenced by Christian teaching." But the truth is that you were surrounded by certain slants of Christian teaching which if false are not really Christ's teaching.

Then you conclude: "So for you, to to say we don't understand scriptures, it is just "generalizing". You have no idea what our backgrounds are, so I don't you have the right to judge that we are just "musing", as you would call it."

Exactly why do you think I am unable to have looked at all the different slants of Christian teaching as opposed to you who admitted that your exposure was to, quote, "mostly Christians - Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics"?

 

[gnostic]

Obviously you are not interested in anything which refutes that so be content.

It is a miserable thing to find out too late that one is wrong. Life teaches us that lesson well.

Well, yes, life did teach me well that I was wrong when I was a teenager and thought that the bible and churches had all the answers. I was wrong to put much stock on what the bible or the church have to teach.

They don't all the answers, and I don't think they ever have.

When I had interested in joining the church, not questioning what I have read was a mistake. Assuming that reverend or pastor had answer was a mistake.

It took about 14 years before I touch the bible again. And re-reading the bible again had opened my eyes to the flaws of church teaching, especially their interpretations of the OT scriptures. Another 14 years had gone by, and I realized with more certainty than ever that the church is still wrong in their teaching of the OT scriptures.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Well, yes, life did teach me well that I was wrong when I was a teenager and thought that the bible and churches had all the answers. I was wrong to put much stock on what the bible or the church have to teach.

They don't all the answers, and I don't think they ever have.

When I had interested in joining the church, not questioning what I have read was a mistake. Assuming that reverend or pastor had answer was a mistake.

It took about 14 years before I touch the bible again. And re-reading the bible again had opened my eyes to the flaws of church teaching, especially their interpretations of the OT scriptures. Another 14 years had gone by, and I realized with more certainty than ever that the church is still wrong in their teaching of the OT scriptures.

We are in complete agreement per what you have said here.

The trick now is to not repeat their same mistakes as we go about the work of uncovering the real truths.

What you have said is exactly why I have not joined any of the churches. Only after much study of it and trying to see what it says from as many different angles as I could find to view it from (so as to have all of those views to compare) I now believe strongly in the original language writings (with consideration for the degree they have been tampered with through years). But I am also careful to divide out the writings which were clearly man's opinions, not using them to taint my mind, using only the writings which came through Moses and the prophets to understand the New Covenant writings.

Jesus said, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it." Luke 16:16

He did not say the the Rabbinical opinions of the Talmuds were until John. He did not say that the highly fabricated book of Enoch was until John. He only said that the Law as given through Moses and the prophets (the prophets which were designated under that Old Law Covenant) were until John.

That is what I stick to as to use the other writings beyond those is to invite a huge potential for many a misleading opinion, many of which are difficult to see through.

But I should also add that having gone about it in the right order and way, making sure of my understanding of the Law and the Prophets first, what I learned while untainted by the Talmuds and Rabbinical opinions in the end proved to help me see exactly where they were hindered in understanding of the law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I should also add that having gone about it in the right order and way, making sure of my understanding of the Law and the Prophets first, what I learned while untainted by the Talmuds and Rabbinical opinions in the end proved to help me see exactly where they were hindered in understanding of the law.

One sure wouldn't want to be tainted by Rabbinical opinions.

 

[Ingledsva]

Obviously you are not interested in anything which refutes that so be content.

It is a miserable thing to find out too late that one is wrong. Life teaches us that lesson well.

Instead of saying crap like this to people -

Why don't you try to prove what you are claiming!

The rest of us are using the verses, - the original languages, - and related exegeses, - to prove what we say is accurate.

*

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Instead of saying crap like this to people -

Why don't you try to prove what you are claiming!

The rest of us are using the verses, - the original languages, - and related exegeses, - to prove what we say is accurate.

*

Thank you for your opinion.

Will you allow me to prove it to you or will you be like that poster and dismiss everything I say before I am able to even get started?

You say the rest of you are using the verses, - the original languages, - and related exegeses, - to prove what we say is accurate.

And I suppose you think I don't read read your posts. To say that you obviously have not read all mine. Nor have you understood that I am a Jew and have a good deal of familiarity with this subject.

 

[Ingledsva]

Thank you for your opinion.

Will you allow me to prove it to you or will you be like that poster and dismiss everything I say before I am able to even get started?

Jesus is not God. There is no trinity in the Bible.

We have already shown this.

Nothing you add can change this. Nor will anything you say be new to us. However, this is a debate site, so try away.

*

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Jesus is not God. There is no trinity in the Bible.

We have already shown this.

Nothing you add can change this. Nor will anything you say be new to us. However, this is a debate site, so try away.

*

Well that proves you have not read many of my posts for you would otherwise know I don't believe Jesus is God and I don't believe in a Trinity.

I don't even believe in Dualism.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well that proves you have not read many of my posts for you would otherwise know I don't believe Jesus is God and I don't believe in a Trinity.

I don't even believe in Dualism.

There are many people posting here. I don't know, or remember everyone's beliefs.

Also - if we both believe Jesus is NOT God, and there is no trinity in the Bible - why did you say this to me -

Thank you for your opinion.

Will you allow me to prove it to you or will you be like that poster and dismiss everything I say before I am able to even get started?

*

 

[Mountain_Climber]

There are many people posting here. I don't know, or remember everyone's beliefs?

Also - if we both believe Jesus is NOT God, and there is no trinity in the Bible - why did you say this to me -
*

I had no idea you had the Trinity in mind as the topic of this thread is merely whether or not Matthew misrepresented Isaiah chapter 7.

Back in post #1138 I had said, quote, "Matthew never said that the birth of Jesus was foreshadowed by Immanuel and it matters not whether he was or he wasn't once we have compared other scripture which shows the purpose of the Messiah's being born to regenerate the spirit in the heart of the people and furnish them a release from their bondage. (A similar purpose for Immanuel's birth in Isaiah's day regardless of the different setting.)

Matthew may well have simply used a writer's prerogative (or the angel that spoke a speaker's prerogative) being as this child would serve a similar purpose unto the people in their day, unrelated to Isaiah's day in any way but by the waning hope of the people needing boosting by some sort of a sign from God that God was yet with them." End of Quote.

And that is what the railing of me began over so that is what I perceive those jumping in to have in mind.

I do not support the extremism that is taking place. I see the attitude is one of acceptance that Matthew was saying Jesus was God and on that basis, rather than to learn what Matthew really meant, many desire to simply discredit Matthew all together. And that is just not rational.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Instead of saying crap like this to people -

Why don't you try to prove what you are claiming!

The rest of us are using the verses, - the original languages, - and related exegeses, - to prove what we say is accurate.

*

I just realized that the comment I made, which you are here addressing, was somehow made to the wrong poster anyway. So thank you for bringing this up or I would have never noticed I had made that error.

That comment was meant for the thread, Perfect Being Theology: Why My God is Greater than Yours

I do owe him an apology.

That is what happens when I get up and down doing other things and trying to make quick posts.

I take the comment down to my desktop, formulate a reply and then snap that reply back to the thread. Only that time I got both the wrong thread and the wrong poster.

And I have no idea how I did that other than that it was the result of doing too many things at once.

There, in my reply to you, I was guilty of not really looking back to see exactly what you were referring to, otherwise I would have caught that sooner, and for that I apologize to you.

Added: What I had in my when I made that post was the Old Law and my comment was directed to one who claimed they understood that Old Law and by that understanding were finding many flaws.

 

[Muffled]

Everything is there, in that chapter, and that sign relates to that chapter, and nothing in that chapter relates to the sign being the "messiah". You, and Christians like you, have gone off-script as Matthew or whoever the gospel author was.

The sign is relating to the war, to Ahaz's contemporaries.

The same war is given in Isaiah 8 too, with a similar sign and outcome. Chapters 7 & 8 are talking about the same, so the child born as a sign of how Assyria will ruin the lands (Aram and Israel) of TWO KINGS (Rezin and Pekah) does implied that the child of 2 chapters are one and the same - the son of Isaiah - Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

And to top it all up, Isaiah revealed that Isaiah and his sons were the sign of imminent things to come (8:18):

How do you deny this verse?

It is not there for you because you are ignorantly biased, because you refused to look at those chapters as they are written in those 2 chapters.

I am neither Jewish, nor Christian, but even I can see that Jews interpretation to Isaiah 7's sign don't relate to Jesus, because it was never about the messiah; it was about a war that Ahaz thought he was losing, and the sign was that pretty soon, Assyria will get involved in the war., and that's what the sign about.

The child is really not important, but the event to come , will happen when the son reach a certain age:

The important part of the signs is in red and in blue.
In red are the indication of WHEN it will happen, and in blue, are WHAT and HOW it will happen, the event.

No where in the 2 chapters, state that will grow up to be an adult, teach, perform miracles and raise from the dead.

No where in the 2 chapters to indicate that the son born will is a literal god or son of god, which Christians believe in. To Jews, such idea god become a man, or being the son of god, is sacrilege.

You are wrong. Matthew (or whoever is the gospel author) and his and your interpretations are wrong.

I don't believe you can prove that.

I believe this is not a logical argument but simply a fantasized opinion.

I believe it is not directly related to the war or Ahaz's contemporaries.

I believe you ought to try to expoound on this since I don't beleive you c an make a case for it.

I believe this is not exactly true. The sign of Jesus's conception may contain information about the ruin of the lands but that does not mean the signs are the same.

I believe this is a different son with a different name but I would see a parallell to the other sign. In fact it appears to me that the sign that Ahaz does not want actually legitimizies the second sign not because they will see it but because the sign Of Jesus is a more powerful sign than the mere local war sign.

I believe I do not deny it for what it is a separate sign.

I believe you have no evidence that I am ignorant or biased and I have examined the verses rationally.

I believe your lack of insight comes from a lack of knowledge of God.

I believe you have no basis for any of that.

 

[Muffled]

Don't let them ruffle you.

They are presenting a slant of the situation just as they are confused at the matter.

Matthew never said that the birth of Jesus was foreshadowed by Immanuel and it matters not whether he was or he wasn't once we have compared other scripture which shows the purpose of the Messiah's being born to regenerate the spirit in the heart of the people and furnish them a release from their bondage. (A similar purpose for Immanuel's birth in Isaiah's day regardless of the different setting.)

Matthew may well have simply used a writer's prerogative (or the angel that spoke a speaker's prerogative) being as this child would serve a similar purpose unto the people in their day, unrelated to Isaiah's day in any way but by the waning hope of the people needing boosting by some sort of a sign from God that God was yet with them.

Like I said, Don't let them stir you as we readily can understand that they have their reasons for desiring to see it the way they do.

Let us not get caught in the same rut of seeing only one angle when there are more angles than they represent which also should be considered.

Their musing is just what people do when they do not really understand something and it is not only quite normal but also is common to us all.

Mat 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

I believe he may not be calling it a foreshadowing but he is calling it a fulfillment.

I believe Immanuel was not born in Isaiah's day.

I believe this is unfounded speculation.

I believe I only like to respond to rational arguments. Polemics is just a lot of noise to me.

 

[Ingledsva]

Mat 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

I believe he may not be calling it a foreshadowing but he is calling it a fulfillment.

I believe Immanuel was not born in Isaiah's day.

I believe this is unfounded speculation.

I believe I only like to respond to rational arguments. Polemics is just a lot of noise to me.

You need to reread Isaiah from Chapter 1, without the preconceived ideas. The things said to be Jesus are not. Note - I chose verses from Chapter one through chapter 43 to show it is all at the same time.

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.


Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.


Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

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.

Isa 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Isa 8:6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

Isa 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.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. MISTRANSLATED TEXT - no mighty God.


Isaiah 9:6 For is born a child, a son given to take the rule/government upon his shoulders; and his name is called Wonderful Adviser, Mighty Warrior, Father of future generations, Ruler/keeper/prince of peace.

Isaiah 9:7 To increase the government/empire and the welfare/safety/peace of the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to strengthen the justice and righteousness, from this time, and to eternity. Zealously YHVH of Hosts will do this.


Isa 9:9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,

Isa 9:11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;

Isa 9:12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Isa 9:21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.


Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

Isa 11:13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.


Isa 36:3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder.

Isa 36:4 And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?


Isa 37:37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.

Isa 37:38 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.


Isa 38:1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.


Isa 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
_ _ _

As you can see this whole thing from Chapter ONE on is about the same war. No Jesus prophecy. And the other verses Christians claim are about him - also - are NOT!

Isaiah mentions the branch. The next book is Jeramiah which gives us that info.

_ _ _


Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD (YHVH), that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (YHVH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Zec 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;

Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
_ _ _

NOTHING - in TANAKH - that you folks claim is about Jesus - not Immanuel, not the Branch, etc., actually is. And that is proven by reading the whole thing in context.

*

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe you can prove that.

Actually, nothing much in the bible can be proven either way if we look at it from the outside, because it doesn't provide much terms of historical verifiability.

So I don't you can prove that the sign was about the messiah, just because of the author (Matthew?) say so in the gospel, because the gospel totally ignore all other signs in Isaiah 7 and 8 (not just one verse Matthew had quoted and misrepresented), which indicated the sign is related to the war in Isaiah's time.

The only thing that confirm we can confirm about Isaiah 7 (and 8, as well as 2 Kings 15 & 16) is that there are Assyrian sources do show that Ahaz and Judah was at war with Israel and Aram, and that the fortune of the war favored Judah only because the King of Assyria did attack Aram and Israel. This Assyrian king is named Tiglath-Pileser III (reign 745–727 BCE), so that much of biblical history we can confirm to be true.

The verses that followed Isaiah 7:14 - verses 15, 16 & 18 (as well as Isaiah 8:1-4) indicated that while the sign is about how the war will end in Ahaz's favour, it does not say anything about the child being "the Messiah". The sign clear indicate that these event about the war will happen when the child reach a certain age, therefore not Jesus. And nothing in Isaiah 7:14-17 say the child will be king, messiah or saviour, let alone being the son of God.

The child in 7:14-17 and 8:3-4 referred to the same war against Israel and Aram, and the same king of Assyria being involved, so Immanuel of Isaiah 7 must be the same child being born to Isaiah and the prophetess: Maher-shalal-hash-baz

Isaiah 8:18 clearly also state that Isaiah and his children (sons) were the potent of Judah's survival:

18 See, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

I have already stated it all of these before, in my previous reply, and nothing you have stated have refute anything that I have already given.

All you have just Matthew's say-so (interpretation) to JUST ONE VERSE, all of which, based on the Greek translation to the word - parthenos "virgin", and not the original Hebrew word almah "young woman" (or more precisely ha'almah, "the young woman".

No where in that one verse indicated that the child will be king, priest, prophet, messiah, son of god, etc. No where in the verse (Isaiah 7:14) stated that the child will be "anointed"?

Is that what the messiah mean? The "Anointed One"?

Lastly, 7:14 stated in Hebrew transliteration:

hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el

The word harah or הָרָה֙ means "pregnant" or "with a child".

Isaiah 7:14 is similar to when the angel or God informed Hagar was pregnant with Ishmael, in Genesis 16:11:

hinach harah veyoladet ben vekarat shemo Yishma'el

Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael...

“Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael...

Although, there are no almah in Genesis 16:11, it does translate harah to "with child" in KJV or "have conceived" in NRSV, like that of Isaiah 7:14, as in the "pregnant young woman" or "young woman with child".

And if we look at the recent translation of Isaiah 7:14, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we get:

14 Therefore the Lord 149 himself 150 will give y[ ou a sign. Loo] k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be 151 Immanuel.

Furthermore, if we look at the transliteration to Isaiah 8:3 again, we seen the word harah repeated again, and KJV used the words "harah" as being translated to "conceived", which mean the prophetess was already pregnant:

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Why did the KJV translated the word harah to "shall conceive" in Isaiah 7:14, but translated as "conceived" in Isaiah 8:14 or "have conceived" in Genesis 16:11?

This showed the KJV's inconsistencies in translating the word "harah". There 2 other KJV translations to harah, and they have been - "with child":

...hurt a woman with child...

...the woman with child...

Those are (textual) evidences that I have managed to find.

Even Jews who read the same book as Christians do, don't see Isaiah 7:14 relating to anything about the messiah, let alone Jesus.

You have nothing more than Matthew's say-so, and that's not really worth much, when anyone who read Isaiah 7 & 8 in their entirety can see it doesn't relate to the messiah, let alone b

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Mat 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

I believe he may not be calling it a foreshadowing but he is calling it a fulfillment.

I believe Immanuel was not born in Isaiah's day.

I believe this is unfounded speculation.

I believe I only like to respond to rational arguments. Polemics is just a lot of noise to me.

Well that would be what one might think if they did not know the details behind the request for and the need for the sign in that day.

Ask yourself what the people of Judah were going through at the time and how it was affecting their spirit. Then look to find that in the scriptures.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

I don't believe you can prove that.

I believe this is not a logical argument but simply a fantasized opinion.

I believe it is not directly related to the war or Ahaz's contemporaries.

I believe you ought to try to expoound on this since I don't beleive you c an make a case for it.

I believe this is not exactly true. The sign of Jesus's conception may contain information about the ruin of the lands but that does not mean the signs are the same.

I believe this is a different son with a different name but I would see a parallell to the other sign. In fact it appears to me that the sign that Ahaz does not want actually legitimizies the second sign not because they will see it but because the sign Of Jesus is a more powerful sign than the mere local war sign.

I believe I do not deny it for what it is a separate sign.

I believe you have no evidence that I am ignorant or biased and I have examined the verses rationally.

I believe your lack of insight comes from a lack of knowledge of God.

I believe you have no basis for any of that.

Your emotion is not a better form of reasoning.

 

[Muffled]

Well that would be what one might think if they did not know the details behind the request for and the need for the sign in that day.

Ask yourself what the people of Judah were going through at the time and how it was affecting their spirit. Then look to find that in the scriptures.

I believe that is irrelevant.

Why?