Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Hi Disciple, perhaps you overlooked 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". Immanuel interpreted means "GOD with us".
And that is what the Angel(Gabriel)informed Joseph(Matt.1:18-25) concerning and not to be concerned that Mary was pregnant. Joseph was obedient to the vision.

Again, you ignoring the rest of chapter 7, just as Matthew 1 do.

The sign was regarding to the reign of Ahaz, about 700 years before Jesus' birth. The sign was not just about the birth of this son born of young woman, but about the boy being born in Ahaz's time. Before Pekah of Israel and Rezin king of Aram could invade Judah, they would be attacked by Assyria.

Did you even bother to read the rest of sign (Isaiah 7:15-17)?

15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

This boy (of verses 14-17) couldn't be Jesus, because the boy have to be born in Ahaz's reign, and when Assyria had taken Damascus and Israel (which would save Judah from their enemies), just before the boy know right from wrong, but when the boy had started eating curd and honey.

Jesus had taken no part in the sign as given in verse 14-17, and taken in no part of Assyria delivering Judah from their enemies (Israel and Aram).

What do Jesus have to do with Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the king of Assyria? (In my view, nothing whatsoever.)

If you take verse 14 without considering verses 1-13 and verses 15-25, then you will be taking verse 14 completely out of context.

Are verses 15-17 not relevant to verse 14? Why do you ignore the other parts of the passage?

It is shoddy scholarship on Matthew's part (or whoever really wrote the gospel of matthew) and on any Christian who ignore the rest of chapter 7.

 

[sincerly]

Again, you ignoring the rest of chapter 7, just as Matthew 1 do.

The sign was regarding to the reign of Ahaz, about 700 years before Jesus' birth. The sign was not just about the birth of this son born of young woman, but about the boy being born in Ahaz's time. Before Pekah of Israel and Rezin king of Aram could invade Judah, they would be attacked by Assyria.

Did you even bother to read the rest of sign (Isaiah 7:15-17)?

Hi gnostic, No! I didn't ignore it, however that part of the Chapter isn't related to the Prophecy of 7:14 as meant to be and related by Gabriel in his message.
I trust Gabriel over your speculation of scriptural matters.

True! Both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah would eventually be in captivity as GOD had said.

 

[gnostic]

Hi gnostic, No! I didn't ignore it, however that part of the Chapter isn't related to the Prophecy of 7:14 as meant to be and related by Gabriel in his message.
I trust Gabriel over your speculation of scriptural matters.

True! Both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah would eventually be in captivity as GOD had said.

How is it not the same sign.

Verse 14 say that son will be born to a woman, while 15-17 stated quite clearly that this same boy or son have to be there when it start eating curds and honey, but before the boy could learn right from wrong, that the king of Assyria will save Judah.

Verses 14 to 17 is the sign (actually the sign begins at verse 13). The sign is not just about the birth and the boy's name, but the sign that Assyria played a part with Judah, Israel and Aram.

What part of son-boy message that you don't understand?

Isaiah begin to speak at verse 13 (with Then Isaiah said, “Hear now...), and end with 17. To pick out a single verse is simply cherry-picking out of the whole message.

And lastly, the gospel of Matthew had never named Gabriel as the angel in Joseph's dream. Luke's gospel give an entirely different birth myth to Matthew's.

 

[sincerly]

How is it not the same sign.

The son of the prophetess was to be named Mahershalalhashbaz---not immanuel. Chap.8:1-10.
The kings of Israel and judah still was refusing Obedience to GOD and for another 135 years this plagueing/and confederating with and by the nations would continue until the final Babylonian captivity would occur. (This captivity would end the kingdom rule by the Jewish Nation----What they have today was not given by GOD.)

"Dual application" could be an appropriate understanding. One leading to the demise of the Jewish Nation as the "Light bearer" for GOD'S redeeming message and the other as the final and true means of the propitiation of the sins of Mankind.

And lastly, the gospel of Matthew had never named Gabriel as the angel in Joseph's dream. Luke's gospel give an entirely different birth myth to Matthew's.

Did Joseph who Believed GOD have to know Gabriel's name "in the dream"? NO! He understood that it was a message from GOD.
You can believe it to be a "birth myth", but that doesn't make it so. Matthew started with Abraham and Luke worked back from Joseph to Adam(That is where all our Geneologies finish.)

 

[Shermana]

Despite what Jay says about me "Quote mining" (I don't think he quite understands what the term means since the people I'm "quote mining" are not being taken out of context), the general concensus on Luke is that the birth narrative was completely interpolated.

So Jay, if you feel I'm guilty of "intense quote mining" please explain how exactly, otherwise you may want to re-orient yourself with what "Quote mining" means.

And to call the claim "Fictive" assumes you know that it is necessarily wrong and that the wording in Matthew is right. I don't see how it's 'fictive' or anymore speculative than the idea that it originally did appear that way.

And of course we can brush aside all the evidence that was listed about how the Matthean account is filled with strange inconsistencies like Rahab having a son 300 years later. That of course couldn't possibly be evidence that the account was shoe-horned in I suppose.

Perhaps I Was mistaken on P1, but I need to look into it some more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkapyrus_1

Would love to find something to see their reasons on why its "paleographically" dated 200-250 too.



Also, something else that caught my eye, the "Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila" which contains the passage, was originally said to be 200 A.D.

Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wiki says that "Recent studies" have attributed it to 600 A.D.

Martin C. Albl And scripture cannot be broken: the form and function of the early ... 1999 Page 122 "3.4.10 Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila - Williams had dated this dialogue to ca. 200 CE, and speculated that it was probably written in Egypt.130 The most recent editor, Robert Gerald Robertson, however, concludes that the work was "

I'm having a hard time finding the exact reasons why, and who these scholars behind the "recent studies" are besides their names and the short snippets on the references section. What reason would we have to not believe its originally from 130 exactly?

As to the scholarly cocensus since Conybeare's day, I haven't seen much on what secular scholars have said since that date. It appears the only things I can find on it are from Conservative Christians, and their arguments are basically the same: "It's the minority therefore it must be a mistake".

 

[gnostic]

The son of the prophetess was to be named Mahershalalhashbaz---not immanuel. Chap.8:1-10.

Verses 8:1-10 only confirmed that chapter 8 is related to chapter 7 of verses 13-17.

That Isaiah's son by the prophetess, that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was "Immanuel", due to the event in chapter 8 with the sign in 7. Due to similarity between the sign and event. Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was more likely "Immanuel" than Jesus ever was, because Jesus never fulfilled the whole sign (7:14-17).

If you had bothered to read the other part of chapter 8, you would see that Isaiah himself and his children were the signs:

18 Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

And no where in the gospel (according to Matthew and elsewhere) where Jesus used the name "Immanuel". Jesus called himself many things, like the son of man, the good shepherd, messiah or Christ, but never "Immanuel". In Luke's birth myth, "Immanuel" is never mentioned.

 

[Desert Snake]

Again, you ignoring the rest of chapter 7, just as Matthew 1 do.

The sign was regarding to the reign of Ahaz, about 700 years before Jesus' birth. The sign was not just about the birth of this son born of young woman, but about the boy being born in Ahaz's time. Before Pekah of Israel and Rezin king of Aram could invade Judah, they would be attacked by Assyria.

Did you even bother to read the rest of sign (Isaiah 7:15-17)?



This boy (of verses 14-17) couldn't be Jesus, because the boy have to be born in Ahaz's reign, and when Assyria had taken Damascus and Israel (which would save Judah from their enemies), just before the boy know right from wrong, but when the boy had started eating curd and honey.

Jesus had taken no part in the sign as given in verse 14-17, and taken in no part of Assyria delivering Judah from their enemies (Israel and Aram).

What do Jesus have to do with Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the king of Assyria? (In my view, nothing whatsoever.)

If you take verse 14 without considering verses 1-13 and verses 15-25, then you will be taking verse 14 completely out of context.

Are verses 15-17 not relevant to verse 14? Why do you ignore the other parts of the passage?

It is shoddy scholarship on Matthew's part (or whoever really wrote the gospel of matthew) and on any Christian who ignore the rest of chapter 7.

Yikes, the KJV version of Isaiah 7-14-->, gives a completely different meaning to those verses...it might not be important, but it's dramatic enough to notice, IMO

 

[Desert Snake]

Anyways, still no discrepancies that I can tell, the "sign" being the virgin/young woman birth or as I suggested the Star of Bethlehem

 

[gnostic]

Yikes, the KJV version of Isaiah 7-14-->, gives a completely different meaning to those verses...it might not be important, but it's dramatic enough to notice, IMO

You should try the 1985 translation from Jewish Publication Society (JPS) of the Tanakh, when reading the Old Testament:

Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures
According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
The Jewish Publication Society, 1985
​

Since you are reading Hebrew Scriptures then you should read the OT from Jewish perspective and Jewish context, not Christian ones.

 

[Desert Snake]

You should try the 1985 translation from Jewish Publication Society (JPS) of the Tanakh, when reading the Old Testament:

Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures
According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
The Jewish Publication Society, 1985
​

Since you are reading Hebrew Scriptures then you should read the OT from Jewish perspective and Jewish context, not Christian ones.

Thanks for the advice, I need a new OT regardless, and did want a Hebrew version

[edit] actually some Christian perspective is quite informative

 

[gnostic]

[edit] actually some Christian perspective is quite informative

Sure it is, esp if you're Christian and others are Christians. I don't doubt that. But you must remember that the Hebrew bible was not written by Christians. Hence early Christian authors will see the text from different perspective, and will change the meaning of those texts they are translating.

It is like only reading half the message.

They (Christians) had changed the word from young woman to virgin in 7:14. If you read the early replies, I had debated against referring the morning star to lucifer-satan-devil in 14:12. The prophecy (14:12) was clearly about the King of Babylon, and not the devil as many Christians believe it to be, because they selective ignored the rest of the passages in chapter 14.

Ask any Jews here and they will tell you that the morning star is the metaphor or simile for the king of Babylon.

Just as sincerly had selectively ignore verses 13 & 15-17 (in chapter 7) or verses 8:1-18.

So my question to you is this, should sincerly ignore other parts of the message (7:13-17) or prophecy?

 

[Desert Snake]

This thread seems too specific to discuss the general idea of Christian theology being possibly wrong, i'm well aware of the 'other' side of the argument, just not so much with the translations etc.

 

[gnostic]

This thread seems too specific to discuss the general idea of Christian theology being possibly wrong, i'm well aware of the 'other' side of the argument, just not so much with the translations etc.

Then let me be more specific; we will ignore who translate what, and we will just concentrate on the 7:13-17.

Do you think a person of any background (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc) can read 1 verse (7:14) out of 5 and think that's (one verse) the only message in those verses?

Shouldn't a person read all the verses to be better understand this sign?

 

[Desert Snake]

Then let me be more specific; we will ignore who translate what, and we will just concentrate on the 7:13-17.

Do you think a person of any background (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc) can read 1 verse (7:14) out of 5 and think that's (one verse) the only message in those verses?

Shouldn't a person read all the verses to be better understand this sign?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, I prefer to keep my options open when reading scripture

 

[gnostic]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, I prefer to keep my options open when reading scripture

Then let me put it this way.

In the gospel, Jesus tell of many different parables. These parables are stories to guide the listeners or readers. There is a message(s) in each parable.

Let say for example there 12 verses in one of these parables, and only just one verse out of 12 verses. Let say I selectively quote only the 2nd verse.

Can you understand the message within the parable without reading the rest of the parable? Wouldn't it be better to read the entire parable to understand what the meaning of the parables?

I can twist that 2nd verse to mean anything I want.

That's exactly what the author (Matthew?) did when he quoted 7:14. He changed the context of the original message or prophecy. Matthew had ignored the rest of message (7:13-17).

Sincerly had also ignored the entire chapter just in favour of one single verse, and thereby changing the meaning of a verse. For him, it is about prophecy of Jesus' birth from a supposed eternal virgin. It completely ignored chapter, where it is Isaiah's son is the sign of the outcome of the coming war, where the king of Assyria is the victor over Israel and Aram.

I have quoted from 7 & 8, but sincerly chose to ignore large parts of those chapters, which indicate that Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with 7:14.

It is shoddy scholarship. It is deception. It is nothing more than propaganda.

Tell me: do you read the entire message or just only small part of the message?

 

[Shermana]

Gnostic, what do you think of what I posted about how the Virgin Birth and the geneology in Matthew may have been interpolated just like how, as is generally agreed, the account in Luke is interpolated?

For example, do you think the initial author of Matthew would have really messed up the geneology so badly like saying Rahab gave birth to a son who lived 300 years later?

 

[CG Didymus]

Gnostic, what do you think of what I posted about how the Virgin Birth and the geneology in Matthew may have been interpolated just like how, as is generally agreed, the account in Luke is interpolated?

I'm going to some "emerging" Church Christmas thing tonight. They don't worry about any of the "touchy" issues. It's the only church my wife will go to. She likes the doctrine and dogmaless "fellowship." It seems empty and boring to me. In the old days, the 70's, my favorite churches were the Charismatic ones; they got into some serious praising. It was fun and I "believed" it, because I had no reason to doubt it. Once I started looking into the Bible and how the canon came to be, I came to believe there is a ton of interpolation. From second or third hand sources, I'm supposed to know for sure what Jesus said? I read a few verses in John yesterday, the verses where Nicodemus talks privately with Jesus, how did John get it right? Jesus' words don't sound like a dialog with someone but an interpolated sermon. Why, in a conversation, would Jesus blurt out John 3:16? But that's John interpolation not some later editor.
I hope Gnostic has time to respond. He always has something meaningful to say. And you, Shermana, I'm intrigued with the bits and pieces I'm hearing about what you believe. Is it summarized somewhere on the forum? Or, if not could you take the time to summarize them? Thanks and have a great Christmas (even though I believe it was interpolated, extrapolated and down right forced into Christianity.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Then let me put it this way.

In the gospel, Jesus tell of many different parables. These parables are stories to guide the listeners or readers. There is a message(s) in each parable.

Let say for example there 12 verses in one of these parables, and only just one verse out of 12 verses. Let say I selectively quote only the 2nd verse.

Can you understand the message within the parable without reading the rest of the parable? Wouldn't it be better to read the entire parable to understand what the meaning of the parables?

I can twist that 2nd verse to mean anything I want.

That's exactly what the author (Matthew?) did when he quoted 7:14. He changed the context of the original message or prophecy. Matthew had ignored the rest of message (7:13-17).

Sincerly had also ignored the entire chapter just in favour of one single verse, and thereby changing the meaning of a verse. For him, it is about prophecy of Jesus' birth from a supposed eternal virgin. It completely ignored chapter, where it is Isaiah's son is the sign of the outcome of the coming war, where the king of Assyria is the victor over Israel and Aram.

I have quoted from 7 & 8, but sincerly chose to ignore large parts of those chapters, which indicate that Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with 7:14.

It is shoddy scholarship. It is deception. It is nothing more than propaganda.

Tell me: do you read the entire message or just only small part of the message?

You'll have to present your argument besides the "sign", which I already speculated could have been the Star of Bethlehem

 

[sincerly]

Then let me put it this way.

In the gospel, Jesus tell of many different parables. These parables are stories to guide the listeners or readers. There is a message(s) in each parable.

Let say for example there 12 verses in one of these parables, and only just one verse out of 12 verses. Let say I selectively quote only the 2nd verse.

Can you understand the message within the parable without reading the rest of the parable? Wouldn't it be better to read the entire parable to understand what the meaning of the parables?

I can twist that 2nd verse to mean anything I want.

That's exactly what the author (Matthew?) did when he quoted 7:14. He changed the context of the original message or prophecy. Matthew had ignored the rest of message (7:13-17).

Sincerly had also ignored the entire chapter just in favour of one single verse, and thereby changing the meaning of a verse. For him, it is about prophecy of Jesus' birth from a supposed eternal virgin. It completely ignored chapter, where it is Isaiah's son is the sign of the outcome of the coming war, where the king of Assyria is the victor over Israel and Aram.

I have quoted from 7 & 8, but sincerly chose to ignore large parts of those chapters, which indicate that Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with 7:14.

It is shoddy scholarship. It is deception. It is nothing more than propaganda.

Tell me: do you read the entire message or just only small part of the message?

Hi Gnostic, Keep my posts and what I have written according to that which I wrote and not your interpolation. Again, if you missed it---I have read and did comment concerning Isaiah 7+8 ---ALL.
Matthew was one of the "many" who "have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us".(that was done starting about 24 years after the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.)
I have no doubts that Matthew was guided by the same Holy Spirit who directed Gabriel to come to Joseph in a dream and identified Mary's Pregnancy with that prophesied by Isaiah in 7:10-14.

True, Ahaz was NOT following GOD'S leading(Ahaz's Reign would NOT deter the Creator GOD's plan of redemption of Mankind.) and 8:1-8 involved 7:15-25 as well. However, that does NOT Negate the message and the scriptural source that the Angel stated was the source for its being fulfilled.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure it is, esp if you're Christian and others are Christians. I don't doubt that. But you must remember that the Hebrew bible was not written by Christians. Hence early Christian authors will see the text from different perspective, and will change the meaning of those texts they are translating.

A good translation shouldn't really be about the perspective, rather the accuracy of the language/word definitions. The 'interpretation' is important to actually figure out any metaphorical/cultural meaning
I frankly disagree with your statement, religion often does not enter the equation, culture/ethnicity might, but your statement of "ask any Jew".etc. belies an interpretive bias on your part, IMO