Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[CG Didymus]

You are incorrect.

Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his nameJESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"Emmanuel/Immanuel" was a general title given to Jesus, simply to denote the presence of God amongst his chosen people.

That is the whole point of my question. Did Matthew misquote, embellish, superimpose and otherwise take Isaiah out of context? Some people have said that the young woman was already pregnant. The concept of the messiah being called God with us and being a personal savior and saving people from their sins is from Christianity, not from Isaiah. The virgin part creates the dual-prophesy problem or if Jesus was the only son born to a virgin then why was it a sign for King Ahaz? And then when did Jesus have to get old enough to know to choose between right and wrong--he was God. And, like mentioned by Gnostic, when did the two enemies of Judah get destroyed in Jesus' time? You have the title Constantine, were you the one that called the council of the churches together? Or was that a different Constantine?
Jesus might be God. He might be a great prophet made into a god. If he is real and is God, then he should be alive and much more a powerful force in the lives of his people. Because he's not, I tend to think even his followers have a problem believing the whole story. If more Christians showed me Jesus by their actions rather than quibbling over hundreds of opposing interpretations, I'd be impressed. But I'm sitting here spiritually naked, hungry and alone. So empty inside for the true living water, but each Christian tells me a different story. I look to the Scripture and I see inconsistencies with how the story was told. The biggest question is: Was Jesus the one foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures? Yes, if you bend, twist and finagle the words around. But then Christianity isn't even consistent with Judaism. The Law, the Sabbath gone. Several forms of Christianities are pretty good ways to live, but they make up their own version of the story to justify themselves. Many Christians believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, but if the Bible says in one place to follow His Laws and live and in another that the law will never save you, then what is He doing? Some Christians like to say that God is not the author of confusion, if that is so, then He didn't write the Bible. I'm sure your beliefs about Jesus are working fine for you, but where did they come from? Who were the men that put the concepts and ideas together? I'm going all the way back to the source. Can I trust Matthew? If not, then who really was Jesus? Liar, lunatic, Lord or the legend made up by his followers? Legend seems most likely.

 

[Conståntine]

That is the whole point of my question. Did Matthew misquote, embellish, superimpose and otherwise take Isaiah out of context? Some people have said that the young woman was already pregnant. The concept of the messiah being called God with us and being a personal savior and saving people from their sins is from Christianity, not from Isaiah.

????

I'm not sure I am following you. Are you saying that the concept of a messiah (which means "anointed one") is no where to be found in Isaiah (or perhaps any old testament books)? If so, you are also incorrect.

The prophecy:

Isaiah 61:1: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isaiah 61:2: To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isaiah 61:3: To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

As per Jesus, here is the fulfilling of this prophecy:

Luke 4:17: And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luke 4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19: To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luke 4:20: And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luke 4:21: And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Luke 4:22: And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The virgin part creates the dual-prophesy problem or if Jesus was the only son born to a virgin then why was it a sign for King Ahaz?

I have no idea why God chose that sign specifically. Ask him. And ask him what's up with crop circles too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then when did Jesus have to get old enough to know to choose between right and wrong--he was God.

He has always known that from the beginning of time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, like mentioned by Gnostic, when did the two enemies of Judah get destroyed in Jesus' time?

Specifically, what are you referring to?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have the title Constantine, were you the one that called the council of the churches together?

????

Sorry - I'm Conståntine the filmmaker and part-time blitz chess player.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus might be God. He might be a great prophet made into a god. If he is real and is God, then he should be alive and much more a powerful force in the lives of his people. Because he's not, I tend to think even his followers have a problem believing the whole story.

And he is not, because....??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If more Christians showed me Jesus by their actions rather than quibbling over hundreds of opposing interpretations, I'd be impressed.

What constitutes a christian, if I may ask?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest question is: Was Jesus the one foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures? Yes, if you bend, twist and finagle the words around.

Actually, one need not bend scriptures around too much. If one believes that Christ was the one who fit the description of the scriptures below, then to that person he shall be the messiah. I'll leave that to you to decide:

Isaiah 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:7: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 11:1: And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 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;
Isaiah 11:3: And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
Isaiah 11:4: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

Daniel 9:25: 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then Christianity isn't even consistent with Judaism.

And your point is.....??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law, the Sabbath gone.

You are half right. The new testament teaches us about the observance of the sabbath, but not as it were in the days of the old testament. As far as the law being gone, what is your point?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Christians believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, but if the Bible says in one place to follow His Laws and live and in another that the law will never save you, then what is He doing?

Perhaps he's telling us that it is by his grace that we are saved (through faith- Ephesians 2:8-9). Seemed easy enough for me to understand when I first read about it and it by no means detracts any sensibility from him requiring us to follow his laws.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Christians like to say that God is not the author of confusion, if that is so, then He didn't write the Bible.

You're confused? No problem:

James 1:5: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
James 1:6: But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure your beliefs about Jesus are working fine for you, but where did they come from?

That's quite a story. In short, they proceeded God's revelation to myself - a revelation that I could not deny.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who were the men that put the concepts and ideas together? I'm going all the way back to the source. Can I trust Matthew? If not, then who really was Jesus? Liar, lunatic, Lord or the legend made up by his followers? Legend seems most likely.

That's up to you to decide.

 

[CG Didymus]

My Quote:
Originally Posted by CG Didymus
But then Christianity isn't even consistent with Judaism.

Yours

And your point is.....??

Constantine, the other one, called for a council to get all the churches on the same page. Christians are still not on the same page with each other. They are a distant cousin to Judaism. If I use the Bible to try and figure out the truth, I see inconsistencies throughout. I can take a Jewish interpretation and get rid of the Christian addition to the Scriptures, or I can take one of many Christian interpretations and become that particular type of Christian. It is confusing. I know it's not confusing for you, Sincerly, Pegg, Rusra 2, Lady B and others, but then again do all of you agree? For Matthew to use only part of a verse is what other religions do to the Christian Bible. One group claims their prophet is the return of Christ. They use the verse that says when he the Spirit of Truth comes, He will lead you into all Truth. At the time I believed them. Why would they lie? Then I read the verse in context in Acts and it was clear that it was the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost. Or, was it a dual-prophecy? Their religion changes everything that most traditional Christian churches teach. They said that Christians had it wrong. They say that Christians went astray and misinterpreted their own Scriptures. I'm sure you would tell those people that they are the ones wrong. That Jesus hasn't returned because the prophecies haven't been fulfilled correctly. And that is exactly what Christians have done to the Jews. There are plenty of prophecies not fulfilled and not fulfilled correctly, or, like Isaiah chapter 7, manipulated to sound as if it was a fulfilled prophecy. I think most religions have a lot of good in how they want their followers to live. They all tell tales of how they came to be and how their prophet is better than some other. They explain our purpose and how we got here, but they're all different. So I think there is a good chance that most of the details are man made and made to sound god made. And that goes for Christian denominations as well, they each think they have a better take on what's truth. So which one is true? If all of Christianity is based on Judaism, then it should be more consistent with Judaism, but it makes a giant leap away from it.

 

[Conståntine]

Constantine, the other one, called for a council to get all the churches on the same page. Christians are still not on the same page with each other.

There are many "christian groups" out there. While I will be the first to concede that the bible does speak against even the mere spectre of denominations and the consequent divisions that they bring, the true christians need only worry about being on the same page as God, and not any other church organization.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are a distant cousin to Judaism. If I use the Bible to try and figure out the truth, I see inconsistencies throughout.

Firstly, christians aren't a distant cousin of anything. Under the old and new testaments alike, our salvation rested in God's grace by way of our faith in him. That happened before there was a law, during the time of the law, and after the law.

Secondly, if you and any others see inconsistencies within the scriptures, then perhaps the following scriptures can clarify why that might be:

Mark 4:11: And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Luke 8:10: And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

The question then becomes - which category do you fall in? If you fall in the category of those that are on the outside of the kingdom of God, then you have to remedy that, if you want any understanding of God's word that is. If not, no point complaining about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that goes for Christian denominations as well, they each think they have a better take on what's truth. So which one is true? If all of Christianity is based on Judaism, then it should be more consistent with Judaism, but it makes a giant leap away from it.

The answer is:

Jeremiah 29:13: And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Seek God out until you find him. If he's really real, then he'll honour his promise, so long as you do your part

 

[gnostic]

You are incorrect.

Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his nameJESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"Emmanuel/Immanuel" was a general title given to Jesus, simply to denote the presence of God amongst his chosen people.

It is rather inexcusable and ignorant when Christians like yourself, blindly ignore the other 3-quarter of the sign.

Isaiah was speaking, beginning @ verse 13, and the sign begins @ 14, but Isaiah doesn't stop speaking of the sign until the end of verse 17.

Why do many Christians foolishly ignore the whole messages?

13"Listen, House of David,"[ Isaiah] retorted,"is it not enough for you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless? 14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah -- that selfsame king of Assyria!

As I explained in my previous reply, Isaiah was addressing Ahaz, king of Judah, about his enemies - Pekah and Rezin, which they are mentioned at the beginning of the chapter 7. And it mentioned the king of Assyria saving Judah when it attacked Israel and Aram.

These attacks is recorded in 2 Kings 15:29 how Tiglath-Pileser (III) took a number of cities and deported many Israelite to Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser also attacked Damascus (2 Kings 16:9), because Ahaz paid tributes to Tiglath-Pileser.

Immanuel is related to the event of Ahaz's time when Pekah allied himself with Rezin and attack Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1 & 2 Kings 16:5).

1 In the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel marched upon Jerusalem to attack it; but they were not able to attack it.

5 Then King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel advanced on Jerusalem for battle. They besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome[ him].

Immanuel is mention again in Isaiah 8:10, where it is mentioned in relation to battle and war in Judah with Israel and Aram, and where it is revealed that Isaiah's own son would be the sign:

3 I [Isaiah] was intimate with the prophetess, a and she conceived and bore a son; and the LORD said to me,"Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 4 For before the boy learns to call ‘Father'and ‘Mother,'the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, a and the delights of Rezin and of the son of Remaliah, shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

5 Again the LORD spoke to me, thus:

6"Because that people has spurned
The gently flowing waters of Siloam"a --

7 Assuredly,
My Lord will bring up against them
The mighty, massive waters of the Euphrates,
The king of Assyria and all his multitude.
It shall rise above all its channels,
And flow over all its beds,

8 And swirl through Judah like a flash flood
Reaching up to the neck. a
b But with us is God,
Whose wings are spread
As wide as your land is broad!

9 Band together, O peoples -- you shall be broken!
Listen to this, you remotest parts of the earth:
Gird yourselves -- you shall be broken;
Gird yourselves -- you shall be broken!

10 Hatch a plot -- it shall be foiled;
Agree on action -- it shall not succeed.
For with us is God [Immanuel]!

There is a lot more that followed verse 10, but what is most interesting is that in verse 18, Isaiah say that he and his children were the signs:

18 Here stand I and the children the LORD has given me as signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of Hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Why and how do you ignore it (the rest of the sign or message)?

 

[Conståntine]

It is rather inexcusable and ignorant when Christians like yourself, blindly ignore the other 3-quarter of the sign.

Isaiah was speaking, beginning @ verse 13, and the sign begins @ 14, but Isaiah doesn't stop speaking of the sign until the end of verse 17.

Why do many Christians foolishly ignore the whole messages?



As I explained in my previous reply, Isaiah was addressing Ahaz, king of Judah, about his enemies - Pekah and Rezin, which they are mentioned at the beginning of the chapter 7. And it mentioned the king of Assyria saving Judah when it attacked Israel and Aram.

????

I would like you to pay careful attention to something:

Isaiah 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.
Isaiah 7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isaiah 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.
Isaiah 7:17: ¶The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.


Starting at verse 17, another subject is being discussed, totally removed from the one which preceded it. In any event, a lot of bibles have a little sign that looks like so - ¶ - which indicates that a new subject is being discussed, or perhaps you could even say "a chapter within a chapter". I suggest that before you label any christians as ignorant, you first remedy your oversight before it develops into a more problematic issue.

 

[Poisonshady313]

????

I would like you to pay careful attention to something:

Isaiah 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.
Isaiah 7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isaiah 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.
Isaiah 7:17: ¶The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.


Starting at verse 17, another subject is being discussed, totally removed from the one which preceded it. In any event, a lot of bibles have a little sign that looks like so - ¶ - which indicates that a new subject is being discussed, or perhaps you could even say "a chapter within a chapter". I suggest that before you label any christians as ignorant, you first remedy your oversight before it develops into a more problematic issue.

Let's suppose that your post is in any way relevant.

No, I'm sorry, I can't suppose such a thing.

First of all, you still have to account for verse 16.

Second... that little symbol... it's a paragraph break. I'm not sure how you made it out of the 5th grade not knowing that.

Thirdly, you have no way of knowing if that's where Isaiah really put the paragraph break.

I suggest that before you suggest that others remedy their oversights, you remedy yours.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You are incorrect.

Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his nameJESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"Emmanuel/Immanuel" was a general title given to Jesus, simply to denote the presence of God amongst his chosen people.

You are incorrect.

Matthew 1:23 is the author badly and inaccurately quoting Isaiah, who said "and she will name him Emmanuel." The mother was supposed to name the child Emmanuel. Jesus was named Jesus. In fact, the ONLY time the name "Emmanuel" is used in the "new testament" is in Matthew 1:23... and it isn't even anybody referring to Jesus by that name... it's simply a pause in the narration for Matthew to (badly and inaccurately) remind us of a verse in Isaiah.

 

[Conståntine]

Let's suppose that your post is in any way relevant.

No, I'm sorry, I can't suppose such a thing.

First of all, you still have to account for verse 16.

I'm not sure how verse 16 was or is relevant to the original subject at hand. Your seeking information at this time is also not relevant to myself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second... that little symbol... it's a paragraph break. I'm not sure how you made it out of the 5th grade not knowing that.

That's assuming that I didn't know it in the first place. But my purpose was to highlight it's function as opposed to its name. And my description by no means falls short of of that which is connected to the name that you supplied. And on a slightly unimportant note, in my former non-American school system, we did not have grades per se.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirdly, you have no way of knowing if that's where Isaiah really put the paragraph break.

If you do, then tell me. Otherwise, don't bore us with suppositions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest that before you suggest that others remedy their oversights, you remedy yours.

That's assuming you can find one already

 

[Conståntine]

Y

Matthew 1:23 is the author badly and inaccurately quoting Isaiah, who said "and she will name him Emmanuel." The mother was supposed to name the child Emmanuel. Jesus was named Jesus. In fact, the ONLY time the name "Emmanuel" is used in the "new testament" is in Matthew 1:23... and it isn't even anybody referring to Jesus by that name... it's simply a pause in the narration for Matthew to (badly and inaccurately) remind us of a verse in Isaiah.

Again, I will state that Emmanuel is more or less a title that Jesus bore, denoting that God was amongst his people. A name is a name, and a title is a title. Just like the titles that he would bear that were listed in Isaiah 9:6

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not sure how verse 16 was or is relevant to the original subject at hand. Your seeking information at this time is also not relevant to myself.

Seriously? It's the only thing that's relevant. IT'S THE SIGN! If you're not sure how it's relevant, you're not paying attention.

If you do, then tell me. Otherwise, don't bore us with suppositions.

That's funny. The existence of that paragraph break itself is a supposition, and you're telling ME not to bore you with suppositions?

The point is, you can't know because none of us can. If I were to try to tell you I knew where it was, it would be every bit as arrogant as you doing it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Again, I will state that Emmanuel is more or less a title that Jesus bore, denoting that God was amongst his people. A name is a name, and a title is a title. Just like the titles that he would bear that were listed in Isaiah 9:6

Say it as often as you like. No character ever addressed him by that title, no author ever referred to him by that title.

 

[Conståntine]

Seriously? It's the only thing that's relevant. IT'S THE SIGN! If you're not sure how it's relevant, you're not paying attention.

If it is relevant, than it would only be relevant to the other person I was talking to before you interjected with a lame ad hominem that added or took nothing away from our discourse.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny. The existence of that paragraph break itself is a supposition, and you're telling ME not to bore you with suppositions?

It's not a supposition. Exactly as I found it in my bible, I copied and pasted it.

 

[gnostic]

Let's suppose that your post is in any way relevant.

No, I'm sorry, I can't suppose such a thing.

First of all, you still have to account for verse 16.

Second... that little symbol... it's a paragraph break. I'm not sure how you made it out of the 5th grade not knowing that.

Thirdly, you have no way of knowing if that's where Isaiah really put the paragraph break.

I suggest that before you suggest that others remedy their oversights, you remedy yours.

Don't be so blind, constantine.

Isaiah doesn't stop speaking until the end of verse 17 (the Isaiah started speaking at verse 13). The verses of 7:14-17, which is the sign, are all related to one another. It also related to the rest of chapter. There are no paragraph break between 13 and 17. The double quote ", which indicate Isaiah's speaking, didn't end until the end of verse 17. How do you explain that?

Matthew ignored it, and you're ignoring it too, simply demonstrated his and your agenda when quoting 7:14, which is - to twist the message in Isaiah to suit the Christian interpretation of the messiah.

The sign was given to Ahaz, and no one else, and it certainly not prophecy of the messiah. The sign is related to what is happening 7:1 when 2 kingdoms attacked Jerusalem.

Did you bother to read the entire chapter (chapter 7)?

It is seriously poor biblical scholarship, when you ignore the whole message (verse 7:13-17) and the whole chapter (chapter 7), especially when concerning the context of Isaiah 7 (and 8).

Matthew completely ignored the whole chapter. If he didn't ignore the whole chapter, then he would realize that his quote was wrong, and his interpretation of (3/4 of) the sign to be flawed.

And stop quoting from the Greek translation, which Matthew used. Isaiah 7 and all other was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. The word almah is "young woman" or "girl", not virgin.

Other than Matthew 23, Jesus was never named "Immanuel". This name doesn't appear in the earliest Christian writings from Paul, nor any other gospels, including that of Luke 1 & 2.

Jesus was the only name used. He was given many titles, like the Son of God, Son of Man, Son, Shepherd, and so forth, but he never named himself Immanuel. And based on everyone else whose works are found in the New Testament, I think it safe to say Jesus isn't "Immanuel" found in Isaiah 7 and 8.

 

[Conståntine]

Say it as often as you like. No character ever addressed him by that title, no author ever referred to him by that title.

Pretty lame. Apparently the author of the book of Matthew did. You must have a rather short memory. More importantly, to many saints, that is what Jesus represents to them - God with us. Your objections are hardly their concern.

 

[Shermana]

The name itself is "God is with us", not "God with us". Kind of like how every Hebrew name works by saying something about God. It doesn't mean "This person is God here with us" Just sayin'.

And considering the evidence that the narrative in Matthew is indeed interpolated like Luke's (despite Jay's dismissive naysaying), it probably wasn't the original author of Matthew who made that corrolation.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Pretty lame. Apparently the author of the book of Matthew did. You must have a rather short memory. More importantly, to many saints, that is what Jesus represents to them - God with us. Your objections are hardly their concern.

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

He wasn't actually referring to Jesus as "Emmanuel". He was referring to the previous verses of Matthew which he hoped to tie into Isaiah 7... and I say "hoped" because even verse 22 uses the word "might"... "that it might be fulfilled".

Matthew only reminds the reader that the verse in Isaiah used the word Emmanuel... perhaps hoping that someone would come along and call Jesus Emmanuel... but Matthew didn't himself actually call Jesus Emmanuel, especially evidenced by the fact that the name doesn't occur anywhere else in the book of Matthew, or any of the "new testament" for that matter.

 

[Shermana]

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

He wasn't actually referring to Jesus as "Emmanuel". He was referring to the previous verses of Matthew which he hoped to tie into Isaiah 7... and I say "hoped" because even verse 22 uses the word "might"... "that it might be fulfilled".

Matthew only reminds the reader that the verse in Isaiah used the word Emmanuel... perhaps hoping that someone would come along and call Jesus Emmanuel... but Matthew didn't himself actually call Jesus Emmanuel, especially evidenced by the fact that the name doesn't occur anywhere else in the book of Matthew, or any of the "new testament" for that matter.

All the more reason why such is most likely a later addition, like the Lukean account.

 

[Conståntine]

Isaiah doesn't stop speaking until the end of verse 17 (the Isaiah started speaking at verse 13). The verses of 7:14-17, which is the sign, are all related to one another. It also related to the rest of chapter.

Not according to what I saw.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew ignored it, and you're ignoring it too, simply demonstrated his and your agenda when quoting 7:14, which is - to twist the message in Isaiah to suit the Christian interpretation of the messiah.

There are many scriptures besides those of Isaiah 7 that speak of a Messiah. Would you care to see more?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sign was given to Ahaz, and no one else, and it certainly not prophecy of the messiah.

Everything in the bible is written for us all.

Romans 15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sign is related to what is happening 7:1 when 2 kingdoms attacked Jerusalem.

And what was the affinity with Immanuel to these two kingdoms that attacked Jerusalem, pray tell?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you bother to read the entire chapter (chapter 7)?

I did. Still don't see how the entire chapter is relevant to the discussion at hand, but I'm sure you will thoroughly explain how very shortly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is seriously poor biblical scholarship, when you ignore the whole message (verse 7:13-17) and the whole chapter (chapter 7), especially when concerning the context of Isaiah 7 (and 8).

Matthew completely ignored the whole chapter. If he didn't then he would realize that his quote was wrong.

I have no idea what Matthew did or did not ignore, so I have no comment. All I have are you accusations of which do not interest me in the least.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And stop quoting from the Greek translation, which Matthew used. Isaiah 7 and all other was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. The word almah is "young woman" or "girl", not virgin.

Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמו&#1514 is a Hebrew feminine noun used in the Hebrew bible for a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child.[1] Christian Old Testaments typically translate it as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl, although scholars agree that "almah" has nothing to do with virginity.[2]

Let's agree that she may have been, or she may not have been one. If you insist that she wasn't, then provide some proof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than Matthew 23, Jesus was never named "Immanuel". This name doesn't appear in the earliest Christian writings from Paul, nor any other gospels, including that of Luke 1 & 2.

The quantity of occurrences doesn't necessarily legitimize (or debunk) your claims. Thus, I'm not moved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus was the only name used. He was given many titles, like the Son of God, Son of Man, Son, Shepherd, and so forth, but he never named himself Immanuel. And based on everyone else whose works are found in the New Testament, I think it safe to say Jesus isn't "Immanuel" found in Isaiah 7 and 8.

Where did Jesus name himself all of those titles that you listed? If I don't see him naming himself such in the scriptures, does that mean those titles are false? As I stated before, Emmanuel was a title, and not a name!

 

[gnostic]

All the more reason why such is most likely a later addition, like the Lukean account.

Both Matthew's and Luke's accounts of Jesus' birth don't match other with each other...and I am not just talking about the genealogy.

The only things both of them have in common is that Mary was the mother of Jesus, and he was given birth in Bethlehem. The details and settings are complete polar opposites.

Herod, the 3 kings or magi, the massacre, exile (in Egypt), the manger, the shepherds, the procession of angels, the census and governor of Syria, showed that Matthew and Luke have nothing in common. It is like each author telling 2 different version.

To me, they both embellished and exaggerated everything else.