Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Conståntine]

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 I have are the scriptures to go by. You seem to have some uncanny ability to read the minds of people long past and comprehend their true intentions. I do not have this ability, and I have no inclination to trust your powers clairvoyance. You claimed that my assertions were false. The basis of your counterclaims rests largely on your gift of mind-reading. I am not prepared to counter your claims on this level unfortunately

 

[Shermana]

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.

Exactly. And Matthew's account has things like Rahab giving birth to a son who lived 300 years later. The fact that they simply don't match up in so many respects is tell tale of it being interpolated by later sources.

Did you read my posts and links on the subject? It's crystal clear, at least IMO and that of some others, that it's not just the Lukean account which is interpolated (Luke's account is widely believed to be interpolated), and it's likely that the Ebionites' version of Matthew started at Chapter 3 not just because they snipped out the first two chapters....

 

[Poisonshady313]

????

All I have are the scriptures to go by. You seem to have some uncanny ability to read the minds of people long past and comprehend their true intentions. I do not have this ability, and I have no inclination to trust your powers clairvoyance. You claimed that my assertions were false. The basis of your counterclaims rests largely on your gift of mind-reading. I am not prepared to counter your claims on this level unfortunately

I think you don't understand words like "might" and "perhaps".

I'm not the one to try to explain them to you.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As I stated before, Emmanuel was a title, and not a name!

This very much defeats Matthew 1:23, which inaccurately refers to a verse in Isaiah which clearly states that the child's NAME will be called Emmanuel.

 

[Conståntine]

I think you don't understand words like "might" and "perhaps".

I'm not the one to try to explain them to you.

If you haven't offered any concrete proof of your claims, then there's no point in explaining any other words to me. I fear you may merely give me your opinion despite an abundance of online dictionaries. I understand those words quite well, in my native and non-native languages - thank you. And if those are the words that sum up your previous arguments, then you have wasted your time, as you have tried to debunk my claims with mere suppositions of which do not particularly interest me.

 

[Conståntine]

This very much defeats Matthew 1:23, which inaccurately refers to a verse in Isaiah which clearly states that the child's NAME will be called Emmanuel.

As far as I can see, the verse tells me that Jesus who was to be born in the world was to be "God with us".

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.

In the same sense, the child wasn't necessarily supposed to be called by proper name all of these titles. These titles were meant to convey the general nature of the person in question. No different from the title Immanuel. As we have done nothing but go back and forth, there's little point in continuing.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If you haven't offered any concrete proof of your claims, then there's no point in explaining any other words to me. I fear you may merely give me your opinion despite an abundance of online dictionaries. I understand those words quite well, in my native and non-native languages - thank you. And if those are the words that sum up your previous arguments, then you have wasted your time, as you have tried to debunk my claims with mere suppositions of which do not particularly interest me.

I directly quoted Matthew 1:22 to make my point, and you're telling me that I'm merely giving you opinions.

Your inability to follow the conversation is growing tiresome. Goodbye.

 

[Shermana]

As far as I can see, the verse tells me that Jesus who was to be born in the world was to be "God with us".

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.

In the same sense, the child wasn't necessarily supposed to be called by proper name all of these titles. These titles were meant to convey the general nature of the person in question. No different from the title Immanuel. As we have done nothing but go back and forth, there's little point in continuing.

Isaiah 9:6, as Justin Martyr and even Trinitarian commentators and grammarians have translated it, should read "Angel of Great council". Or "mighty hero".

And that's not even getting into the idea that Isaiah 9:6 is a long compound name.

Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

And the Douay Rheims has the "Everlasting Father" bit translated more on track, it should read "Father of the age" as its Avi Ad, which is the possessive form, not the nominative as most translations erroneously state.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As far as I can see, the verse tells me that Jesus who was to be born in the world was to be "God with us".

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.

In the same sense, the child wasn't necessarily supposed to be called by proper name all of these titles. These titles were meant to convey the general nature of the person in question. No different from the title Immanuel. As we have done nothing but go back and forth, there's little point in continuing.

Ok... I saw this just before I was about to add your name to my ignore list...

Here's the verse from Isaiah in Hebrew.

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

... and shall call his name Emmanuel.

This nonsense about it being a title is just... nonsense.

That is all.

 

[Conståntine]

I directly quoted Matthew 1:22 to make my point, and you're telling me that I'm merely giving you opinions.

Your inability to follow the conversation is growing tiresome. Goodbye.

The opinions I cited had nothing to do with the scripture you named They had to do with the intentions of the author of the book of Matthew that you did in fact post. Read more carefully next time, and perhaps you won't become so exasperated. Goodbye!!

And what is the point of pasting scriptures in hebrew? What's your point?

 

[gnostic]

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

Sure you may, but how would it relate to Isaiah's verse and how would they relate to Matthew's interpretation?

If they are unrelated, then it would be totally irrelevant and off-topic.

Let's try to stay on topic.

The thing is that nothing in chapter 7 shout out "MESSIAH", let alone the single verse - verse 14.

The context verse 14 doesn't in any way signify "messiah" or "Jesus". That just Matthew's interpretation on the quote.

Even the "virgin" business is wrongly translated.

The most popular English translation is the KJV. The KJV was translated into English from the Masoretic Text (MT), which was written in Hebrew, with supplement of the Greek Septuagint bible.

Matthew clearly used Greek in Matthew 1:23, and that is fine, when they were translating into English from Greek, so it is okay for KJV translators to use "virgin". BUT it was a mistake for the KJV translators to translate Isaiah 7:14 from Greek instead of Hebrew into English, because Isaiah 7 was written in Hebrew not Greek. Isaiah 7 belonged to a Hebrew scripture.

The translation found in KJV, like that in Isaiah 7, simply highlight the inconsistencies of the KJV translators, mixing Hebrew and Greek sources, especially when the Hebrew version (MT) is available.

Some of the newer (English) translation, like New Interational Version (NIV) botched it up by following the same KJV's path - instead of directly translating the Masoretic Text in Isaiah 7, NIV mixed MT with Septuagint.

KJV is a masterpiece for its time, but it is also outdated.

Everything in the bible is written for us all.

The bible wasn't always compiled into one book. The bible is a collection of texts or scriptures.

For centuries, Revelation wasn't always part of the bible. Church scholars have been debating to include or exclude Revelation from collection of the New Testament (NT) for centuries. Some churches didn't include Revelation in their bible.

But I am straying from the topic.

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

Of course it does.

No where did Jesus called himself "Immanuel". Where did Jesus ever call himself - "Immanuel"?

No where did any of gospel authors, apart from ONE REFERENCE in Matthew 1:23, ever called Jesus "Immanuel", not even this Matthew.

No where did Paul, Peter and other letter authors called Jesus by the name - "Immanuel".

Where did any of the narrators of gospels, or in the epistles, called him by "Immanuel"?

So your argument is faulty.

Matthew may have interpreted "Immanuel" to be Jesus in Matthew 1:23, but there is nothing to back up Matthew's claim or your claim.

Ignorance showed when you ignored the context of chapter 7. Your claim that they are the one and the same, is nothing more than cherry-picking propaganda.

Demonstrate that verses 15-17 are not part of verse 14. I haven't seen any logical argument or textual evidences to support your baseless belief and Matthew's claim or faulty quote.

 

[gnostic]

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

Man, you keeping moving the goal post.

Immanuel is a name.

Whatever translation you may read or use, it always referred Immanuel as a NAME, not title.

Jewish Publication Society 1985:

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.
​

New Revised Standard Version:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall NAME him Immanuel.
​

New English Translation:

14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will NAME him Immanuel.
​

King James' Version (KJV):

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.
​

New International Version (NIV):

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
​

Septuagint Bible, translated by New English Translation of Septuagint (NETS):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and you shall NAME him Emmanourel.
​

As you can see from these different translations, Immanuel is a name, not title.

You're being awfully pedantic with this whole title,-not-name business.

 

[gnostic]

And what is the point of pasting scriptures in hebrew? What's your point?

The Book of Isaiah is a Hebrew scripture, so why wouldn't poisonshady313 used Hebrew text to demonstrate or to explain his point.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Book of Isaiah is a Hebrew scripture, so why wouldn't poisonshady313 used Hebrew text to demonstrate or to explain his point.

Because very few people here can read Hebrew, and if the translation is correct it usually doesn't matter. Speaking of which, merely reading the scripture in it's original language is no guarantee to a correct interpretation, in fact it can be quite the opposite, as words can have different meanings but not be readily different when appearing in texts. IMO it's best to find a well trusted expert and go by their guidelines on interpretation,.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Because very few people here can read Hebrew, and if the translation is correct it usually doesn't matter. Speaking of which, merely reading the scripture in it's original language is no guarantee to a correct interpretation, in fact it can be quite the opposite, as words can have different meanings but not be readily different when appearing in texts. IMO it's best to find a well trusted expert and go by their guidelines on interpretation,.

By what standard are they well trusted? If it's merely because they agree with you, then that's not a very good reason. If it's because they're familiar with the source language, then it's a very good reason.

the word שְׁמוֹ means "name". Without question or controversy. There's nothing else it could possibly mean. It doesn't require interpretation, explanation, extrapolation, rationalization, etc.... It very simply is what it is.

 

[Desert Snake]

By what standard are they well trusted? If it's merely because they agree with you, then that's not a very good reason. If it's because they're familiar with the source language, then it's a very good reason.

the word שְׁמוֹ means "name". Without question or controversy. There's nothing else it could possibly mean. It doesn't require interpretation, explanation, extrapolation, rationalization, etc.... It very simply is what it is.

Yes, i'm not arguiing that , actually, it does seem questionable IMO

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes, i'm not arguiing that , actually, it does seem questionable IMO

Care to elaborate?

 

[Desert Snake]

Care to elaborate?

Not really, but o.k.., well, the name is not obviously a title, so, there is the question as to why "Jesus" was named such. That being said, I wonder if the name got 'changed' or mixed up etc. there is that possibility. I'm not totally decided either way. IF Jesus really was divine, that would clear up the question, I wonder if there is more information that the public is not privy to because it's in some church or something...just rambling

 

[Poisonshady313]

Not really, but o.k.., well, the name is not obviously a title, so, there is the question as to why "Jesus" was named such. That being said, I wonder if the name got 'changed' or mixed up etc. there is that possibility. I'm not totally decided either way. IF Jesus really was divine, that would clear up the question, I wonder if there is more information that the public is not privy to because it's in some church or something...just rambling

Or, there's the possibility that the "new testament" was written either by someone who was only vaguely familiar with the "old testament", or it was written for an audience that wasn't expected to know any better.

 

[sincerly]

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

Yours
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.

First, Hi Constantine, welcome to the Forums. Thanks for re-enforcing many of the same things I have presented.

Hi CG D, How about examining this view from GOD's (long-suffering)perspective.
GOD brought brought the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and a "mixed multitude" out of Egypt to Follow HIM as Their GOD and to be HIS People.
At that time, (Deut.4:25-40) Moses instructs the people concerning what would happen to them if/when they should turn from following GOD to worshiping other gods. They would be dispersed into all nations. Isn't that what is being seen in Isaiah? Aren't Both Houses of Jacob/Israel NOT following GOD?? Aren't their still a "Remnant" of true worshipers of the TRUE GOD? After the Babylonian Captivity did not those return and set up the Temple again and was not a "free Nation", but subjects of the Empires that followed the Babylonian one---(Medio-Persian; Grecian; and Roman)??
Didn't Moses say/prophesy(Deut.18:9-22) that a prophet would arise "like unto me"?
"18.I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." This was Jesus----"in the fullness of time". as was for-told in Gen.3:15----"The seed of the woman" and as seen in Isa.7:14----The prophesied "Virgin Birth" just as Gabriel announced in Matthew 1:20-21
Daniel not only prophesied the year of the Birth ,but the end to the Jewish Nation being favored by GOD because of their continuing rebellion. Dan.9:24-25; Matt.23:38.("your house is left unto you desolate".)
Since then, it has been Believers from every Nation who have made up HIS PEOPLE.
However, it is still the same Laws by which the relationship to GOD and Mankind is governed by. Jesus Christ only came to Fulfill the Sacrificial/Ceremonial laws which were pertaining to and concerning HIM.

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?

GOD'S Answer to Cain is applicable here. Gen.4:7, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him".
CG D, Isa. 8:19-20, is the only source for answers to questions concerning scriptures. Just as The Israelites strayed from GOD---so have those who "profess Christianity and follow their own "Lusts"". As the Scriptures have consistently acknowledged there is a "Remnant"(believing the same teachings) which will be saved. And of those--they will come from all of Human life.

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.

One verse may be appropriate for some things, but for most, it is two or more witnesses/scriptures for validation.

"So which one is true"? the one which is following consistently that which GOD has said and Jesus Christ lived.