Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[sincerly]

Good morning Sincerly, I know that Gnostic insinuated you're not too bright: What is scary is we know you are very bright. You are so bright that you use your brains to make all the right twists and turns to make Jesus born of a virgin and not "a god" but "THE GOD." Since no one seemed to like my comparison with how Christians view other religions when they take Bible verses out of context, then how about when one sect questions the other. Like a Pentecostal who swears that "tongues" are for today.

Hi CG D, First, I take no offense when one considers/insinuates that I'm not to bright/smart. There are many things I do not know. And then after reading some posts, I just consider the source.
"Tongues" in the usage seen at Pentecost and in Paul's writings are definitely for today. No one would be able to communicate with other Nations/peoples without there being those with the "gift of tongues".( I've had a total of three years study of a foreign language, but I would not try to teach or write a post in that language.)

Just like I see your version of Christianity. It has no basis in true Judaic traditions (in my opinion). It seems real to you but is man-made fantasy to me.

CG D, that is only partially correct. When you use the word "tradition(s)", I have to consider the usage of Jesus and Paul.(considering the different aspects of the word.) Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for their man-made "Traditions" and "commandments made by men" which were contrary to the laws of GOD.(Mark 7:1-13)
Paul said, (Gal.1:14), "And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers."
and (2Thess.2:15), "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

"Traditions"= paradosis----teachings,instructions, "given over" by mouth or written. (i.e.)as those from Mt Sinai by GOD to Moses for a right relationship to GOD by man and in regards to man with man.
Paul continued in that same zeal as seen in Acts 24:14, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets":

You said, And, The gospel writers claimed after the fact "fulfilled" prophecy. I could pick through the Bible and find a verse that told of who won last year's Superbowl, but it would be much more impressive if I found a verse that was to predict this year's winner--before it happened. What proof is it when the gospel writer's wrote after the presumed facts? And, then "found" the right prophecies that most closely matched the presumed events (the events are "if-y" too).

CG D, Prophecies are given before and the fulfilling does come after. Notice these:
Isa.42:8-9, (All of chapter.), "I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. "
AND Jesus, (John 13:19), "Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].

Were Jews predicting a virgin giving birth to Jesus, the Messiah? Would the Jews have taken bits and pieces of verses and built a scenario that added up to what the gospel writers came up with? Like the other weird "prophecies" that Matthew claims--out of Egypt, Ramah crying for her children, he will be called a Nazarene? These sound very forced and manipulated. God didn't make anything like Jesus clear. It all needs a little finagling. For the average follower, it takes a lot of trust and blind faith. Trust that the Christian apologists that they choose to believe are telling the truth. Christian apologists are a lot of very intelligent people with tremendous debating skills, but with an agenda--Jesus is Lord, no matter what. You didn't come up with your beliefs on your own. Some apologist, after picking through the work of other Christians, synthesized a good and proper way to believe in Jesus and the Bible. All things that were controversial were studied and a good twist and spin were given to make the average Christian think, "They must be right, because they are smart, and they studied it." You are smart, and you have studied it, but your "spin" is and always will be out of context with Isaiah. Just like people in versions of Christianity that are almost like what you believe but just a little bit off, what do you tell them? That they are wrong and are taking key verses out of context? I think you are. And that all I'm doing.

CG D, Your are right! As I have contemplated the Scriptural narrative and the message covered from all the pages of the BIBLE they do "work for me".
I have seen those proposed "improvements made by that serpent in the Garden of Eden" to be as Eve discovered them to be---to late.
The sad part is no matter the Scriptural subject at least one of his deceptions "seems to fit the occasion".

There is something bigger than one, perfectly defined but exclusive truth.

We are debating the Scriptures and apparently you found a source outside the Scriptures to base that comment upon.

 

[sincerly]

So, you may think.

But it could be number of different possibilities.

Yes, for many posts, we have seen the man--imagined possibilities originating by as you said, your thinking.

There are lot more possibilities, but I right now I'm tired and I can't think of them.

But to get back to your possible more-than-one-fulfillment-in-a-single prophecy. Sure, the Christians believed that 7:14 sign is about Mary (virgin) and Jesus (son, Immanuel) some 700 years after Isaiah, is one prediction.
But from the Jewish perspective and from the context of chapter 7, the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) was actually about King of Assyria saving Jerusalem from destruction, before the boy (Immanuel), born from young woman, know the difference between right and wrong. Chapter 8 made it quite clear that the sign would happen during Isaiah's own lifetime, and that of the lifetime of King Ahaz of Judah, and not 700 years later.

Gnostic, Please explain the role of the birth of Isaiah's second son(children) in that prophecy?(8:18)

Sincerly blindly followed whatever Matthew say. I'm hoping that you're a lot smarter than him. So please read Isaiah 7 and 8 in their entirety (as well as the verses in 2 Kings 15 and 16 that I have already given), and then you would understand why Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 relates to Jesus is wrong.

I'll follow the writings by Matthew before a professed 'myth' writer. Matthew was taught by Jesus.

 

[Rise]

There's simply no reason to assume that the Snake from the Garden is the same being as the "Ancient Serpent" as if the Snake in the Garden was Satan's true form. A dragon is not a snake necessarily.

The scripture in Revelation removes the ambiguity by calling him both the dragon and the ancient serpent.

If you don't think the ancient serpent is a reference to the serpent of temptation then you're going to have to find an alternative to what is being referred to there.

The serpent has always been linked with sin (Moses putting a serpent on a pole in the wilderness), and sin comes from satan. He is the father of lies. Lies are opposition to God's truth, and all sin is based on a rebellion or rejection of Gods truth. All sin comes out of the first lie believed in the garden spoken through the serpent.

 

[Shermana]

The scripture in Revelation removes the ambiguity by calling him both the dragon and the ancient serpent.

How does that possibly remove the Ambiguity? You think the Snake in the Garden was a Dragon?

If you don't think the ancient serpent is a reference to the serpent of temptation then you're going to have to find an alternative to what is being referred to there.

A symbol perhaps? Maybe Satan is a Reptilian being of whom the Snake was a minion. You also have to take into account the symbolism prevalent in Revelation. Did Satan lose his legs forever?

The serpent has always been linked with sin (Moses putting a serpent on a pole in the wilderness), and sin comes from satan. He is the father of lies.

So maybe he was the master of the Snake telling the Snake in the Garden what to do? You think Satan had his legs removed?

Lies are opposition to God's truth, and all sin is based on a rebellion or rejection of Gods truth. All sin comes out of the first lie believed in the garden spoken through the serpent.

And that in no way proves that Satan was the Snake himself, but very would could have been his controller.

Was The Serpent In The Garden The Devil?

The Serpent Was Not the Devil

The serpent was not the devil, but he was in league with the devil for his own reasons. The devil had assumed his personality and voice. God acknowledged that union and closeness when he addressed the devil through the serpent and said to Satan while speaking to the serpent, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between your seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Two facts are evidenced by the final result of the serpent's participation. First, the serpent received his own judgment, condemnation, and sentence showing that he was a distinct personality and creature from the devil. And then, the serpent himself was tricked by the devil, used by him, destroyed by that unholy alliance, and cast aside when he was no longer needed or useful. It was going to be all so nice, so grand, and so wonderful, but it did not work out in the end. He never got what he was promised. He did not get the control of the Garden; he did not get the praise and admiration of the creatures of the Garden; and he did not get the girl. What he got instead was a demotion to the lowest, most humiliating and most despised station in life. He got the hatred of humanity, and a heel on the

There you go.

 

[Shermana]

Those are all good points. I highly doubt that Mary was a "virgin". It's entirely possible a-Mary didn't exist and neither did Jesus, and if they did b-Mary had an affair and didn't want her family or old Joe to find out.

Or C) Joseph was the Father, as some of the text seemingly indicates, and the whole virgin affair was a later addition, as many scholars agree the account in Luke was interpolated, and the version in Matthew contains several oddities like Rahab having a child at over 300 years old.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's entirely possible a-Mary didn't exist and neither did Jesus, and if they did b-Mary had an affair and didn't want her family or old Joe to find out.

Brilliant!

 

[gnostic]

Those are all good points. I highly doubt that Mary was a "virgin". It's entirely possible a-Mary didn't exist and neither did Jesus, and if they did b-Mary had an affair and didn't want her family or old Joe to find out.

Both are possible.

All I know is that the virgin birth is a exaggeration from both gospels.

BTW, I'd like double-stack, with fresh strawberries and fresh ice-cream...and let's not forget the all-important maple syrup to go with my pancake, please. :eat:

Thanks.

 

[allright]

Since the king wouldnt ask for a sign, God said I will give you one

God sign was a woman having a baby in the normal way?

Dream on

 

[gnostic]

Since the king wouldnt ask for a sign, God said I will give you one

God sign was a woman having a baby in the normal way?

Dream on

Did you bother to read chapter 7 and 8?

Judah was at war with Israel and Aram.

The sign was how the war end in favor of Judah, despite Ahaz being a faithless king. The sign was that the King of Assyria would save Judah from their enemies, before the boy knows right from wrong (Isaiah 7:14-17) and that's true sign, or before the boy could learn to say "mother" or "father" (Isaiah 8:3-4). Isaiah 8 actually identified who the boy is, Isaiah's own son.

Neither chapter 7 or 8 had anything to do with virgin birth or messiah.

Why is some Christians so fixated on what Matthew quoted, that they can't even read the whole sign?

Can none of you (Christians) read the bl@#dy scriptures that you supposedly believe in?

Breathe. Breathe. Nice and easy.

In...Out...

In...Out...

Ok, let approach this from a different direction.

When you read Isaiah 7...and I mean the whole chapter...

1. ...what do you think the theme or plot of Isaiah 7?
2. ...can you name or identify each of the actors in Isaiah 7?
3. ...what is the role of each actor?
4. ...what has taken place? (clue: verse 1)
5. ...let me rephrase the above question (Q 4)...what is the crisis in Isaiah 7?
6. ...what will take place to resolve the crisis? (verse 14-17)
7. ...how do the King of Assyria fit into this?
8. ...is this crisis mentioned elsewhere? (meaning other chapters or other books)
9. ...what do the crisis have to do with a messiah?
10. ...and last of all, what do the boy not knowing right from wrong, to do with boy being born a woman? Is this boy in verse 15 and 16 related into any way with verse 14?

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dream on

Ah yes ... the sign:

X will happen within period Y​

Think more. (You might wish to give more thought to 7:16.)

 

[allright]

Did you bother to read chapter 7 and 8?

Judah was at war with Israel and Aram.

The sign was how the war end in favor of Judah, despite Ahaz being a faithless king. The sign was that the King of Assyria would save Judah from their enemies, before the boy knows right from wrong (Isaiah 7:14-17) and that's true sign, or before the boy could learn to say "mother" or "father" (Isaiah 8:3-4). Isaiah 8 actually identified who the boy is, Isaiah's own son.

Neither chapter 7 or 8 had anything to do with virgin birth or messiah.

Why is some Christians so fixated on what Matthew quoted, that they can't even read the whole sign?

Can none of you (Christians) read the bl@#dy scriptures that you supposedly believe in?

Breathe. Breathe. Nice and easy.

In...Out...

In...Out...

Ok, let approach this from a different direction.

When you read Isaiah 7...and I mean the whole chapter...

1. ...what do you think the theme or plot of Isaiah 7?
2. ...can you name or identify each of the actors in Isaiah 7?
3. ...what is the role of each actor?
4. ...what has taken place? (clue: verse 1)
5. ...let me rephrase the above question (Q 4)...what is the crisis in Isaiah 7?
6. ...what will take place to resolve the crisis? (verse 14-17)
7. ...how do the King of Assyria fit into this?
8. ...is this crisis mentioned elsewhere? (meaning other chapters or other books)
9. ...what do the crisis have to do with a messiah?
10. ...and last of all, what do the boy not knowing right from wrong, to do with boy being born a woman? Is this boy in verse 15 and 16 related into any way with verse 14?

God directly says in Verse 14 the sign is a child being born

God already told the king in verses 7-10 the war would be won. A sign in the Bible is a confirmation that God will do what he said.

The sign was for the king to deal with his unbelief and mistrust that God would do what he said

Same thing in Isaiah when God tells Hezekiah to ask for a sign to confirm God would do what he had spoken and heal him Hezekiah asks for the shadow to go backwards on the sun dial

Also the verse says the mother will name him Immanuel, indicating he has no father, otherwise the father would be the one to chose his name

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it has to do with bias from either not understanding Scripture as it's meant to be read or religious bias. Fact is it goes both ways, but we're dealing with Hebraic Scripture here, that should be the primary understanding/interpretation.
That aside there seems to be a desire to "disprove" the NT narrative, which doesn't seem to be helping objective scholarship.

 

[gnostic]

God directly says in Verse 14 the sign is a child being born

But the Isaiah 7 say more things then the child being born and given a name, in verse 14. You are only reading a fraction of the sign. The sign is not done yet.

What else do Isaiah say about the child? Can you not see that the sign is not done?

Isaiah didn't stop talking about the sign at the end of verse 14. Isaiah began speaking at verse 13, but he doesn't stop speaking until the very end of verse 17. Do you not see the double quote at verse 17? Read what else does it say about the boy, you ignorant Christian.

Does the sign stop at verse 14? What else does Isaiah 7 say about the boy?

My clues are given below. Read you silly Christian!

13 Then Isaiah[d] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[e] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.[f] 15 He [child] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

What do Isaiah 7:15-17 mean?

 

[gnostic]

Also the verse says the mother will name him Immanuel, indicating he has no father, otherwise the father would be the one to chose his name

Where does it say in verse 14, "that he shall have no father"?????

Nothing in this very short verse indicate the child shall not have a father.

And the Hebrew word, almah, means "young woman", not a virgin.

Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which used the word parthenos, "virgin", but the Hebrew word betulah "virgin" was never used in Isaiah 7:14.

In almost every cases in the Hebrew scriptures (or the Christian Old Testament), when betulah was used, the word indicated "virgin". But betulah wasn't used for 7:14.

And the sign was repeated in similar fashion in Isaiah 8:14, but it is revealed that Isaiah's own wife was the one to give birth to a son, so it is Isaiah's own (second) son was the sign.

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

Do you not see the striking similarity between 8:4 and 7:16-17?

And the name Immanuel is used again (8:8), in relation with the King of Assyria:

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before[c] Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

If the child Immanuel is related to Jesus, then why is Immanuel mentioned again, in relation to the King of Assyria in Isaiah 8:7-8?

Do you not see Immanuel being used here, you ignorant Christian?

That confirmed what Matthew quoted in Matthew 1:23 to be false.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

I think it has to do with bias from either not understanding Scripture as it's meant to be read or religious bias. Fact is it goes both ways, but we're dealing with Hebraic Scripture here, that should be the primary understanding/interpretation.
That aside there seems to be a desire to "disprove" the NT narrative, which doesn't seem to be helping objective scholarship.

Are you saying that controversial issues cannot be examined by "objective scholarship"? If the NT is flawed, why shoud it be above criticism?

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you saying that controversial issues cannot be examined by "objective scholarship"? If the NT is flawed, why shoud it be above criticism?

No religious text is above criticism, but objective criticism is what's valid.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

No religious text is above criticism, but objective criticism is what's valid.

What do you mean by 'objective criticism'? Are you saying that one cannot have an overall opinion of a doctrine's validity?

 

[gnostic]

I think it has to do with bias from either not understanding Scripture as it's meant to be read or religious bias. Fact is it goes both ways, but we're dealing with Hebraic Scripture here, that should be the primary understanding/interpretation.
That aside there seems to be a desire to "disprove" the NT narrative, which doesn't seem to be helping objective scholarship.

No religious text is above criticism, but objective criticism is what's valid.

What do you think objective scholarship and objective criticism should be, in relation to Isaiah 7?

How do you determine which person has religious bias when reading religious texts?

Isaiah 7 is Hebrew text, then are we in agreement that Judaic context should be used to interpret Isaiah's passage over the Christian interpretation/context? (hence Jewish source over Christian source)

Did Matthew (or whoever was the author of this gospel) not taken Isaiah 7 out of context by ignoring all the verses except verse 14?

What relation do verse 14 have with all of Isaiah 7? Do son about to be born has nothing to do with Ahaz of Judah, Pekah of Israel, Rezin of Aram and the King of Assyria (Tiglath-Pileser III, according to 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-10, contemporary to the other kings mentioned)?

Does Isaiah 8:1-18 have no bearing to the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17? Why or why not?

Why do SOME Christians believe that their interpretation is the ONLY CORRECT interpretation? Isn't that religious bias?

Could Matthew have made a mistake when he used Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew verse when quoting verse 14? Why did he not put all of the sign instead of just fraction of the sign? What was his motive for doing so?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

I believe Isaiah should be read from a Hebraic perspective and not through a Christian prism.

 

[gnostic]

I believe Isaiah should be read from a Hebraic perspective and not through a Christian prism.

Agreed.

Matthew 1:23 doesn't even present the complete sign; Matthew, or whoever wrote that gospel, had only quoted a fraction of the sign.

Why didn't he quoted 15, 16 and 17, if Matthew was truly interested in THE sign?

Matthew had also ignored 8:3-4, when it was revealed who this son is - Isaiah's son. The name Immanuel is used again, in Isaiah 8:8, in relation to the King of Assyria and Rezin (8:5-8), just like 7:15-17. And Isaiah stated that he and his sons were the SIGN (8:18).