Isaiah 7 has no bearing on the messiah or on a virgin birth

[Eliyahu]

Bs'd

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

1: In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi'ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali'ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it. 2: When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with E'phraim," his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. 3: And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She'ar-jash'ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field, 4: and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali'ah. 5: Because Syria, with E'phraim and the son of Remali'ah, has devised evil against you, saying, 6: "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta'be-el as king in the midst of it," 7: thus says the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
8: For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years E'phraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) 9: And the head of E'phraim is Sama'ria, and the head of Sama'ria is the son of Remali'ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.'" 10: Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." 13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when 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."

We see here in Isaiah 7, that king Achaz, the king of Judah, is afraid of two neighboring kings.
It is important to know that after the death of king Solomo the kingdom of Israel split up into two parts; into the kingdom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel.
The kingdom om Judah was made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a part of the Levites. The kingdom of Israel was made up of the other ten tribes.
Achaz was king over Judah, and in this prophecy the king of Israel is Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
And Pekah had made a covenant with the king of Syria, called Resin, to attack together the kingdom of Judah.
This news caused king Achaz considerable stress, because he had a dark suspicion that things could very well turn out not so very rosy for him.
Therefore God sent Isaiah to Achaz, in order to tell him that things would work out just fine for him. God tells Achaz that he will give him a sign. Here is the sign: "14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and she called his name Imman'u-el. 15: He shall eat curds and honey when 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."

God says that before the child of the young woman who is pregnant will grow up, the land of the two kings, Resin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel, will be deserted, that is devoid of people. Those two nations will be led into exile.
So this is a sign for king Achaz, who lived about 700 years before JC.

And the Bible tells us that this prophecy came true: "27: In the fifty-second year of Azari'ah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remali'ah began to reign over Israel in Sama'ria, and reigned twenty years. 28: And he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin. 29: In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria came and captured I'jon, A'bel-beth-ma'acah, Jan-o'ah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naph'tali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. 30: Then Hoshe'a the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remali'ah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzzi'ah."
II Kings 15.

We see here that the population of Israel indeed went into exile, and that the land of king Pekah was deserted.

And here is what happened to Resin, the king of Syria:
"6: At that time the king of Edom recovered Elath for Edom, and drove the men of Judah from Elath; and the E'domites came to Elath, where they dwell to this day. 7: So Ahaz sent messengers to Tig'lath-pile'ser king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8: Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. 9: And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin."
II Kings 16.

So here we see that also the inhabitants of the land of King Resin went into exile, and also his land was deserted, in the days of Achaz.

So God gave a sign to Achaz.

In the days of Achaz.

About 700 years before JC.

So this prophecy has no bearing what so ever on the messiah, and NOWHERE in this prophecy is spoken about a virgin.

These are only misconceptions of the NT.

However, the NT brings this prophecy to Achaz as a messianic prophecy, see Matthew 1 "21: she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".

So what the NT does here, is taking a text which does not speak about the messiah, ripping it out of context, mistranslating it, (is says "young woman", and not "virgin") and then presenting it to us as a messianic prophecy.

So one of the foundations of the Christian religion, the virgin birth, is based upon a mistranslated text which is ripped out of context and does NOT speak about the messiah.




In the service of Y-H-W-H,


Eliyahu, light unto the nations

"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5

[cnorman18]

You have to read the whole chapter -- of course -- not just the cherrypicked verses that you like and want to apply to Jesus. If you do, the meaning is very clear indeed. This passage is not about the Messiah at all, and never was.

I heard a rabbi say once, "Three Jews, five opinions."

You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with Roman Period Jews who believed that it was a messianic prophecy.

I don't think they are members here. In any case, NEITHER of those rabbis believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, I'm obviously arguing with you and no one else.

Prophecies are by their nature enigmatic. The moment you start taking them literally, as if Isaiah was making small talk, you render the conversation something other than prophecy.

Funny how you guys take the words literally when you find it convenient, and when it's not, you call it "symbolic" and ignore the plain and clear meaning and sense of the text.

Isaiah said it was a "sign", and most certainly was not small talk. Therefore a literal reading, according to Isaiah, is not appropriate.

A real-time "sign" about a possible invasion and catastrophic war is "small talk"? That's beyond ludicrous, and as transparently self-serving a rationalization as I've ever seen.

I don't think I'm going to bother with your posts any more. You very clearly feel it's your place to correct two or three thousand years of Jewish tradition and teaching because YOUR opinion, which is based on nothing at all but your OWN unaided reading of the Hebrew Bible, differs. Have you ever so much as glanced at a Jewish commentary, or even a scholarly secular one? Ever read a book on Judaism, or a pamphlet, or a PAGE actually written by JEWS? Or have you just looked at Christian websites about?

And again, how much of the Talmud have you ever actually READ? Go ahead, show us your credentials for passing all these judgments about a religion and a people about which you know virtually nothing!

[The Me's]

You have to read the whole chapter -- of course -- not just the cherrypicked verses that you like and want to apply to Jesus. If you do, the meaning is very clear indeed. This passage is not about the Messiah at all, and never was.

I heard a rabbi say once, "Three Jews, five opinions."

You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with Roman Period Jews who believed that it was a messianic prophecy.

I don't think they are members here. In any case, NEITHER of those rabbis believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, I'm obviously arguing with you and no one else.

Prophecies are by their nature enigmatic. The moment you start taking them literally, as if Isaiah was making small talk, you render the conversation something other than prophecy.

Funny how you guys take the words literally when you find it convenient, and when it's not, you call it "symbolic" and ignore the plain and clear meaning and sense of the text.

Isaiah said it was a "sign", and most certainly was not small talk. Therefore a literal reading, according to Isaiah, is not appropriate.

A real-time "sign" about a possible invasion and catastrophic war is "small talk"? That's beyond ludicrous, and as transparently self-serving a rationalization as I've ever seen.

I don't think I'm going to bother with your posts any more. You very clearly feel it's your place to correct two or three thousand years of Jewish tradition and teaching because YOUR opinion, which is based on nothing at all but your OWN unaided reading of the Hebrew Bible, differs. Have you ever so much as glanced at a Jewish commentary, or even a scholarly secular one? Ever read a book on Judaism, or a pamphlet, or a PAGE actually written by JEWS? Or have you just looked at Christian websites about?

And again, how much of the Talmud have you ever actually READ? Go ahead, show us your credentials for passing all these judgments about a religion and a people about which you know virtually nothing!

Obfuscating a conversation is a signal that you've run out of material and you need a diversion.

I read the Bible exactly the same way I read every other book: I let the writer tell me what he means.

In chapter 7, Isaiah obviously intended his words to be prophetic, hence his use of the word "sign", to him synonomous with "omen". I have no authority to tell anyone that he meant otherwise, and neither do you.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 12 by The Me's]

You refuse to answer ANY of my pertinent and on-point questions; that's all I need to know, and all that anyone else needs to know. "Obfuscation"? Do you even know what that MEANS?

Like I said: Since you very clearly know nothing whatever about Jewish teachings, Jewish history, the Talmud and its place in Jewish belief and study, and least of all about the Torah (e.g. that we read from the Torah, in Hebrew, three times a week and read it through every year), I don't think your baseless, uninformed and unsupported opinions are worth my time any more. You have very clearly never read so much as an informative article about Judaism that was actually written by a practicing Jew, never mind actually have read a real, live BOOK on the subject.

Have a nice day.

[The Me's]

You refuse to answer ANY of my pertinent and on-point questions; that's all I need to know, and all that anyone else needs to know. "Obfuscation"? Do you even know what that MEANS?

Like I said: Since you very clearly know nothing whatever about Jewish teachings, Jewish history, the Talmud and its place in Jewish belief and study, and least of all about the Torah (e.g. that we read from the Torah, in Hebrew, three times a week and read it through every year), I don't think your baseless, uninformed and unsupported opinions are worth my time any more. You have very clearly never read so much as an informative article about Judaism that was actually written by a practicing Jew, never mind actually have read a real, live BOOK on the subject.

Have a nice day.

Lying about what I know or don't know only makes you look silly.

(What? Do you actually think that after reading only a few of my posts you can declare the limits of my knowledge? Isn't that a talent unique to God?)

But let's be clear about this:

YOU refused to answer my on-point questions about why, if you take the Torah to be autoritative, do you not consider it worthy to obey? Try saying that to your wife: "I love you but nothing you say has value to me."

Then duck.
For your own safety, duck.

[cnorman18]

Okay, one more -- just to clarify matters.

Lying about what I know or don't know only makes you look silly.

Characterizing disagreement -- and well-founded disagreement at that -- as "lying" makes the weakness and baselessness of your own "arguments" very clear indeed.

(What? Do you actually think that after reading only a few of my posts you can declare the limits of my knowledge? Isn't that a talent unique to God?)

In your case, and concerning the limits of your knowledge about Judaism? Absolutely.

If a person claims to have definitive and factual knowledge of human reproduction, and then says that babies are delivered by storks or found under cabbage leaves, it's not a stretch to say that that person has no knowledge of the subject whatever. Your claims here -- that the NT is a Jewish book and that Jews no longer hold the Torah to be Scripture, to name only two -- are of precisely that order. If you knew anything substantive about Judaism -- if you had read, say, Steinberg's Basic Judaism, or Judaism for Dummies, or ANY actual, factual source of information about Jewish religion or history, you would know why your claims are objectively, provably ludicrous and not worth anyone's time.

But let's be clear about this:

YOU refused to answer my on-point questions about why, if you take the Torah to be autoritative, do you not consider it worthy to obey?

On the contrary; I explained that clearly and succinctly, from both historical and teaching perspectives, and shall do so again now -- in a different way: That Jews do not "obey the Torah" in the ways that YOU, in your ignorance of Jewish history and teachings, presume to define "obedience" does not mean that we do not take the Torah seriously or hold it to be Scripture. In fact, your ideas here are so wrongheaded and baseless that they have no meaning, for Jews, at all.

On the other hand; as I have pointed out more than once, YOU have consistently and repeatedly refused to give your sources of information about Judaism -- other than your own arrogant head and your own unassisted and uninformed reading of the Bible in English (in apparent ignorance of the FACT that the teachings of the Jewish religion are not to be found in the Hebrew Bible, and never were -- e.g., there is no explanation of the laws of kashrut anywhere in it). It became apparent very quickly that you have read, to be precise, NOTHING about Judaism, and know rather less than that -- since what you DO claim to know is flatly wrong.

You also seem rather exercised about Jewish study of the Talmud, which is the record of several centuries of debate, discussion and argument among the sages of old ABOUT the Torah -- another FACT about which you are apparently wholly ignorant. (It would be interesting to know what, precisely, you really think about the Talmud. Perhaps you can supply some actual quotes from your "reading" of it, and your specific objections to them, since you claim to know so much about it.... )

Try saying that to your wife: "I love you but nothing you say has value to me."

Then duck.
For your own safety, duck.

As if using my own judgment as the occasion requires, and not blindly deferring to her casual opinions and every syllable thing she has ever said, according to some stranger who knows nothing about either of us at all, is equivalent to telling her that "...nothing you say has any value to me."

Phffft. What nonsense.

[The Me's]

Lying about what I know or don't know only makes you look silly.

Characterizing disagreement -- and well-founded disagreement at that -- as "lying" makes the weakness and baselessness of your own "arguments" very clear indeed.

I'm sorry, but no. You lied about what I know of the Jewish Culture.

You made a declarative statement about my knowledge (twice), and you and I both know that this was an emotional reaction. You made it up in your head, and you're passing it off as if it's the truth.

That's what a lie is.

You don't know me, and you've never bothered to inquire of my education. You have an emotional need for me to be stupid, you therefore make it up in the form of a personal attack so that your point of view can the better go unchallenged.

This behavior makes you look sophomoric.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 16 by The Me's]

Just as I have never called you an "idiot," I have likewise never said that you are "stupid." I have said that you are ignorant of and uninformed about Jewish history and of the teachings of Judaism, and that was an entirely accurate statement of fact proven out if your own mouth. (I don't recall that I've said anything about Jewish "culture" at all -- and I have "inquired" about your "education," i.e. your sources of information about Judaism, SEVERAL times, and without any response whatever. So much for your OWN veracity here.)

Your desperate personal attacks regarding my "emotional needs" and my alleged "lying," and your continued refusal to say anything at all about your sources of "knowledge" -- not to mention your refusal to explain your specific objections to the Talmud, about which you obviously know nothing at all -- show pretty conclusively that you have nothing to offer here but a foot-stamping insistence that you are TOO right, you are, you are, you ARE!

Like I said: Phffft.

No point in going on till you have something to SAY, other than namecalling and fake accusations.

Have a nice day. I am.

[The Me's]

I have said that you are ignorant of and uninformed about Jewish history and of the teachings of Judaism, and that was an entirely accurate statement of fact proven out if your own mouth.

You've now lied about me three times.

You've never taken the time to evaluate my knowledge, and so you have no authority to declare this true or untrue.

It's nothing more than a character judgment that you use to try to demean me. You don't appear to have sound moral boundaries that prevent you from attacking others on a personal level.

[bluethread]

However, that is exactly what you are doing. Yesha'yahu was not necessarily performing a miracle. He appears to be presenting a sign to provide a physical reminder of the promise of deliverance. This child and the two names given to him stand as reminders. If what Yesha'yahu predicted does not come true, the child and the names stand as witnesses that he is a false prophet. That in and of itself is a bold thing for Yesha'yahu to have done.

Okay, let's break this down.

I assume that you're saying Isaiah predicted "a young woman shall conceive", and it's not about a virgin birth at all.

So, when the girl across the street has a kid, Isaiah is proved right. Nope, he's not a false prophet, according to your interpretation.

And when Lisa next door has a kid, he's proven right again. After all, she's a young woman.

And then it's Ruth's turn.
Then Diana.
Then Leticia over on 3rd.
Then Cathy and Katy.

Tell me something...exactly how bold is "yeshu'yahu" being predicting a young woman will have a child? Is it rare where you come from?

And WHO will step in after 20 years of all young women being absolutely barren and claim that he's a fraud?

(Boldness would be predicting a virgin birth.)

No, here is an example. I tell the mayor of my city that Adonai says that we are going to have a boom in business. I then say, as a sign of that, this woman here is going to give birth to a son and will name him Prosperity, then when that child is born, I call him Huge-Profits-For-Investors. This puts me on record as one who is speaking for Adonai and that child can be used against me in a trial for blasphemy.

[cnorman18]

I have said that you are ignorant of and uninformed about Jewish history and of the teachings of Judaism, and that was an entirely accurate statement of fact proven out if your own mouth.

You've now lied about me three times.

I have made factual statements about your ignorance of Jewish history and of the Jewish religion. If I have been wrong, show us your sources and PROVE that I am wrong.

Your calling ME a liar is the personal attack here. I have posted NO personal attacks on you; I have addressed ONLY your claims and statements, and have not addressed your character or your person in any way.

Those are statements of objective fact and nothing more.

You've never taken the time to evaluate my knowledge, and so you have no authority to declare this true or untrue.

I have a rather more extensive knowledge of Jewish history and religion than yourself. I speak from that perspective, and that perspective alone. I HAVE evaluated your STATEMENTS, and I DO have the knowledge and authority to declare your statements WRONG and FALSE.

I do not say, and have never said, that you are "lying." I say you are mistaken. WHY you are mistaken is not for me to judge; but no matter how often I ask you to give your sources, or at least tell what you have actually READ about Judaism, you refuse to answer.

I have, therefore, said nothing dishonest, nothing unjustified, and nothing to which any fair-minded person can reasonably object.

But you, on the other hand, right here, speak directly and disparagingly of my character, my motivations, and my personal moral values.

It's nothing more than a character judgment that you use to try to demean me. You don't appear to have sound moral boundaries that prevent you from attacking others on a personal level.

Your posts speak for themselves; so do mine.

I have nothing more to say.