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

[bluethread]

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.

You are correct that those who use Is. 7:14 to prove the virgin birth are mistaken. However, I do not believe that this is what Mattityahu is doing. When he used the term fulfill, he appears to mean fully exemplify. In regard to Is. 7:14, he is not saying that Yesha'yahu was talking about Yeshua. He is saying that like Yesha'yahu's son, that was called Imman'u-el by his mother as a sign of temporary salvation, Yeshua's birth is the real deal. He is indeed Adonai with us. You may not agree that Yeshua is the real deal, but grammatically, the parallel works.

[Goat]

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.

You are correct that those who use Is. 7:14 to prove the virgin birth are mistaken. However, I do not believe that this is what Mattityahu is doing. When he used the term fulfill, he appears to mean fully exemplify. In regard to Is. 7:14, he is not saying that Yesha'yahu was talking about Yeshua. He is saying that like Yesha'yahu's son, that was called Imman'u-el by his mother as a sign of temporary salvation, Yeshua's birth is the real deal. He is indeed Adonai with us. You may not agree that Yeshua is the real deal, but grammatically, the parallel works.

No, it doesn't at all. It is yanking a single line, with a bad translation, out of context.

It also shows Matthew was using the Greek translation, but the term used in the Greek , Parthenos, had a meaning shift over the years to 'might' mean virgin to 'does' mean virgin.

[bluethread]

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.

You are correct that those who use Is. 7:14 to prove the virgin birth are mistaken. However, I do not believe that this is what Mattityahu is doing. When he used the term fulfill, he appears to mean fully exemplify. In regard to Is. 7:14, he is not saying that Yesha'yahu was talking about Yeshua. He is saying that like Yesha'yahu's son, that was called Imman'u-el by his mother as a sign of temporary salvation, Yeshua's birth is the real deal. He is indeed Adonai with us. You may not agree that Yeshua is the real deal, but grammatically, the parallel works.

No, it doesn't at all. It is yanking a single line, with a bad translation, out of context.

It also shows Matthew was using the Greek translation, but the term used in the Greek , Parthenos, had a meaning shift over the years to 'might' mean virgin to 'does' mean virgin.

I am not saying that the parallel works for the doctrine, but for Mattityahu's argument. Again, you might not like or accept the point Mattityahu is making, but, correct me if I am wrong, using imagery from one context to embellish a point in another context is not uncommon in rabbinic literature.

[The Me's]

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

It's easy to strip all meaning from prophecy when you find that it favors something other than what you believe.

Unfortunately, if a "young woman" has a baby, that's not a sign; it's an every-day occurrence. Uzziah would have seen it happen a hundred times before anything else happened. (How was he supposed to know which one of them was THE sign?)

Jews in the Roman Period believed that this passage referred to a virgin birth because a young woman canNOT have a baby out of wedlock by God's command. She would be subject to...what punishment, again?

This verse only makes sense if the woman is a virgin and the sign is a miraculous birth regardless of the use of "almah" or "betulah" in the original text because we can't project our permissive culture onto that period.

[bluethread]

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

It's easy to strip all meaning from prophecy when you find that it favors something other than what you believe.

Unfortunately, if a "young woman" has a baby, that's not a sign; it's an every-day occurrence. Uzziah would have seen it happen a hundred times before anything else happened. (How was he supposed to know which one of them was THE sign?)

Jews in the Roman Period believed that this passage referred to a virgin birth because a young woman canNOT have a baby out of wedlock by God's command. She would be subject to...what punishment, again?

This verse only makes sense if the woman is a virgin and the sign is a miraculous birth regardless of the use of "almah" or "betulah" in the original text because we can't project our permissive culture onto that period.

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.

[cnorman18]

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:

It's easy to strip all meaning from prophecy when you find that it favors something other than what you believe.

Unfortunately, if a "young woman" has a baby, that's not a sign; it's an every-day occurrence. Uzziah would have seen it happen a hundred times before anything else happened. (How was he supposed to know which one of them was THE sign?)

Jews in the Roman Period believed that this passage referred to a virgin birth because a young woman canNOT have a baby out of wedlock by God's command. She would be subject to...what punishment, again?

This verse only makes sense if the woman is a virgin and the sign is a miraculous birth regardless of the use of "almah" or "betulah" in the original text because we can't project our permissive culture onto that period.

Where does this passage say that this young woman was not married?

What evidence can you show that any significant number of "Jews in the Roman Period" believed that this passage was Messianic and did not refer to the period in which it was composed?

[The Me's]

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.)

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 8 by 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.

King Ahaz of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) was afraid that the kings of Aram and Israel (the Northern Kingdom) were about to attack him. Isaiah tells him that before a child born at that time -- not in the far future -- is old enough to know right from wrong, both of those kingdoms will be laid waste by the Assyrians -- and it happened just as Isaiah said.

It's all right there in the text.

This isn't rocket science. Jews have read this passage just as it is plainly written for more than 2,000 years, since BEFORE Jesus's day.

[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.

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.

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