False Prophecy

[JoeMama]

Matthew said scripture predicted the virgin birth of Jesus:

"She shall bring forth a son, that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken of by Isaiah, saying, Behold, a virgin shall bring forth a son and call his name Emmanuel" (Matthew 1:21-23)

Now look at what scripture said:

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right...." (Isaiah 7:14-16)

The Isaiah verse above refers to a child who did not yet know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, so it could not have been the perfect all-knowing messiah he was referring to.

Matthew was wrong.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #47

I believe the virgin birth was meant to be a sign, so that people would understand that there is something different. Young woman getting pregnant would not be any sign, because that happens all the time.

Two women are standing side by side and both of them are visibly pregnant. One was impregnated by her husband and the other was divinely impregnated.

How do you tell, just by looking at them, which is which?

That's why divine conception can't be a sign.

But normal pregnancy is a sign?

I agree, I don't think people know anything, all they do is believe they know.

[1213]

...What is demonstrably so counts...

I can accept that. And that is the reason why I don't accept you claims about Bible being wrong, as long as there is a reasonable way to see it without error.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have conflicting Nativity stories that do not actually make sense, ...

Sorry to hear that they don't make sense to you.

... Is not the same as 'God with us' which I don't think is to be understood as 'God incarnated in a human in any case....

Ok, I also think it doesn't mean God incarnated. And it is not what the Bible teaches. Bible tells, God is in Jesus, similarly as God is in disciples of Jesus.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves.
Joh. 14:10-11

Do you not know that you are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Cor. 3:16

[TRANSPONDER]

...What is demonstrably so counts...

I can accept that. And that is the reason why I don't accept you claims about Bible being wrong, as long as there is a reasonable way to see it without error.

But your apologetics are not reasonable, recently they are not only poor but dismissive without consideration.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have conflicting Nativity stories that do not actually make sense, ...

Sorry to hear that they don't make sense to you.

There's an example of dismissal without consideration.

... Is not the same as 'God with us' which I don't think is to be understood as 'God incarnated in a human in any case....

Ok, I also think it doesn't mean God incarnated. And it is not what the Bible teaches. Bible tells, God is in Jesus, similarly as God is in disciples of Jesus.

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves.
Joh. 14:10-11

Do you not know that you are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Cor. 3:16

Then we seem to agree. Jesus is not 'called Immanuel' and the two names do not mean the same thing. I understand that the idea is that it is tweaked so what Jesus supposedly is is the same as what the name means. Obviously that is what Matthew thought and it is an argument that the Faithful will grab, but the doubter might still doubt. I can help them doubt even more since Mathew's other efforts at prophecy aren't too good, so why should this one be right when it is... not quite right? I know of course that you think if you deny and dismiss everything that gets you the win. But failure to produce any case but denial doesn't really do that.

I get how it looks to the believer like it could work. While 'Virgin' in Isaiah doesn't necessarily mean virgo intacta and would use Bethulah if it did, that Jesus was not called Emmanuel but the meaning of the name is somewhat like what Jesus was supposed to be and no consideration is given to Matthew's other dodgy claims, the believer can convince themselves that it's close enough that it works if taken out of context, with a chink of Interpretation and a remote possibility. So it comes down to how many people will be believers and how many will ask questions.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #51

But normal pregnancy is a sign?

Again, the pregnancy isn't what's being foretold in Isaiah 7. What's being fortold is how soon the two attacking kings will fall----before the child is old enough to know right from wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #51

But normal pregnancy is a sign?

Again, the pregnancy isn't what's being foretold in Isaiah 7. What's being fortold is how soon the two attacking kings will fall----before the child is old enough to know right from wrong.

The whole passage is nothing to do with Jesus. It is to do with Assyria and the elimination of the Northern kingdom, as many of these prophecies are, and with God promising to devastate both Assyria and Egypt which never did happen. Assyria was conquered by Babylon and eliminated, pretty much, but the land was just as productive as before.

What is clear is that when the sinless birth of the demigod Jesus became a dogmatic requirement, Matthew (at least) ransacked the OT as he often does, for anything that looked like a prophecy, and because he did not understand the OT and the Greek translation looked like a virgin birth (which in Hebrew it needn't be) he fitted that into his nativity which also needed to address the problem that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but so far as John was concerned, he wasn't.

In short, whatever the Believer denies or asserts, they have no chance of persuading me that anything in either nativity is true, other than the tax census of 6/7 AD but that didn't apply to Galilee anyway.

In short, the gospel writers do not understand what they are talking about and trust that the Believers don't either.

[1213]

The whole passage is nothing to do with Jesus....

And we should believe you just because you can write?

[TRANSPONDER]

The whole passage is nothing to do with Jesus....

And we should believe you just because you can write?

No, you should believe me because you can read, and you can read the Isaiah passage and see for yourself that it really has nothing to do with Jesus. And you should have done that long ago, not needed me to point it out, not to mention refuse to listen even when I did.