Sorry, but this is a clear case of "Matthew" blowing it.
Yes, it is clear that Mt. 1:23 is referring to Is 7:14, agreed.
However, as Is 7:1 begins "in the days of Ahaz...".
Emmanuel was to be born of either a virgin or a young woman as a sign to King Ahaz that when attacked by Syria and Israel, they would not be successful.
Let's assume that Isaiah was right and that Emmanuel was born in the days of Ahaz to give this king a "sign".
If "alma" means "virgin" then Emmanuel would have been born of a virgin more than 700 years prior to Jesus. Who would have been Emmanuel's father, 'god' perhaps? Bronze age son of 'god' & Messiah Emmanuel?
If "alma" means "young girl" but not virgin, AND 7:14 is supposed to apply to Jesus, then this suggests that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
7:14 means what it means and was actually referring to Emmanuel born in the days of Ahaz and OBVIOUSLY has NOTHING to do with any alleged Iron Age born Jesus.
Another point is that 2nd Cron 28 says that the sign of a born Emmanuel in the days of Ahaz is a false one anyway, since it describes how Ahaz lost his kingdom when attacked by these same nations with the same leaders mentioned.
Why?
Because when told he needs to ask for a sign by Isaiah, he said that he didn't want to "tempt the lord". This seems like an act of faith to me. But as 2nd Cron 28 explains it, YHWH became angry because Ahaz DIDN'T demand proof. (Quite the opposite of the position we are told today with 'no-show' 'god', isn't it?)
Not only is the "prophesy" of 7:14 not about Jesus, it is also a proved false prophesy if one is to consider 2nd Chron 28 to be true.
The Vampire
LOGOS
Yes, it is clear that Mt. 1:23 is referring to Is 7:14, agreed.
However, as Is 7:1 begins "in the days of Ahaz...".
Emmanuel was to be born of either a virgin or a young woman as a sign to King Ahaz that when attacked by Syria and Israel, they would not be successful.
Let's assume that Isaiah was right and that Emmanuel was born in the days of Ahaz to give this king a "sign".
If "alma" means "virgin" then Emmanuel would have been born of a virgin more than 700 years prior to Jesus. Who would have been Emmanuel's father, 'god' perhaps? Bronze age son of 'god' & Messiah Emmanuel?
If "alma" means "young girl" but not virgin, AND 7:14 is supposed to apply to Jesus, then this suggests that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
7:14 means what it means and was actually referring to Emmanuel born in the days of Ahaz and OBVIOUSLY has NOTHING to do with any alleged Iron Age born Jesus.
Another point is that 2nd Cron 28 says that the sign of a born Emmanuel in the days of Ahaz is a false one anyway, since it describes how Ahaz lost his kingdom when attacked by these same nations with the same leaders mentioned.
Why?
Because when told he needs to ask for a sign by Isaiah, he said that he didn't want to "tempt the lord". This seems like an act of faith to me. But as 2nd Cron 28 explains it, YHWH became angry because Ahaz DIDN'T demand proof. (Quite the opposite of the position we are told today with 'no-show' 'god', isn't it?)
Not only is the "prophesy" of 7:14 not about Jesus, it is also a proved false prophesy if one is to consider 2nd Chron 28 to be true.
The Vampire
LOGOS
