Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

the old virgin-mother immanuel bit? it's been popular on this baord recently. but it doesn't change the fact that the prophesy doesn't say virgin, is given to ahaz regarding assyria, is fulfilled a few chapters later, and for christsakes IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILD. the child is an indicator of time, a sign given, but not the prophesied event in itself. except for, you know, that whole exile thing. take this to the cursed lineage thread. that is exactly what it's about. however, i suspect that it's just a case of contradiction. no big deal. also:

quote:

---

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

---

i do like paul SOME of the time. except that solomon was king, not nathan. nathan is not in line for kingship, and would not have been unless solomon died before having an heir. and even then, by tradition, he'd be required to impregnate solomon's wife, and the child would be solomon's, not his. and he would be king, not nathan. so no, nathan is not a valid member in the line of kings.the line of kings also cannot pass through the mother, which is what this suggests. which isn't really a problems, since the luke indicates that heli was joseph's (or maybe even jesus's) father, but NOT mary's. STILL not a source to be trusted.

i'm fine with that. matthew makes mistakes all the time. i mean, he has jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals, just to fulfill misread prophesy. is that even possible? strangely, i have no problem with this. but i am not your typical christian. i wouldn't call them invented. no, he quotes actual texts, many of which we have. it's quite clear matthew was reading isaiah, and zechariah, and psalms. rather, it's just plain old fashioned error. he applies prophesy to improper context, or reads it wrong, or sometimes even reads non-prophetic stuff as being prophesy (psalms ≠ prophesy!)