Summations Only

You cite above the text from Matthew. But the question is whether Isaiah is fulfilled prophesy.Isaiah 7:14.KJV

quote:

---

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

---

NIV

quote:

---

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

---

The prophecy in Isaiah is about someone that the virgin will call Immanuel.

You admit that you don't know if the prophecy as stated in Isaiah 7:14 is literally fulfilled at any time, but maintain that the modification as stated in Matthew is accurate.But is any part of Matthew prophecy about Jesus as messiah, given that it was written after the birth and resurrection? I don't understand in what sense post-resurrection statements given in full knowledge of Isaiah can be prophecy, even if those statements are literally the Gospel truth.You seem to be assuming that people who question whether it can be shown that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfilled prophecy are also questioning whether Jesus is the messiah. Well I, for one, don't question Jesus status as the messiah. Jesus is the Christ. But the question for this thread is a far narrower one. Namely whether we can find a fulfilled scripture identifying Jesus as the Messiah. In my view, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a fulfilled prophecy.Matthew, on the other hand, is evidence that Jesus disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah. That's good enough for me. I don't care about the mismatch with Isaiah at all; except for the need to tell the truth in this thread.

You may accept that Mary did call him Emmanuel. You may even be right. But there is no evidence in scripture that she did so. I don't disqualify Christ as a Messiah on those grounds, and I would not expect a Christian to take that position. That's a completely different issue than whether you can demonstrate that Isaiah 7:14 is prophetic. I answered this question in my post. You could not possibly have read it and still not know the answer to this question. It does not constitute a failure.

I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I accept also that on the third day Jesus rose again from the dead. Is there a OT prophecy that tells us to expect such a virgin birth? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

An interesting and not unreasonable argument. But I think it fails.The problem is that we can all see that Matthew's text describes a prophecy that does not match Isaiah 7:14. If indeed Isaiah 7:14 is accurate, then Matthew does not literally describe the prophecy from Isaiah.More importantly, I would argue that you are misreading what Matthew actually says. I'll quote verses prior to and including Matthew 1:23 here to add some important context.

quote:

---

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1.23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

---

Note that the actions taken in verses 1:18-1:21 (and in my mind including also the genealogy described in 1:1-1:17) are the actions referred to in 1:22 as "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled", i.e. the actions that confirm the words of the prophet quoted in 1:23. But those actions only include naming the child "Jesus" and not Emmanuel.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am puzzled by this statement. Didn't you and jar both agree that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfilled prophecy? Isn't it the double fulfillment that you two disagree about?

Picking this particular example does help to further Jar's purpose, but I simply don't see anything the least bit nefarious about the pick at all. Further, if you have a legitimate objection to Jar's choice, then you ought to cite your objection and ask for a second example rather than pretending that the first one had never been offered.

This type of reasoning is what I refer to as "Bible Worship". It is, in fact, numerology of the highest order. Eight people = day eight?? Really? There is not the slightest chance that this confluence is after the fact rationalization? If the number of people on the ark had been seven, wouldn't numerologists have made something out of that too?I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact this is what some people mean by Bible study. So if there was no global flood, or if some detail of it is not as written in Genesis, then Jesus wasn't the son of God? Really?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Numerology is not the Christian faith. This "significance of numbers" is no different from astrology.I am a Christian, and what I am debunking isn't the Christian faith. It's something completely different, and thankfully, it is inessential to what Christ taught. At best numerology is harmless, but at worst, it misses the entire point. Once again, you demonstrate your ability to snippet the Bible. Jesus did not suggest that the specific numbers mentioned were of holy significance because they corresponded to any earthly or heavenly thing having those same numbers. He was pointing out that the disciples had missed the significance of a miracle performed before their eyes The miracle would have been the same if there had been six loaves and six thousand, with 200 handbaskets taken up after everyone had eaten. IMO, numerology shouldn't be pushed with anyone. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.