Apologetics, Isaiah 7:14, and Obfuscation

From St. Luke, Chap. I, 26-38:

And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His Name Jesus.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father; and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever.

God's Peace!

The Context demonstrates:

1) That it makes no difference if the female discussed in 7:14 is a virgin or not (the end result and point of the verse is not dependent upon a strict interpretation of the female being virign)

2) That the verse is irrelevant to the people of the late second temple

3) The verse talks about a sign, not a miracle, relevant to the people of the time period.

The context: Two armies from two kingdoms are set to destroy Jerusalem and the davidic throne.

Gd offers, not a miracle, but a sign to the reigning king of Jerusalem, and the representative of the Davidic line.

The Sign: A child will be born to a woman. Before the child reaches the age of puberty, the two armies will be destroyed.

Conclusion: According to the Hebrew Scriptures, this did indeed occur.

The sign, according to any common sense reading, according to any serious exegesis, even with the most conservative of uses of the charity principle, is not the birth, but the time line given by the child's age that coincides with the destruction of the armies.

The birth of the child has no bearing on the armies of the two northern kingdoms, but the child does.

According to Christians, it is the birth that is the sign, because the birth is to a virgin, and this is a prophecy about Jesus being born centuries later after the people in Jerusalem are all dead and forgotten about, after the siege had ended. For the sake of the argument, lets say the verse is about a child born to a virgin, and this is the sign. Lets also assume it is a prophecy.

This implies

1) There were two virgin births, one at that time and one in the late second temple. This would mean the birth of Jesus was not unique.

2) There was one virgin birth, and somehow, the Hebrews were supposed to be able to render almah as young woman who was not a virgin, and then almah as virgin for the double prophecy meaning, which would be relevant to a future generation that had nothing to do with those who were held captive behind the walls of Jerusalem. I would like for Christians to show me the text that allows someone to to render almah as non virgin and then as virgin for the prophecy interpretation.

If the child born was all together part of a prophecy and has nothing to do with King Ahaz, then

1) Which two warring kingdoms of the north were destroyed when Jesus reached the age of puberty?

2) If this part of Isaiah 7 is not part of the prophecy, then please, I would like for Christians to provide me with the methdology that allowed them to rip the point of the story, the destruction of the two warrring armies, out of the verse as a non prophecy, and only keep the child born to a virgin seperate?

If "almah" in chapter 7 must be strictly interpreted as virgin, then the entire sign should be rendered meaningless. Lets assume that chapter 7 is about a virgin birth. This would mean that the woman being a virgin is a critical point for 7 to work.

I will demonstrate by now assuming this is not a virgin birth in Isaiah 7.

The birth is not by a virgin.

Before the child reaches puberty.

The two warring armies of the north are destroyed.

The child reaches the age of puberty.  

Conclusion: The end result in the story occurs with or without the word "almah" being rendered "virgin".

Matthew's claim of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is obviously a mistake. No one with any serious intention of learning can look at this claim and look at the actual verse and declare it a prophecy about a virgin giving birth.

The main themes of the story are entirely irrelevant to late second temple. What would be the significance at the moment before Jesus knows right from wrong? Would this imply that Jesus did not know right from wrong and had to reach puberty before his true divine self would kick in? What two warring kingdoms were destroyed (armies) before Jesus knew right from wrong? What would Ahaz care about Jesus and late second temple period? Why would Isaiah as Ahaz for a sign for people living in 2 CE?

The answers do not exist, and giving the point away that almah is virgin causes more problems, and unanswered questions.