The NT and Prophecies 2

Greetings.

I would like to continue with points that I have found which in totality, and by themsleves, represent valid reasons that I have rejected Christianity as a faith, which is far different than rejecting the religion due to personal hatred against the core teachings or many of the wonderful adherents.

I bring attention to a common evidence used by the church to prove their claims about Jesus and the validity of the NT through a prophecy fulfillment.

Claim of Matthew Chapter 1:22-23:

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"-which means, "God with us."

This verse is in reference to Isaiah 7:14, and a claim that Isaiah gave a prophecy about the the birh of a future Messiah who would be born of a virgin centuries before the event would take place, giving validity to the Church and its idea of replacement theology. This verse is commonly read during the Christmas season, and a source for strength in the Christian cause. There are three important points that rest on this claim.

1) The validty of the NT. Given that we are told this is a word of Gd, which gives a historical and accurate account of Jesus. If a mistake exists, then one must question everything else.

2) The validity of the church. The group who founded the church chose the narratives that best served their theological beliefs. If the evidences for these beliefs can be found to be highly suspect, then their theological beliefs loose their supporting evidence and also become suspect.

Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 specifically. For the purpose of context, I will include all relevant verses in that chapter.

Below is a paste of appropriate verses needed for the discussion from the JPS TANACH, which I dislike, but it suffices for now. I will make comments that explain the context of the verse, the setting, and then provide points that show this is not a prophecy, or a dual prophecy, and given the setting and context, has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or the late second temple. 

Isaiah 7:1-16

 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it.

In 732 BCE, we find the Davidic throne under the threat of war from the two warring kingdoms of the North. The Kingdom of Syria and the Kindgom of Israel are trying to destroy the Kingdom of the South and have layed siege to the city of Jerusalem. King Ahaz is about to loose everything, and it should be mentioned that King Ahaz is not a "man of Gd", which will allow this chapter to make sense.

The threat of the Davidic throne is reinforced below.

7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind.

7:3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: 'Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field;

7:4 and say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah.

7:5 Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying:

7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel;

7:7 thus saith the Lord GOD: it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

7:8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people;

7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not have faith, surely ye shall not be established.'

These verses further reinforce the position that the context of this verse is about a war, and now Gd reassures that the agression of the two northern kingdoms will fail. Keep in mind that so far, nothing is given in the context of this chapter that has anything to do with late second temple or Jesus.

7:10 And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:

7:11 'Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

7:12 But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the Lord.'

7:13 And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Ahaz, who is not a great man of Gd, feels intimidated to ask Gd for a sign. Asking for a sign, not a miracle, as the sign will be a symbol of Gd's Words of reassurance about the failure of King Ahaz's enemies. This sign would mark the downfall of the two kingdoms of the north.

If this sign were the virgin birth of Jesus centuries later, then what sign of reassurance would this be to a people that were under siege and ready to be destroyed? In other words, what would King Ahaz, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem care about an event that would happen long after they were dead, how would the virign birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?  

7:15 Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

7:16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

This goes on to tell us how the sign will be relevant to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. By the time the child, who is a sign, reaches the age of knowing right from wrong, the two kingdoms will be vanquished and defeated. This came to pass. 

So if this is strictly interpreted as the virign birth of Jesus, then what relevance does eating curds and honey have to do with Jesus? When did he eat them? What two northern kingdoms were destroyed when Jesus reached puberty?

If this is a "dual prophecy", then what in the verse tells you it is such, and how would the birth of Jesus be unique given that now we have a second virgin birth?

(I do not believe the verse tells us of a virgin birth because the verse tells us that there will be a sign and the point of the sign becomes complete by the time the child reaches a certain age and the two northern kingdoms are destroyed, so whether or not the child was born of a virgin would not have mattered in this scenerio)

Peace 

DavidC wrote: Andalus, it would take a miracle for you to become a Christian.  Which is exactly the way most of us Christians came to believe.  Nobody reads the bible and then decides to be a Christian based on logic.  God put the belief in our hearts, and then we spend the rest of our lives reading the bible and look for clues as to what happened to us.

But David, religion should not be a guessing game. Having faith is difficult enough without having to try to piece together clues for guidance. Once you believe in God, the rest should be fairly easy.

Andalus, Greetings:

From you: "I bring attention to a common evidence used by the church to prove their claims about Jesus and the validity of the NT through a prophecy fulfillment.Claim of Matthew Chapter 1:22-23:

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"-which means, "God with us.""

Actually according to the Jewish Scriptures, Isaiah comforts Ahaz.

7:14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel."

There is no mention of any special King Messiah here. The young woman who gave birth to that child must have named him Immanuel. Eating curd and honey is of no consequence as most of those people did that. 

You must remember that Jesus himself never made those kinds of statements. He preached and taught the Torah and the Law. After he was long gone, the gospel writers, who were Jews themsleves, went to dig out verses from the Jewish Scriptures and presented them as Prophecies told about Jesus in the ancient scriptures.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on your following comment and observation:

"2) The validity of the church. The group who founded the church chose the narratives that best served their theological beliefs. If the evidences for these beliefs can be found to be highly suspect, then their theological beliefs loose their supporting evidence and also become suspect."

"These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled" was carried out by all writers but was mostly carried out by John, the writer of the fourth gospel. Perhpas John had the most time to choose the narratives that best served his points.

Best Regards

BMZ

George wrote: This topic was fully covered here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4361& ; ;PN=7

Actually it wasn't.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4361& ;PN=7&TPN=5

No one addressed my points, and this was the last contribution of the thread. I reworded the first contribution and organized it for use in my new thread.

Peace