• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The virgin birth prophecy: out of context

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Nihilist Virus, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    So... you don't want to call Matthew a liar, but then in your last sentence it looks like you are saying he completely invented the virgin birth story. Also, why are you OK with him simply yanking Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context?
     
  2. JackRT

    JackRT Flat earther waking up ... Supporter

    +11,478
    Canada
    Freethinker
    Married
    Since Matthew copied extensively from Mark, he was undoubtedly aware of Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him." By referencing his mother rather than his father carries a strong suggestion that Jesus was a "mamser" (of questionable birth). Without a knowledge of Hebrew Matthew likely thought that he had the perfect answer to this challenge in Isaiah's prophesy. Try as I might I cannot explain why Matthew ignored the full context of the prophesy. It is very difficult to explain someone's reasoning especially after 2000 years. At any rate using the prophesy as proof of a virgin birth is certainly not compelling or reasonable.
     
  3. Eryk

    Eryk Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,343
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I see the Gish Gallop is still in vogue.
     
  4. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,295
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    I don't see why 15 and 16 are very important for the point you're trying to make. Based on the rest of the passage, the sign is obviously not for Ahaz - for he has rejected any signs from the Lord. The sign is for God's people. According to 15 and 16, before the child becomes mature Pekah and Rezin will fizzle out and their kingdoms will come to nothing. If Immanuel is a reference to Jesus then this is certainly true. Their kingdoms passed away long before he was even born. And Jesus is not a sign for Ahaz but was and remains a sign for God's people in every age that "God is with us".
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    Wow. A new low. The prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus half a millennium before he was even born.

    Right after JackRT's brutal honesty, the stench of what you said is unbearable.
     
  6. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,295
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    This response does not demonstrate an understanding of what I've said.
     
  7. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    I appreciate the honesty. Truly I do. It's hard for me to come by that here.

    For what it's worth, I looked into Jesus being a mamzer quite a bit and it's clear as mud. I pushed hard for that because he would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 23:2, but "bastard" in English does not directly mean "mamzer."

    Even when I have an air-tight case, apologists tend to deny the obvious. You can see that for yourself here. So there's little point in pursuing a foggy issue.
     
  8. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    Take your time and dissect just one of my claims. I dare you.
     
  9. Eryk

    Eryk Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,343
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    You have the opinion that a prophecy cannot have a dual fulfillment - near and far in time. You believe that such a thing is not allowed to exist. I am powerless to control your opinions but that is not a defeat for me.
     
  10. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,209
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    Right on the mark! Well said!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Life is lived in the shape of a "?" Supporter

    +4,745
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    ...15 and 16 don't really need to be addressed. You may want to try to stop looking at everything with an ultra-literal, linear mindset, and just look at verses 15 and 16 as expressions of an underlying prophetic pattern that has multiple applications. It might also help if you can start to think of prophecies as 'heuristic' devices rather than clearly articulated plans that were given to humanity in the past to serve as obvious signs to any casual reader.

    For me, it doesn't seem that God's intention with prophecy has been to be 'crystal clear,' but rather cryptic. Instead of a clear explanation, we get "a little here, a little there..." And we just don't like that this is the case and we often complain that it isn't helpful.

    So, if the approach above "fails" for you, then you might pick up a copy of the Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale (PhD. University of Cambridge) to get a better understanding of how to approach these kinds of complex texts, NV. :cool:

    Peace,
    2PhiloVoid
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    No reason it can't. I'd appreciate it if you don't saddle me with claims I didn't make.

    Now please either tell me that you are OK with prophecy being yanked completely out of context *or* explain how Jesus fulfilled verses 15 and 16.
     
  13. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,295
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Jesus fulfills Isaiah 7:15-16 by coming to maturity after Syria and the Northern Kingdom were both destroyed. The northern kingdom fell in 722 BC - Damascus roughly around that time. Jesus was born in roughly 5BC.
     
  14. Eryk

    Eryk Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,343
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well, you see, it's because of this:
    Some Christian interpreters do not believe that these verses apply to Jesus. There is no problem with this unless you want to make up an arbitrary rule that will do nothing to overthrow millennia of interpretive tradition. It's not like you're the first person who ever read those verses.
     
  15. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    He did not eat honey and curds. He was not a sign to King Ahaz. And you are ignoring the obvious intent of the prophecy. It doesn't say that X will happen "500 years before the child is born." It obviously does not intend for one to take your interpretation. If you want to be so technical, we have plenty of areas where the Bible is dead-to-rights wrong.

    If this is the kind of material you intend to present in future discussions, I'm fine with us being done. Perhaps consider adding me to your ignore list so you don't respond to me. I'd appreciate it because I don't want future observers to think I'm ignoring you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  16. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    Suppose in 2003 I made a prophecy that the Giants would beat the Patriots 17-14 in the Super Bowl. After the 2007 NFL season, that happened. Four years later, the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl again. But the score was 21-17 the second time.

    Is this a double prophecy? You have to completely ignore half of what was said in order for it to be a double prophecy.

    But I like the "millennia of tradition" touch. Yes, rich traditions like a militant belief in a flat earth and the idea that life on earth was specially created and shares no common ancestor.

    News flash: the church has been wrong. Morally, logically, factually, and etc. Is it much a surprise that the author of Matthew got something wrong?
     
  17. Eryk

    Eryk Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,343
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The issue is extremely simple. Early Christians could not read a text about a child called God-with-us without seeing Jesus. The Christology is so literal here. The other verses do not have to apply to Jesus. Jesus can be a new Moses effecting a new Exodus without doing other Moses-things like throwing tablets on the ground. That's not a requirement for Jesus to be the perfect fulfillment of Old Testament types. And no one is more truly God-with-us. THAT is why we say that Isaiah 7 is about Jesus - more than anyone else, it points to him in the thing that matters most (and curd-eating ain't it, and yes everyone noticed it already, and no one ever cared, the picayune criticisms of internet atheists notwithstanding). Good night!
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  18. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,295
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    How do you know that Jesus didn't eat honey and curds? Chances are he certainly did.

    Either way, this is language is symbolic. The idea of honey and curds refers to material abundance. The idea is that the southern kingdom will survive the siege that they are currently under. This, indeed, did happen.

    As I've argued, the sign was not for Ahaz. Ahaz rejected any sign from the Lord (Isaiah 7:12). The sign is for God's people. That's why his name is Immanuel. Though Ahaz has acted to sell God's people to Assyria (and therefore Ahaz is not "with" God's people), God is with his people. Immanuel is a sign for the people.

    What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. Now it seems you're grasping a little.

    I have placed you on my ignore list several times in the past because you're a very mean person. Discussions with you quickly escalate to inflammatory rhetoric because you're arrogant, mean, uncharitable, disrespectful, and you bait people. You present interesting issues and ask interesting questions but it's difficult to talk with you at length because of your mean spirit. That tone is not necessary unless you're really not convinced of the strength of your position and feel you need to rely on it to win debates.

    But I'll not ignore you this time. And I hope (though I suspect the opposite will be true) that you'll address the actual content of my post above rather than ignoring it and gravitating right to this section. So I'd ask you not to respond to this bit unless you're responded to my comments above.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  19. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +900
    Atheist
    Private
    Apples and oranges.
     
  20. Eryk

    Eryk Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,343
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Curds, honey.
     
Loading...