DrZoidberg

That's the handy thing with holy text interpretations. They're interpretations. All interpretations are equally valid. Because there's no authority. At least if you're not Catholic.

robto

Half-life, what you have to realize is that in Jesus's day it was considered legitimate for Jews to create allegorical interpretations of scripture. That doesn't mean that the OT was not historical, but it means that the history is not all that God put there. Scholars would study the OT and "discover" the deeper meaning. (Philo of Alexandria is a good example of this.)

Christians followed suit, and looked to the OT for passages that could be allegorized to apply to Jesus. (Also Satan, for example the passage in Ezekiel 28 about the king of Tyre was taken to be meant for Satan.) These (sometimes fanciful) interpretations then got locked in as Christian doctrine.

(The Jews remained more flexible in their interpretations by placing them into a different book, the Talmud, where discussion could continue. The Talmud is considered to have less authority than the Holy Scriptures (the OT). I wonder what Christianity would look like if, instead of canonizing a small set of writings and ending the discussion, they had kept it going in an open set of documents that people continued to add to, presenting different points of view.)

Equinox

Half-Life wrote:

Revolutionary hit it on the head. – Jesus was said to be born of a virgin because the early Christians were saying he was a divine man and making a mystery religion out of him. In ancient Greece, everyone knew that divine men were born of virgins, like Pythagoras, Plato, Apollonius, etc. So the early Christians had to quickly make up a virgin birth story. That’s why the virgin birth stories in Mt and Lk are so different – when people make up stories, they won’t always get all the details of their stories straight. Sit down and write out in short form each story – being careful not to add details from the other story. Now compare them. Wow, look at that, very few details are in both stories – details as simple as where was Mary and Joseph’s hometown (Nazareth in Lk and Bethlehem in Mt).

Then they faced another problem – there was no prophecy saying this, so they creatively interpreted a story about the King of Assyria to turn it into a virgin birth “prophecy”.

Plus, our earliest evidence is from Paul, who writes that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galations 4:4). Paul was all about showing how awesome Christianity was. If Paul thought that Jesus was virgin born, he certainly would have taken that opportunity to say so. So the earliest Christians didn't have any special ideas of Jesus' birth - that's a later fabrication.

It worked. Go figure.

All the best- Equinox

sugarhitman

Ch.7 the future child name is Immanuel, in ch.8 the child that is born is named Mahershal'alhash'baz...they are not the same predicted births....the prohecies of Jesus are hidden within prophecies....always remember that. :wave:

Joe Bloe

In Matthew and Luke, the child that is born is named Jesus, not Immanuel. So I guess we're still waiting for the Isaiah prophecy to be fulfilled ...

sugarhitman

Read the predictions of David, and Jeremiah. David wrote "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." Jeremiah wrote that The "Branch" from David would be called "The Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." All these can be translated to mean "God with us." The Messiah was to be both Man and God. Isaiah and Daniel wrote that He would die for the sins of the people.....Jesus is Immanuel...the Branch....The Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus the prophecy of Isaiah has come and gone.

Gamera

I suspect that the virgin birth is a retrojection of credal Christianity into the gospel narrative that formed the core of early Christianity. The gospel is narrative in structure and doesn't require the "belief" (whatever that means) in theological claims like the trinity or original sin or the virgin birth. Indeed, it is somewhat embarrassing to historical Christianity that all that is more or less absent from the gospels.

As credal Christianity began glossing the gospel proto-narrative (first, through the epistles and then through creeds and formal theology), it retrojected the doctrines back into the narratives. The virgin birth seems to me to be one of those retrojections, which is why it seems to fit so poorly into the larger narrative.

Half-Life

Chapter 7:


Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."

12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."

18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, [g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.

Chapter 8:

The LORD said to me, "Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me."

3 Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."

5 The LORD spoke to me again:

6 "Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,

7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the River [b]—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks

8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O Immanuel [c] !"

9 Raise the war cry, [d] you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!

10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us. [e]


nice try, but it definitely does NOT refer to Jesus.

The Virgin birth is one big hilarious lie.

God calls the child Immanuel as well.

If you really wanted to say that ALL THIS refers to jesus, you really have to twist your arm up your ass and to the side and hope it still comes out as your arm.

ImaAtheistNow

Further ...

"Virgin" is a mistranslation Christians made.


PS: Don't know if that was already pointed out in this thread.

Half-Life

Moot point anyway considering it's not even about Jesus in the first place.

No way Ahaz was asking for a sign many hundreds of years later after his death.