Is Jesus of 'Cursed Lineage'

quote:

---

It says it was to be a sign to the House of David. It didn't say the sign was to ahaz. Do you have any evidence in scripture that ahaz son was born of a virgin, or was called Immanuel.

---

Read the rest of the sign and the story. The child born was not specified to be the son of Ahaz or of David's line.Now read chapter 8 for the rest of the story, when the child was born.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Good Grief! Did you actually read the whole story?The child was NOT to be born to Ahaz!The word "almah" is an old discussion. Get to the meat of the story. Now both verses say they shall call his name Immanuel, but when we read these verses: God didn't say to name the child Immanuel.Think about it. They shall call his name Immanuel, which means God is with us. Since God had Isaiah name his child Maher-shalal-hashbaz, God did not intend the child to be named Immanuel; and since God had Joseph name his son Jesus, God did not intend for him to be named Immanuel.So what is the point of Immanuel?IMO, it is someone or group calling out "God is with us."The NT does not show us that this phrase was uttered by anyone during the life of Jesus.As I pointed out earlier, the rest of the sign for Ahaz, or House of David if you prefer, does not point to Jesus or a messiah in the distant future.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hey Brian and PaulK,Thanks for reading the post.

quote:

---

I believe that this is viewed as 'God with us' in purpose

---

That's the way I understand it. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed when it came to writing it down.I'm trying to understand why it was put in the story the way it was, since the boy was given a different name.Trying to see the reality behind its purpose.Thanks again

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Tom,Your answers and questions give me the impression that your Bible knowledge is based more on dogma and tradition (D&T) than research beyond D&T. I don't feel that you truly wish to understand the reality of the Bible stories or their authors. If you haven't noticed, I am not a proponet of D&T.The discussion of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew have been discussed in this forum many many times before. There is a whole thread on the Book of John.Instead of discussing my answers, you merely throw another verse at me. Try to understand Isaiah 7:14 from a Jewish perspective.Learn more about Judasim to get a better understanding of the purpose of the Jewish Messiah.If you do not wish to know any more than what D&T provides you, that is your choice, but personally, I don't have the time to restate what Jewish and Christian scholars already understand.I haven't found anything that supports Christian apologetics concerning this subject. Unless you have something new and more concrete than the same old apologetics, we really don't have anything else to discuss.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Oddly enough you proved my point. You threw out verses and don't even realize what you are saying with them.Quoting two songs adds nothing to the mix.

quote:

---

kjv 2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

---

God was the source of the writing. So do you agree that we should take the words as written in their entirety as God had each author write them?Do realize that it is Isaiah speaking in verse 18? This confirms that his son (the one born of the young woman) was the sign.If you believe the words are from God then read all the words.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

but it seems you are bringing up God's Words in relation to the relationship of the Father to the Son.

---

Then you would be incorrect. I was discussing the boy that God used as a sign to Ahaz.Your incoherent use of verses makes a discussion impossible and quite obviously you don't know what we are discussing, so our discussion is concluded.Good day.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hey Arach,Are you getting dizzy yet?Unfortunately, Tom has not progressed at all in this discussion. He seems to prefer his own version of the OT, as opposed to, that which God inspired the OT authors to write.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.