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 Euphrates— 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, Immanuel[b]!”(Isaiah 8:3-8).

<>

Isaiah 7:14:

I bring attention to 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:

Ø  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." Matthew1:22-23

This verse is in reference to Isaiah 7:14, and a claim that Isaiah gave a prophecy about the birth 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 two important points that rest on this claim:

1) The validity of the NT. Given that we are told this is a word of God, 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 (S) or the late second temple. 

Isaiah 7:1-16

Ø  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 Kingdom of Israel are trying to destroy the Kingdom of the South and have laid 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 God”, which will allow this chapter to make sense.

The threat of the Davidic throne is reinforced below.

Ø  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.

Ø  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;

Ø  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.

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

Ø  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;

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

Ø  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;

Ø  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 God reassures that the aggression 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 (S).

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

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

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

Ø  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?

Ø  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 virgin birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?  

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

Ø  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 virgin 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?

The event has nothing to do 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 scenario.

The Context (of Isaiah 7:14) 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 virgin)

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.

      God 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 (seeking the best, strongest interpretation without twisting it to a preconception), 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 and after the siege had ended. For the sake of the argument, let’s say the verse is about a child born to a virgin, and this is the sign. Let’s 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. OR;

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 render almah as non virgin and then as virgin for the prophecy interpretation.

If the child born was all together part of a prophecy that 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 methodology that allowed them to rip the point of the story (the destruction of the two warring armies) out of the verse as a non prophecy, and only keep the mentioning of a child born to a virgin separate from the point?

If "almah" in chapter 7 must be strictly interpreted as virgin, then the entire sign should be rendered meaningless. Let’s 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 (S) knew right from wrong? What would Ahaz care about Jesus (S) and late second temple period? Why would Isaiah tell Ahaz to ask God Almighty 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.

 ------------------------------------------------------

That article was posted on a discussion forum form a Brother whom I do not remember his name; may Allah (S) reward him for his contribution, Inshallah.