The fun fact is that Mathew insists this is to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah. (Mat 1:32, referencing Isaiah 7:14)
Mathew's verses
18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly. 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23“Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
which means, “God is with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.
The verses in Isaiah Mathew is citing
10Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah[d] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
-Emphasis mine.
The Isaiah prophecy is being given to Ahaz as a sign that his enemies will get rekt. The child being mentioned, here, is nothing more than a time-marker. Basically, what it’s saying is, that somewhere a young woman will give birth and name the kid Immanuel. By the time that kid has reached the age of majority or whatever, then everything else (enemies being rekt.) will have happened.
There’s a few mistakes the author of Mathew is making here. First. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and could not have possibly been about some kid seven centuries later.
Secondly, in the original Hebrew, the word is most certainly “young woman” or “maiden” not “virgin.” so the prophecy isn’t even saying there’ll be a virgin giving birth. Just a woman, and the sole role the kid plays is to identify a period of time. at that time and place, it would have been around fourteen.
The second mistake comes from the author using the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew texts. for whatever reason the Greeks translated ‘maiden’ to ‘virgin’, and quite incorrectly so. Most modern English translations (particularly for Christians,) make the same mistake because it would be awkward otherwise. Suffice it to say that the author of mathew has exactly zero understanding of the old texts- probably because he was a Hellenic Jew, and spoke/read Greek- not Hebrew or Aramaic.
basically all of the messianic prophecies mathew points to beign fullfilled were either not a prophecy originally, or so severly misunderstood that it’s incomprehensible to imagine the author did anything other than throw spaghettified shit at the wall to see what stuck.
it was always part of Mathew.
The fun fact is that Mathew insists this is to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah. (Mat 1:32, referencing Isaiah 7:14)
Mathew's verses
The verses in Isaiah Mathew is citing
-Emphasis mine.
The Isaiah prophecy is being given to Ahaz as a sign that his enemies will get rekt. The child being mentioned, here, is nothing more than a time-marker. Basically, what it’s saying is, that somewhere a young woman will give birth and name the kid Immanuel. By the time that kid has reached the age of majority or whatever, then everything else (enemies being rekt.) will have happened.
There’s a few mistakes the author of Mathew is making here. First. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and could not have possibly been about some kid seven centuries later.
Secondly, in the original Hebrew, the word is most certainly “young woman” or “maiden” not “virgin.” so the prophecy isn’t even saying there’ll be a virgin giving birth. Just a woman, and the sole role the kid plays is to identify a period of time. at that time and place, it would have been around fourteen.
The second mistake comes from the author using the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew texts. for whatever reason the Greeks translated ‘maiden’ to ‘virgin’, and quite incorrectly so. Most modern English translations (particularly for Christians,) make the same mistake because it would be awkward otherwise. Suffice it to say that the author of mathew has exactly zero understanding of the old texts- probably because he was a Hellenic Jew, and spoke/read Greek- not Hebrew or Aramaic.
basically all of the messianic prophecies mathew points to beign fullfilled were either not a prophecy originally, or so severly misunderstood that it’s incomprehensible to imagine the author did anything other than throw spaghettified shit at the wall to see what stuck.