Isaiah's Children

[Nonson]

For accuracy, the Tanakh; which is the Jewish bible, and is much more accurate than the christian OT, is used here.

Isaiah 7: 1-22, " In the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, king Rezin of Aram and King Pekan son of Remaliah of Israel marched upon Jerusalem to attack it; but they were not able to attack it. ... 3 But the Lord said to Isaiah, 'Go out with your son Shear-jashub to meet Ahaz at the end of the conduit of the Upper Pool, by the road of the Fuller's Field. 4 And say to him, 'Be firm and calm. Do not be afraid and do not lose heart on account of those two smoking stubs of firebrands, on account of the raging of Rezin and his Arameans and the son of Remaliah.'... 10 The Lord spoke further to Ahaz; 11 Ask for a sign from the Lord, your God, anywhere down to Sheol or up to the sky.' 12 But Ahaz replied, 'I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.' ... 14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.'"

It should be noted that the mother of Immanuel was pregnant at time the prophecy was given [Ahaz's reign]. Immanuel is just the name of a boy; the prophecy involves the events around the boy, not the boy himself. Immanuel lived in Ahaz's time, and was just a normal person; the only thing was that his early childhood was a sign that the two kings that Ahaz feared would not conquer his kingdom. Immanuel had a mother and father, like any boy; the Matthew writer distorted this story in order to make it seem that Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the prophecy is not about Immanuel, only about events tied to his birth and early childhood. It was a sign from God to Ahaz, so that the king would be encouraged. As for the mother of Immanuel, she could have been anyone, his father may even have been Isaiah. Considering the evidence here, it is certain that Jesus is not Immanuel -- and that is why no one, ever called Him Immanuel.

Isaiah 8: 1-22, "... 3 I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son; and the Lord said to me, 'Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the boy learns to call 'Father' and 'Mother', the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, and the delights of Rezin and the son of Remaliah, shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.' ... 18 Here stand I and the children the Lord has given me as signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of Hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion."

From this we see that Isaiah is sleeping with the prophetess and having children, and these children are given names that reflect an upcoming, near-future, prophecy. Like Immanuel, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, is not what is important, but that in both their childhoods' [lived in Ahaz's time] prophecies would be fulfilled. It is even possible that Immanuel had the same parents as Maher-shalal-hash-baz, namely Isaiah and the prophetess. Isaiah's children are signs and potents, and which children qualify as signs and potents? Who else, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

My conclusion, which I leave you to examine, is get yourself a Hebrew Bible if you want a truthful and accurate translation. The best proof that Jesus is not Immanuel, is this: Jesus was never given the name Immanuel, He is never called Immanuel, and He never calls Himself Immanuel. By the time Jesus lived, Immanuel had been dead for approximately 700 years. The mother of Immanuel was a young maiden, not a virgin, and she was pregnant by normal means, and it is very possible that Isaiah was the father. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Is there any Paulinists out there who would like to tackle this one? -THE DESTROYER-