Crazy shit from ezekiel.

[Longhorn]

According to Christian's "Great Big Book 'O Crazy"



Well, of course this is completely stupid and only taken seriously by completely stupid people, but there are certain christians on here who definitely have the flint-like hardened head.

Actually that's a Jewish book.......

I see you've read my guide to interpreting scripture! Good! Now buy the full version and you're covered

[IATIA]

What else would one expect from a dose of blotter acid?

[IATIA]

So there's this huge universe with zillions of celestial objects in it and the invisible celestial deity shows up on this tiny speck and gives a guy a recipe and tells him to cook it over flaming crap.

The bible god always did like a good BBQ. That is why the preference of Abel's 'gift' over Cain's.

[Jenny A]

---

I am assuming you mean this:

Isaiah 7:14-17 NRSV

Even if you translate "young woman" as virgin, it's not a prediction of Jesus.  Look at the tense.  The young woman "is" with child.  And the sign is not that she will give birth, but what will happen before her son is of age.  It is a prophecy that was (according to the OT) already fulfilled before Jesus was ever born.  And it was given to a Ahaz:

Isaiah 7:10-13 NRSV

And it is about Ahaz's then current conflict with the Kings of Aram and Israel.

 Isaiah 7:1-4.  NRSV

Where any future virgin comes in is beyond me.   But Christians claim all sorts of things about it including that it's "double" prophecy meant to be fulfilled twice.  If that isn't a reinterpretation of what is plainly meant in the OT, I don't know what is.

---

Read that passage again closely, Isaiah is not addressing Ahaz in that prophecy, Ahaz clearly stated he wouldn't ask for a sign.

Again 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.

Isaiah then specifically addresses the house of David.

13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Showing that this sign was for the lineage of David. It's no coincidence that this "virgin" belonged to the house of David.

I guess a little bible reading lesson is in order here.

First of all the House of David is the descendants of David, specifically those in line for the throne.  According to 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, Ahaz was the 12th King of Judea after David (Israel ceased to be ruled by the House of David after Solomon's death when they refused to be ruled by Rehoboam.)  So in Ahaz's time the House of David was Ahaz and his sons.

But Ahaz was not one of the good kings according to the Bible.  And the story of Ahaz is the story of how things went wrong for Judea because of Ahaz.

Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign; he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. He did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, as his ancestor David had done, 2 but he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel. He even made cast images for the Baals; 3 and he made offerings in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and made his sons pass through fire, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. 4 He sacrificed and made offerings on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree.

2 Chronicles 28:1-4  See also 2 Kings 16:1-4 (almost identical).

At the opening of Isaiah 7 Jerusalem is under attack from both the king of Aram and also the King of Israel (not a descendant of David).

In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it. 2 When the house of David heard that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.

Isiah 7: 1-2.

Notice that the House of David and Ahaz's court are referred to as one thing because they are one thing.  The people are his Judian subjects. And when Isaiah arrives they are all in real trouble because Ahaz has lost an ally and gained an enemy.

Isaiah and his son go at the lord's direction to meet poor scared Ahaz in a field, and not in Jerusalem:

Then the Lord said to Isaiah, Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, 4 and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Aram—with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah—has plotted evil against you, saying, 6 Let us go up against Judah and cut off Jerusalem and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it; 7 therefore thus says the Lord God:

It shall not stand,
   and it shall not come to pass.
8
For the head of Aram is Damascus,
   and the head of Damascus is Rezin.

(Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered, no longer a people.)

9
The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
   and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
If you do not stand firm in faith,
   you shall not stand at all.

Isaiah 7:3-9

So Isaiah delivers this prophecy/bit of military and political advice to Ahaz  and the lord either directly or through Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign.  But as you say, Ahaz doesn't want a sign so he equivocates:

Again 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.

Isaiah 7:10-12

And Isaiah tells him that The House of David will have a sign whether Ahaz likes it or not:

Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore 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.”

Isaiah 7:13-17.  

Notice that Isaiah in addressing the House of David is addressing a group of people right in front of him, that is Ahaz and his court.  He say a woman IS with child and that Ahaz's enemies will have their kingdoms destroyed before her child reaches the age of reason.  It is a prediction about the very immediate future.  

And Ahaz is indeed saved from his enemies within that time frame, though he got help from Assyria by bribing them with silver taken from the temple in Jerusalem.  2 Chronicles 28:16-21.

What Isaiah7  is certainly not, is a prediction of anything that happened around the time Jesus turned five or so.  Those things happened generations before Jesus's birth.  And Mary did not name Jesus Immanuel. Nor was she pregnant at the time of the prophecy.  And nothing special is predicted about the child.

*edit*

I should address your comment about double prophecy, which does exist, for instance.

Matthew 11:23
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day

Jesus is addressing Capernaum, but this prophecy can also be applied to Los Angeles, a city which also exalts itself unto heaven (city of angels). It's only a matter of time before it's covered in water.

Applying Matthew to Los Angeles is an even more outlandish version of the double prophecy idea that Christians foisted on Isaiah 7.   There is nothing in Isaiah 7 that suggests it applies to any other time period than that of Ahaz.  And there's nothing in Matthew that could possibly be referring to Los Angeles.

[Godscreated]

@ Jenny A, what denomination/s were you affiliated with, I'm curious.

GC

[TheRealJoeFish]

 I forget which Christian here startled me by suggesting that Jacob wrestled with Jesus, but it was pretty recent here on the forum.

 That would be me, now instead of saying you are startled prove me wrong.

GC

I want to see you and Huggy prove each other wrong

[TheRealJoeFish]

And also:

Jesus is addressing Capernaum, but this prophecy can also be applied to Los Angeles, a city which also exalts itself unto heaven (city of angels). It's only a matter of time before it's covered in water.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Godscreated]

And also:

Jesus is addressing Capernaum, but this prophecy can also be applied to Los Angeles, a city which also exalts itself unto heaven (city of angels). It's only a matter of time before it's covered in water.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The Biblical illiterate don't have much to offer do they, so why make yourself look foolish.

GC

[Wyrd of Gawd]

 I forget which Christian here startled me by suggesting that Jacob wrestled with Jesus, but it was pretty recent here on the forum.

 That would be me, now instead of saying you are startled prove me wrong.

GC

This shit is ridiculous. Jesus is popping in and out of existence like he's a virtual particle.  One minute he's in heaven; the next he's on Earth grappling with the scumbag Jacob.  He then pops out of existence.  A second later he's in some girl's womb.  Then he gets nailed and vanishes.  He hasn't been seen since.  

People who believe fairy tales are 100% insane.

[Jenny A]

@ Jenny A, what denomination/s were you affiliated with, I'm curious.

GC

My family attended the Presbyterian church until I was 13 or so.  My father had attended seminary for a year there and was a lay preacher.   After that we attended the Lutheran church.  Lutheran have schismed and come in rather a few flavors from very evangelical to not so much.  We were not so much, certainly not Missouri synod who are essentially baptists with infant baptism and a liturgy.  The difference between the two, Presbyterian and Lutheran was primarily style.  The Presbyterians are more into a personal relationship with god, the Lutherans are more into worship services.