Page 20 - BV20

20 The Virgin Birth and the Messiah

6. The com mon sense con text is clear. The ONLY way Isa iah 7:14 can be a Mes si anic verse re fer -
ring to Yeshua the Mes siah is to com pletely rip it free of the clear con text in which it re sides. The
ONLY ev i dence that this is a Mes si anic proph ecy is the ev i dence sup plied by Constantinian Chris -
tian tra di tion and prob a ble scri bal ma nip u la tion of the Gos pels.

We chal lenge any one to show us, FROM THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH, that this verse ap -
plies to the Mes siah! And don't throw Mat thew and Luke at us, writ ings for which ev i dence ex ists
of scri bal ma nip u la tion -- an is sue we will briefly ad dress later. Prove it from Isa iah. Also, re call
that even in the New Tes ta ment we find that truth MUST be proven from the OLD TESTAMENT,
just as was done by the "no ble" Bereans. Al most all Chris tians seem to for get or ig nore this clear
teach ing from the pages of the New Tes ta ment.

A typ i cal ar gu ment pre sented by Constantinian Chris tians/Messianics is that Isa iah 7:14 has
a "dual" mean ing. Those pro mot ing this will agree that the con text does NOT sug gest some sort of
fu ture Mes si anic proph ecy. How ever, in stead of al low ing Scrip ture to speak for it self, they uti lize
the com mon "ejec tion but ton" of "mys tery" or "hid den mean ing."

If a proph ecy can not be shown in the Old Tes ta ment, it is not a proph ecy, and the use of Isa -
iah 7:14 as Mes si anic proph esy can not be le git i mately shown from its con text; there fore, its "ful fill -
ment" in the birth of Mes siah can not be sub stan ti ated. Un like other verses that leave room for
var i ous opin ions re gard ing their ap pli ca tion to Mes siah, Isa iah 7:14 is too clear to al low it to be so
bru tally di vorced from its con text. Un for tu nately, since tra di tional Chris tians dog gedly claim the
New Tes ta ment to be equal or even su pe rior to the Old, they al low the few verses in Mat thew and
Luke -- or the no tion of a "dual" mean ing -- to over rule the clar ity shown from the con text of Isa iah
7 and 8.

Re gard less of the spe cif ics of the proph ecy, one thing is clear -- it was DEFINITELY a
proph ecy for Ahaz and the days of Ahaz! There is ab so lutely NO HINT that this is re fer ring to the
Mes siah. The com mon Chris tian in ter pre ta tion that Isa iah 7:14 ap plies to Mes siah (de spite the con -
tex tual ev i dence prov ing oth er wise) was pos si bly ac com plished when scribes took it upon them -
selves to edit the Gos pel ac counts of Yeshua's birth so that the al leged birth ac count would better
line up with the stan dard Bab y lo nian sun-god mys tery re li gion god-man of pa gan thought. The typ -
i cal, al most uni ver sal ar gu ment we re ceive from those that dis agree with us, co mes from the al leged
Gos pel ac counts. Thus, the ONLY proof avail able for the vir gin birth co mes from writ ings schol ars
have proven are cor rupt cop ies of orig i nal manu scripts that them selves are not "orig i nals."

New Testament Problems?

The fact that tens of thou sands of un de ni able dif fer ences ex ist be tween all the avail able
New Tes ta ment manu scripts is all one need point to for proof that the New Tes ta ment has scri bal
cor rup tion. If I re call cor rectly, Bart Ehrman says in his book, The Or tho dox Cor rup tion of Scrip -
ture, that there are over 100,000 vari a tions among the 5366 ex tant manu scripts and no two manu -
scripts are in agree ment. Even the most con ser va tive es ti mate among schol ars is that there are
"over 10,000 vari a tions" in the avail able texts. These facts ALONE prove, be yond doubt, that the
New Tes ta ment is NOT the "per fect Word of God".

The Berean Voice