The canon of the New Testament has been a topic of struggle for the church and its members for many years. Critics of the Bible say that there were dozens of gospels that were not included in the New Testament, and should have been. Some professing Christians will even admit that they wonder if we have the right books included in our Bible, especially in the New Testament. Although the content of the Bible was widely recognized to have divine inspiration by the early church, influential heretic sects forced the early Church to canonize their scriptures. One thing should be acknowledged before the Bible is scrutinized; the Jews and the church always had a method of recognizing which books belonged in the pulpit and which books did not. When new sects arose (Gnostics) they started writing other gospels and letters that were contrary to scripture and replacing or altering (Marcions) books of the Bible. This forced the church to come out with a list of books that were divinely inspired, where as before they relied on other methods that will be discussed in further detail.
The Jew’s had a manner in which they recognized a text into their canon that was rather straightforward and immediate. Once the prophet gave the revelation and the secretary wrote it down, the Jew’s would add the scroll to their canon automatically. The historian Josephus wrote a letter in AD 90 confirming that this was the manner in which the Jew’s canonized their scripture. Josephus wrote that the Jew’s had a collection of books that agreed with each other unlike the Greeks that had many books that conflicted with one another. The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament came to a close around 400-350 BC when there was no voice of a prophet in the land. Although much later, writings dated around 550 AD from the Babylonian Talmud agree with Josephus. The Rabbinical literature says, “(the) Holy Spirit had departed from the land,” after the last prophets (Haggia, Zechariah and Malichai) entered their scrolls into the canon. Thus, the Old Testament was set in stone long before the birth of Christ.
The early Christian church had no issue utilizing the Hebrew Bible in their gatherings. There are several deductions that can be made to come to this conclusion. The early Christian’s were not seen as a new religion; they were seen as a new sect of Judaism. Only Jew’s were included at first, and they knew which books were in the Old Testament for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. An example of their willfulness to quote the Hebrew Bible comes immediately after the appearance of the Holy Spirit when Peter stands up and quotes several Old Testament passages. When Stephan gave his discourse before the Jew’s stoned him, he gave them a run down of the entire Old Testament. Also, Jesus quoted the Hebrew Bible many times in the New Testament, and that alone gives the Old Testament books authority. A new Christian would have, at first, been an old Jew who followed the law. He or she would have known that the Hebrew Bible was scripture, and surely a good Jew would never have been involved in a religious movement that did not recognize the Septuagint as divinely inspired.
New Testament writings were not immediately canonized for legitimate reasons. First, they did not think Christ would be gone long. In fact in Acts 1:5 the disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” They thought He was going to come back almost immediately, so why would they bother canonizing their scriptures. Second, there was no universal church or bishop to exert authority, and make decisions referring to canonizing their Gospels and epistles. Third, the letters were immediately sent out to the churches, which were scattered all over the empire. An example of this is found in fragment 7Q5. Many papyrologists’ agree that fragment 7Q5 contains a portion of Mark’s Gospel. Papyrologist Jose O’Callaghan is among those who confirm 7Q5 to be Mark 6:52-53. This fragment was found in a cave that most scholars believe was sealed before the year 68 AD. If the death of Jesus took place around 30 AD (probably between 27-35 AD), and this fragment from Mark is dated around 68 AD, that is enough to say that the letters of the Apostles were written, copied, and immediately sent out to the other churches. No church had all of the originals manuscripts either, since the leaders were scattered all over and were writing the letters from where they were located in the empire. However, just because the writings were not canonized immediately, does not mean they were not widely accepted by the Christian churches immediately.
An early church Bishop named Irenaeus wrote a discourse titled Against Heresies, around the year 180 AD. In this book he quotes 22 of the New Testament books and refers to them as the Holy Scriptures. Irenaeus wrote, “There are only four gospels because there are four zones of the world, and four principle winds.” His logic, though flawed, does prove that the church was only using the same four gospels we have now. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of John. He was only two generations removed from the original apostles, and he is referring to a collection of books as the Holy Scriptures. The testimony of Irenaeus confirms that the churches were using most of the same books that we have in our New Testament today in their congregation before the year 200 AD, with the exception of Philemon, Second and Third John, Second Peter, Jude, and possibly James. Irenaeus does not utilize those books, but that does not mean that he did not count them as Divine, he simply may not have needed to use them in his book. It was not until certain heretical groups arose to challenge the church, that the church decided to get together and make a list of books. Up until that point, they generally agreed that God inspired the writings of the apostles as just stated by the testimony of Irenaeus.
The Gnostics believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, that all matter is evil, that the God of the Old Testament was evil, that the God of the New Testament was good. They believed that Heaven is found through secret knowledge, hence the name Gnostic. This new religious sect referred to themselves as Christians, and had a rather large movement. The Gnostics began writing their own gospels like the gospel of Thomas, and the now famous gospel of Judas. In the gospel of Judas, Jesus is a shape shifter who comes to the 12 disciples as a small child. Also, in the gospel of Judas, Judas is made out to be a hero, and Jesus actually wanted Judas to turn Him in. The entire book is contrary to scripture and was wrote at least 100 years (probably 2-300 years) after the death of Judas. It was popular in those days to write a book in someone else’s name that had credibility. This is why in the Bible Paul began to write his signature on his letters, or even pick up the pen himself and begin writing. When the Gnostics needed a popular name to place on a book, they choose names like Thomas, Peter or Judas. The Gnostics needed to write their own scriptures, because the Bible did not make sense to a Gnostic. Proof of this is found in the Nag Hammadi Codex. Portions of the Nag Hammadi Codex are found in the newest publication of the gospel of Judas. These books include an apocalypse supposedly wrote by James, a letter from Peter to Philip and a book of James. This was just one group that influenced the early Orthodox Church to form the canon of the New Testament.
The Marcion church was a great threat to the early church, even greater than the Gnostic movement. Marcion (a second century heretic) began teaching that the material world was evil. He attracted a crowd, and started his own church. He believed that Yahweh was a different God than the God of Jesus Christ. Marcion taught that Yahweh was either evil, or incompetent or both, and that Yahweh created the world and placed man on it. Unlike the Gnostics, the Marcion’s began forming their own canon of scripture. Marcion began by taking books out of the Septuagint, and took most of the New Testament away except for the writings of Paul and portions of Luke. He did not use Luke and Paul’s writings entirely, he chopped them up to fit his own gospel. Marcion took the Old Testament out because he believed Yahweh was an evil God, and that the God of Jesus Christ would never punish His people. He had a completely different Jesus as well. Jesus could not have born of Mary, because then Jesus would have received the darkness that he believed all material had. Instead, Marcion taught that Jesus just appeared one day as a full-blown man. Because Marcion began creating his own canon, the early church was compelled to respond and become more orthodox in their ways.
Without a collection of books that was unable to be added to or taken away from, the authority of what we now consider scripture would always be open to interpretation by the local congregation. If the Marcion and Gnostic sects had their own scripture or canon of scripture, the new sects would be able to enter a local church and preach a false gospel rather easy. But, if the church had a completed list of books that alone had authority, then the false writings would be dismissed immediately. Such was the case, and the church decided to officially announce their canon of scripture, which nothing could be added to or taken away from. Of course there had to be rules on what kind of writings would be considered divinely inspired. The Orthodox church came to the conclusion that in order for a letter to be canonized, it must adhere to the following; the writing in question must have been wrote by an apostle, or an apostolic man. The author must have been alive during the life of Jesus, and have a certain type of connection with Jesus or an apostle. The letter must not contradict the testimony of the Septuagint, and it must be verified that the listed author was the one who wrote it. Once the Apostles and the apostolic men were no more, the scriptures were sealed, thus preventing any writings after the first century to creep into the canon. Of course before the canon of scripture was finally set around the close of the fourth century at the Council of Carthage, the Orthodox church was using the same books, or very close to the same books that we now see in our table of contents in the New Testament. The list of books from the Council of Carthage was not the first list of Christian books one can find when searching for the truth about the canon of scripture. The very first list was written around 150 AD and is now titled the Moratorian fragment. The Moratorian Canon contains a list of books that were accepted by the church, a list of books that were being debated about as to if they should belong, a list of books that did not belong (but could be read for personal use) and a list of books that were clearly heresy.
When looking back at the way that the New Testament canon was shaped, it should come to no surprise that the process took hundreds of years to unfold. One should now know that the early church had a collection of writings they considered to be inspired, and that the church was in no real hurry to make a formal list. It was not until religious sects like the Marcions came along, that the church realized they needed to become orthodox. The Jewish canon had long been sealed when Jesus came, and the New Testament gives an account that the apostles and Jesus held to the Septuagint as scripture. Men like Irenaeus leave a clear testimony to the fact that the Christian churches generally agreed upon what was divinely inspired, and what was not. The early Christians were not concerned with building a list of books; they expected the immediate return of Christ. Why would they waist time making a list of books when Jesus could come back any day? Furthermore, the Church did not have any reason to say exactly what was in and what was out, until the false religions rose up and began compiling their own lists. If it was not for groups like the Marcion’s and the Gnostic’s, one could suppose that a canon for the New Testament may have never been needed.
References
ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version.. ESV text ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008.
Evans, Craig A. “Understanding the Gospel of Judas.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 20, Jan
2010, 561-574.
González, Justo L.. The story of Christianity. Rev. and updated, 2nd ed. New York: HarperOne,
2010.
Gundry, Robert H. “No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5 : A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 with Mark 6:52-
53.” Journal Of Biblical Literature, Vol 118, Dec 1999, p.698-707.
Irenaeus against heresies. Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger Publishing, 2007.
Kloha, Jeffrey J. “Jesus and the Gnostic Gospels.” Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 71,
Apr 2007, p.121-144.
Newman, Robert C. 1976. “Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon.” Westminster
Theological Journal, Vol 38, Mar 1976, p.319-349.
Roth, Dieter T. “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: the History of Research in Current Debate.”
Journal Of Biblical Literature, Vol 127, Sep 2008, p.513-527.
Sheeley, Steven M. “From “Scripture” to “Canon” : The Development of the New Testament
Canon.” Review & Expositor, Vol 95, Sep 1998, p513-522.
soldier4righteousness 
“The Jew’s had a manner in which they recognized a text into their canon that was rather straightforward and immediate. Once the prophet gave the revelation and the secretary wrote it down, the Jew’s would add the scroll to their canon automatically.”
Then Christianity would of necessity be false since its text was not added in this way but floated around being obviated on by uneducated pagan church fathers for at least half a century before even being agreed on by the church. This makes sense considering that Jer 31 (Rachel weeping for her children are not [in the land]) is about the Babylonian exile, contextually, as Micah 5 is about Zorobabel defending the land against Assyrian incursion, contextually, and Isiaiah 7 about how Hezekiah’s birth would signal the time at which Pekkah and Remaliah were to be chased off their thrones by the king of Assyria. In other words, every prophecy claimed to be about Jesus in the New Testament turns out, on examination, to be about something else. Isaiah 53 itself, if you go back and read from chapter 42 on, is clearly about Israel the nation, for the context begins that early, and says “Israel is my servant, Jacob my chosen.” Christianity is a lie that men accept only because they like the foolish Pauline idea that they have no responsibility for their actions; just believe in a myth about a dying and rising god like Mithra and poof you’re saved! Yeah right.
Your comments are false. The books did not float around as you say, there is evidence of that as I have presented. I presented exactly how and why the canon was chosen in the paper. You are choosing to believe something different, like many others, and clearly missing the obvious that has been presented. Your comments are also extremely uneducated.
As for the following of Myths, Peter was ahead of you by about 2000 years.
2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
and John also said he was an eye witness to the resurrection.
1 John 1:1-3
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the Word of life-
2 that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us-
3 what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship along with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
He’s not a dying and rising God that no one can prove, I have more unbiblical evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus than Biblical, all one has to do, is look for it.
I pray you find the truth before it is to late for you my friend,
Dan Fogarty.
and what about Psalm 22? How do you explain that psalm away like you are trying to explain away the rest of the OT?
As for explaining away the OT, it is Christianity that explains away the OT to make prophecies about the Babylonian captivity and other things into prophecies of a dying and rising godman. What you call believing the OT is in fact denying it by denying its true meaning and replacing it with fanciful misinterpretations.
Now, as to Psalm 22. First I would point out that the speaker is clearly just a man and not identifiable with God. Verse 6 “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” He esteems himself LESS than a man, not more.
Further, Christianity begins with the assumption that everything in the OT is about Jesus and so it forces everything there to be about Jesus. As I already said, for example, Jeremiah 31 in context is about the Babylonian captivity, Rachel weeping for her children are not in the land, and God says “Weep not for there is still hope that thy children can return from the land of the enemy to their own border.” Contextually the meaning is obviously about the captivity. But the Christian, beginning with the assumption that everything in the OT is about his dying and rising god, makes it so. Here also. Because you were trained to see everything as about Jesus you assume that because the passage mentions things like hands being pierced that it must be a prophecy of Jesus (as if nobody ever had their hands pierced before Jesus!), and you figure this is some miraculous prediction of the very details of the cross(!) when the reality is clear that it is just a song about the proverbial suffering righteous man and that the Christian gospel writers utilized the details from the Psalm to craft their story — Jesus didn’t historically fulfill this prophecy (it isn’t a prophecy); the gospel writers simply used the Psalm to frame their novels.
As to your other comment, that Christianity’s dying and rising god story cannot be based on earlier pagan dying and rising god myths because Peter said in 2 Pet 1:16 “we did not follow cleverly contrived myths”, I generally find that when someone says something like “I’m not lying” they are lying. That Peter denies following “myths” makes it all the more likely he was doing exactly that. John also, when he says “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes,” is likely to be saying this only because he knows he saw nothing. And even if he was an honest man, how do I know that? Just because a man called Peter and another called John said something happened doesn’t make it so. ESPECIALLY, when Christianity is caught with its hand in the cookie jar making up false prophecy fulfillments.
Now that last statement is important. Not one prophecy cited in Matthew’s first two chapters (the most important and strongest prophecies supposedly about Jesus) can be found to be about him after examination by reading the passage in the OT itself. It sounds good when Matthew quotes one out of context verse, but go back and read the whole chapter and you see its about something that happened much earlier. AND HE EVEN INVENTS AN ENTIRE OT PASSAGE. He says that Joseph brought the family down to Nazareth “so that it would be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets ‘He shall be a Nazarene’!” — there is no such prophecy in the OT. Not only does the NT misuse, abuse, and twist the Old Testament, but it occasionally creates fake OT references out of thin air.
Ok, so you say that when someone says they are not lying, they are usually lying? Would it have been better if Peter had said, “I AM A BIG FAT LIAR?” no, it wouldn’t, that is a stupid comment sir, flat out. You swear your telling the truth all the time, everyone does. Everyone who says that they are telling the truth are lying? Really? Do you know how dumb that sounds? What a strong argument you have, I am sure I should listen to you…
Furthermore, I was not raised a Christian, I did not really know who God was until 4 years ago, so I have NOT been trained to see anything in the OT or the NT besides what is there in the text. I read as a sceptic, I learned as a sceptic, and I found the truth. You can to, or you could suppress the truth, like you are doing now.
You are choosing to distort the text, not me.
As the text says, the stone that the builders rejected, has become the cornerstone, and a rock of offense.
Psalm 22 is about Jesus, so is Psalm 119, Isaiah 53, and much of the OT.
Also, remember this, the first “Christians” were Jews, who say that Jesus had fulfilled the prophesies, so this new argument you are trying to present makes no sense. You should read some of the posts I have put up about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and maybe you will make a few connections about who Jesus is.
Either way, you are wrong, flat out.
These comments of yours do not even warrant a response, but I have learned I do not reply to win an argument, if you are hardened toward the Lord, that is your choice. I reply for the person who will read this and see the truth.
Further (I know its dangerous to post two comments because you will probably only read one; oh well) I have to say it is arrogant to condemn the people of the original religion when your religion was created on the basis of misinterpreting their books. It would be like if a new religion came along twisting the New Testament into being about their hero. Say, for example, someone wanted to make a religion based on Barak Obama. And they took passages from the New Testament, called them prophecies, and claiming that the New Testament prophesied of Obama as a savior who would save the world by destroying capitalism(?) — So, just like the Christian writers made Jeremiah 31’s Rachel weeping over her children not being in the land and God’s saying “Weep not for there is still hope they can return from the land of the enemy to their own border” into a so-called prophecy of Herod supposedly killing a town full of infants at the time of Jesus’ birth, in like manner when the New Testament has Jesus prophecy that “not one stone shall be left on another” (about the destruction of the temple [a prophecy probably written after the fact, the gospels being written post 70AD) some Obama worshiper were to take that phrase “not one stone shall be left on another” and make it mean that Obama will not leave one stone of the capitalist system standing — “SEE” they would say “Obama was prophecied of by the New Testament.” Such an interpretation is no more invalid than interpreting “Rachel weeping for her children are not” as being about a mythical slaughter of infants in Jesus’ day when contextually it was really about the Babylonian captivity.
But you would instantly decry the Obama worshipper as a false teacher for twisting the NT passage. But when your religion twist the OT passages, rather than humbly admitting it has done something wrong, you condemn the Jews for not accepting your strange misinterpretation, and say things to them like I pray you find the truth before it is to late for you my friend,” — What if the Obama worshipper who made “not one stone shall be left on another” a prophecy of Obama’s ‘salvation’ of the world were to say to you “You are condemned for not accepting the truth!” And you said, “But that’s a misinterpretation.” And the Obama worshipper said back to you: “You are choosing to believe something different, like many others, and clearly missing the obvious that has been presented. Your comments are also extremely uneducated. I pray you find the truth before it is to late for you my friend. Obama is clearly prophecied of as savior in the NT, and you will burn in hell unless you come to accept Obama as your personal savior before it is too late.”
It is wrong to gut someone’s religion, steal from it a bunch of books that you mangle and contort, and then tell them that unless they accept your insane mangling of their books they will burn in hell. It is wrong when Christians do this to Jews. It is wrong when any future religion does it to Christians (and they will). Actually, Islam ALREADY DOES, since they make the passage where Jesus speaks of the coming of “The Comforter” (interpreted as the Holy Spirit by Christians) out to be Mohammed! This kind of shinanigans is just plain wrong and immoral.
I have not condemned anyone, God Judges those outside the church (1 Cor 5)
People make religions twisting the NT all the time (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon’s Ext.)
The NT new convert were Jews who saw the fulfillment of the OT (as I already said) No one stole from anything, as I have already said. You should do some more research about the early church, they had zero Gentiles with them, they were Jew’s who saw the prophesies fulfilled.
Once again, no one stole from anything, if anything. Jew’s that are not Christians, misinterpreted the whole book.
Your logic is backwards, and twisted. and I read both of your posts, they are both flawed severely.
Ok well if you weren’t raised a Christian its understandable that you don’t see what I’m talking about. 4 years isn’t enough time to get a grasp on the OT. Its a really long book. You’ll spend about 30 years just focusing on the NT before you realize, “hey, maybe I should go read the so-called OT prophecies about Jesus IN CONTEXT.” That’s what I did.
it takes one second to receive the Holy Spirit, and without the Spirit, you cannot understand the book.
I am a theology major and have studied the OT, I do think I will be reading it my whole life, but that does not mean I do not have a general understanding of it. Once again, you are using flawed logic. We can understand something without a 100 year study of it.
I have read the prophesies of Jesus, and I believe them. Logic compels us to believe them, if we are seeking logic.
“The NT new convert were Jews who saw the fulfillment of the OT”
And those who created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. were Christians. That some Jews interpreted parts of the OT entirely wrong and made a new religion on it doesn’t prove it true. Some Christians misinterpret the NT and make new religions based on that!
Forget the platitudes and cliches. “Christianity was made by Jews.” So? “The apostles wouldn’t’ have died for a lie.” Muslims do all the time!
These cliches that Christian apologists use all the time mean nothing, other than that they can
t deal with the real issues.
Stick with Jeremiah 31, for example. Show me that it really is about Jesus. Show me that I’m wrong in saying its about the Babylonian captivity. Prove that Matthew is right in claiming its about Herod killing babies. You can’t, so you won’t. Instead you will go on condemning Jews to hell for properly understanding their book!
which, I would add, makes you more antisemitic than Marcion
Marcion wanted a Christianity that wasn’t based on Judaism. He didn’t like the idea of his religion being based on an earlier religion, which is kinda understandable. But he didn’t hate the Jews or condemn them. In fact, Tertullian says that not only did Marcion deny that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (which we would expect, since he didn’t accept the Old Testament as a basis for Christianity) but he ALSO believed the Jewish Messiah WOULD COME and save the Jews. In other words, Marcion saw the Old Testament as still valid for Jews and actually believed their Messiah would come and would be what they expected him to be. Compare that with the orthodox Christian view of damning all the Jews to hell, saying they’re a bunch of retards who can’t understand their own book and who completely misunderstand what the Messiah is supposed to be. Who is more antisemitic? You are find with Jews in history books and in the history of your religion, but by the dying and rising god they better stay in history books! You don’t want living breathing Jews around. Marcion was the opposite, strangely, and didn’t like Jews in history books but was OK with living Jews? Its odd. But it means you are way more antisemitic than Marcion.
Marcion could read Isaiah 7 with a Jew and say “You’re right — its about Hezekiah” (Tert says Marcion said so). But Tert, and you, and all modern Christians if you read Isaiah 7 with a Jew, say to him, “You moron this is about Jesus not Hezekiah!”
The Jew says “But the prophecy says that when the child is born that will be the sign of when the King of Assyria will come and kick the butts of the kings of Damascus and Samaria, who are named Pekkah and Remaliah.” You say so what! its about Jesus! The Jew says “How can it be about Jesus when those kings all died hundreds of years before his birth but Isaiah says the child will be born as a sign showing when those kings will be defeated?” And to that logical response, you retort, “Shut up you stupid Jew! Jesus is Lord and he will broil you in hell forever!” Up against you, Marcion actually looks Jewish.
Once again (for the third time) I do not judge those outside the Church, God does.
1 Cor 5 :12-13 For what [business] is it of mine to judge outsiders? Don’t you judge those who are inside? But God judges outsiders.
and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14-15 is about Jesus.
Immanuel= God with us… John 1
I never say any of the things your post says I say. You sound very ignorant.
God will judge you, not me. I wish hell on no one, nor do I condemn anyone.
Good night sir.
Sir, I cannot show you anything you will believe in the first place, there is no point waisting my time. You are hardened in your heart, so I could take you back in time and you still wouldn’t believe me.
And “SOME JEWS” did interpret it wrong, the ones who are not following Christ.
Once again, i condemn no one (1 Cor 5), clearly you are not reading what I post, so i am done reading what you post.
I cannot and will not waist my time with you.
you have a backwards view of Christ, because you do not have the Spirit. I will pray for you.
“Immanuel= God with us”
Or more naturally “God is with us.” It would be odd if we interpreted all theophoric names the way Christians insist on interpreting Immanuel. Many of them have an implied “is” in there. In Hebrew, like in other languages (Greek and Latin, for instance) the word “is” is not always written.
As to the claim that you judge nobody — God is not down here saying the Jews are going to hell. You are saying it in his name, so its all you honey.
You are a moron hunny.
Lets see. The context of the passage is clear that the birth of the child is a sign of when two named then living kings will be defeated by a third then living king. It says explicitly, (if you read past verse 14) that the kings will be defeated when the child comes to the age that he can discern the difference between good and evil.
Continuing into chapter 8 we find the birth of a child. Isaiah goes to the house of the prophetess where she miraculously conceives and bears in the same day. He takes with him a faithful scribe to record the birth. God tells him to name the child Mahershalalhashbaz “swift to the spoils” because this is the child that was promised, and his birth signals that the approach of the king of Assyria is near. The terms of the prophecy are repeated by God. This time he says before the child is able to speak, the king of Assyria will come and fulfill the prophecy.
With all of that context against you, you grasp at straws by mistranslating “Immanuel” as “God with us” rather than “God IS with us” and think that fixes the problem? And then you me a moron? I think the shoe is on the other foot as they say.
it just goes to show you can know a lot about a book, and not understand it. No context is against me.
Thanks for the heresy history lesson though, I appreciate it… hunny