-
Articles_of_he_Bishop_of_Uramiah, page : 186
be as such. But the text expressly says that it was Ahaz
(who seems to have known the maiden with child), that
would give the boy that name. Ahaz was in danger, his
enemies were pressing hard against Jerusalem, and this pro-
mise was made to him by showing him a sign, namely, a
pregnant maiden, and not a Virgin Mary, that would come
into the world more than seven hundred years later! This
simple prediction of a child that would be born during the
reign of Ahaz was equally misunderstood by the writer of the
Gospel of Matthew (Matt. i. 23). The name "Jesus" was
given by the Angel Gabriel (Matt. i. 21), and he was never
called "Emmanuel." Is it not scandalous to take this name
as an argument and proof of the Christian doctrine of the
"Incarnation"?
The other strange interpretation of a prophetic predic-
(who seems to have known the maiden with child), that
would give the boy that name. Ahaz was in danger, his
enemies were pressing hard against Jerusalem, and this pro-
mise was made to him by showing him a sign, namely, a
pregnant maiden, and not a Virgin Mary, that would come
into the world more than seven hundred years later! This
simple prediction of a child that would be born during the
reign of Ahaz was equally misunderstood by the writer of the
Gospel of Matthew (Matt. i. 23). The name "Jesus" was
given by the Angel Gabriel (Matt. i. 21), and he was never
called "Emmanuel." Is it not scandalous to take this name
as an argument and proof of the Christian doctrine of the
"Incarnation"?
The other strange interpretation of a prophetic predic-