oneGOD, it's either we take your word that it is a mistake in Matthew, or we take the Bible's word (which is proven to be divine rather than human in origin) that the prophecy was on Christ. Like I said:
Non-Christians have no right to interpret the Bible. The things of God are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14>But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God said "cursed be the ground for your sake." Soon after that (before the flood) man was rebellious and God's saying was right. Now, the fact that God's prediction came true before the flood, does that mean His saying does not apply to human life after the flood to this generation? How then does the prophecy in Isaiah (if it refers to Ahaz) does not in its true fulfillment refer to Christ?
oneGOD wrote:You insist that A VIRGIN will conceive a son, if this is a dual prophecy then there existed another virgin before Mary and conveived a son.
See why your logic doesn't work here?
This is just proof that the prophecy in Isaiah does refer to Christ, because it says a "virgin" will conceive. You can interpret the word "virgin" however you want, but it can also mean what it means--and we already had this discussion:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 3415#13415