The pastor at my mother's church made the absurd claim that there were "777" prophesies in the "Old Testament" regarding the birth and life of Jesus. Jews, whose literary works were culturally appropriated by early Greek-speaking Christians, maintain that there are no such prophecies. Let's begin with the most impactful assertion in Christianity: the claim that Jesus was conceived while his mother, Mary, was still a virgin and that this was prophesized in the Tanakh. We will proceed as follows. We will:

Review which authors of New Testament scriptures seem to have been aware of Jesus's virginal conception.
Look at what is the alleged prediction, and see what it says in Hebrew and in the Greek translation, the Septuagint.
Go through all of Isaiah 7 and the first half of Isaiah 8 to step through all the prophecies listed there, and we will give the historical context of the events that are being described.
Ask if Jesus even comes close to satisfying not just Isaiah 7:14, but also the other relevant prophecies.
Briefly describe the state of apologetics on this question.

Thus, we begin by asking how many authors were even aware that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus's conception.

Which Christian authors “knew” Mary was a virgin?

First, the earliest Christian author, Paul, makes no mention of a virginal conception. Instead, the only reference to Jesus's birth is in Galatians 4:4-5, which says:

But when the fullness of time had come,

God sent his Son,

born of a woman,

born under the law,

in order to redeem those who were under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as children.

Paul had apparently spoken to James, the brother of Jesus, and likely was aware of Mary and perhaps Joseph, but nowhere does Paul ever even mention these two, let alone the virginal conception, nor his birth in Bethlehem. This would have been an ideal place for Paul to say

But when the fullness of time had come,

God sent his Son,

born of a virgin,

born in the city of David,

born under the law,

in order to redeem those who were under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as children.

But did not, likely because he was not aware of these claims about Jesus.

The earliest and last gospels, now known as Mark and John, respectively, neither mention the virginal conception of Jesus nor his birth in Bethlehem. Mark does, however, contain a narrative that suggests Mary was completely unaware of Jesus's special status, for in Mark 3:13-21, we find the narrative:

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him.

And he appointed twelve to be with him and to be sent out to preach and to have authority to cast out demons.

So he appointed the twelve: ... .

Then he went home, and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.

When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

Later, his family arrives (to restrain him), and Jesus ignores them, as is told in Mark 3:31-35:

Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

A crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him,

“Your mother and your brothers [and sisters] are outside asking for you.”

And he replied,

“Who are my mother and my brothers?”

And looking at those who sat around him, he said,

“Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

This is not the reaction one would anticipate to a child's popularity, especially knowing that your son underwent a virginal conception following a conversation with the angel Gabriel. Subsequently, strangers from the East presented gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh after his birth. Additionally, envisioning Jesus as a pre-adolescent engaging in scripture discussions at the Temple would not align with typical expectations. This reaction also doesn't align with the scenario where your son, remarkably, never once sinned in twenty-five years. However, it is a perfectly reasonable response if your son, like any other from Nazareth, was purely human.

The authors of Matthew and Luke do mention Jesus's virginal conception. Most interestingly, while they plagiarized entire sections of Mark---keeping the same order of pericopes and often the same words---when it came to the inclusion of the above narratives, the authors of both Matthew and Luke discard the first while retaining the second. In Matthew 12:45-50, it says:

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him.

Someone told him,

“Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied,

“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

And pointing to his disciples, he said,

“Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

In Luke 8:19-21, it says:

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.

And he was told,

“Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

But he said to them,

“My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Neither mentions the reason the author of Mark gave for Mary and her sons being there: that they were there to “restrain” Jesus. Thus, the authors of Matthew and Luke seem hesitant to portray Mary in a negative light: If she was the crucible of a virginal conception, then why would she be going with her sons to “restrain” Jesus?

Interestingly, the author of Mark says nothing of Jesus pre-existing his life on Earth, nor does he say anything about the virginal birth. The authors of Matthew and Luke make no mention of Jesus pre-existing his conception: if you were to read Matthew or Luke on its own, it would seem as if Jesus came into existence at his conception, with no mention of Jesus being a spiritual being that pre-existed his birth. Instead, as with Greek mythologies, the children of the gods are exactly that: children that come into existence as a result of a god impregnating a human woman. The author of John refers to Jesus as the Word of Yahweh, just like there are Sons of Yahweh, the Wisdom of Yahweh, the Spirit of Yahweh, all names given to divine creations that mediate on behalf of their creator, but does not refer to Jesus as Yahweh. Finally, Paul also seems to think that Jesus is some form of angel or other divine being, for in Philippians 2:6 it says “though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped” and in Philippians 2:8-9 it says “being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Therefore God exalted him even more highly...” If Jesus was Yahweh, he would be equal to god, and why would god have to exalt himself even more highly just because he was found in appearance as a human and suffered pain for perhaps six hours?

Neither Paul, the author of Mark, nor the author of John seems to be aware of Jesus being conceived while Mary was a virgin or that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. Additionally, the author of Mark portrays Mary as not understanding that there is something significant about Jesus. The author of Matthew, however, does provide and explanation for why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. In Matthew 1:22-23, it states:

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

“Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

which means, “God is with us.”

This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14 where that prophet says:

“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.”

The first is a translation from Koine Greek into English, and the second is a translation from Hebrew. The very first point we note is that the author of Matthew reads the prophecy as “...the virgin shall become pregnant...” using the future tense: an event that is to occur at some point in the future; however, the statement in Isaiah actually says “...the young woman is with child...” and in Hebrew, this uses the perfect tense: an event that has already occurred at the time of the statement being made. While this difference may be more subtle, the more obvious difference is the use of the word young woman and virgin. All translations of Matthew use the word “virgin” because that is generally what the corresponding Koine Greek word means, but what is the word used in Isaiah to identify this individual?

The virgin shall become pregnant...

The Septuagint served as a translation of the Tanakh into Koine Greek, with the Torah translated in the 3rd century BCE and the remaining books by the end the 2nd century BCE. It became the authoritative translation for Greek-speaking Jews. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is the word עַלְמָה‎ ('almāh), signifying a “young woman of childbearing age,” akin to the word עֶלֶם (elem) for a “young man.” The plural עֲלוּמִים (elumēm) denotes youth, with no inherent reference to sexual activity. While this word is used throughout the Tanakh, sometimes referring to a young virgin, it doesn't exclusively carry that meaning.

Most translations of 'almāh in the Septuagint use the Greek word νεᾶνις (neanis), meaning young woman. However, in Isaiah 7:14 and one other location, it is translated as παρθένος (parthenos), usually meaning “virgin.” It is worth noting that the Greek word parthenos is not as as restrictive as the English word “virgin”; occasionally, it refers to a young married woman. Another word in the Tanakh, ‏בְּתוּלָה (betulah), specifically refers to a virgin, but it is not used in Isaiah 7:14.

Now, there is no precedence in the Tanakh of Yahweh ever having intercourse with any female human. However, significant examples in Greek mythology showcase gods having offspring with humans. For instance:

Zeus impregnated Europa, the daughter of Agenor, the king of Phoenicia.
Zeus impregnated Callisto, the daughter of Lycaon, the king of Arcadia.
Zeus impregnated Antiope, the daughter of Asopus, the king of Boeotia.Alcmene was the wife of the king of Tiryns, Amphitryonz
Zeus impregnated Alcmene, the wife of Amphitryon, the king of Tiryns.
Zeus impregnated Danae, the daughter of Acrisius, the king of Argos.
Poseidon impregnated Iphimedeia, a princess of Thessalian.

The only mention of spiritual beings impregnating women in the Tanakh is in Genesis 6:1-4:

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,

the sons of God saw that they were fair,

and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.

Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.”

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans,

who bore children to them.

These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

Yahweh himself, however, is never told of having impregnated anyone. Jews expected a human who was anointed by Yahweh (a messiah) to deliver them from their oppressors, but a Greek follower of Jesus would not be averse to an alternative idea that this Jesus was born a son of Yahweh: If Zeus could have children, so could Yahweh.

When Jesus was executed for sedition---he had had himself anointed and, thereby, declared himself as a leader if not king of the Jews that placed himself in opposition to the ruling Roman authorities---his followers scattered and began grappling with how this could happen.

The earliest claim, seemingly narrated by Mary Magdalene or Peter, suggested that Jesus had been resurrected, signifying that his death marked the beginning of the end: the time when the Kingdom of Yahweh would come to Earth, with Jesus as the first of the righteous to be resurrected.
A subsequent assertion was that Jesus's execution served as a sacrifice, but this perspective was not universally embraced among early followers. While Paul mentions this, the author of Luke does not.

To elucidate Jesus's unique status, it appears that initially, followers believed that Jesus had been adopted the as the “Son of Yahweh”, either at his baptism or resurrection. According to these narratives, Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph. Centuries after his execution, certain followers, including the Ebionites, various branches of Gnostic Christianity, and even present-day Jehovah's Witnesses, persisted in believing that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph. As stories of Jesus's status spread among the Greek communities that adopted Christianity, someone somewhere seems to have been aware of the Koine Greek translation of Isaiah 7. This led to the claim that Jesus was the figure described in Isaiah 7:14, asserting that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus's conception. For a Greek audience, the notion of Yahweh impregnating a woman might have seemed analogous to the numerous myths about gods like Zeus impregnating human women. Paul, well-versed in the Tanakh and trained as a Pharisee, never once repeated this myth about Jesus and appears to have been unaware of the introduction of this Greek cliché to describe Jesus's ancestry. Additionally, there was no need for Mary to be a virgin at the time of Jesus's conception. As described earlier, Isaiah 7:14 only refers to a young woman of childbearing age, not a virgin. This underscores that this narrative was later introduced by Greek-speaking followers of Jesus and holds no basis in reality.

However, the most crucial question is whether Isaiah 7:14 is indeed a prediction of an event centuries into the future, one that Jesus could fulfill. To delve into this, let's examine the entirety of Isaiah 7 as well as the first half of Isaiah 8. However, we must also first examine the historical context of the events that occurred during the life of Isaiah and the years close to the end of the eighth century before the common era.

What was the prophecy in Isaiah?

Starting with the historical background, the twelfth century BCE witnessed the decline and marginalization of major kingdoms and empires, including the Egyptians, Hittites, Mitanni, and Babylonians, during the Bronze Age collapse. In the ensuing power vacuum, various small independent states emerged, such as the Phoenicians, Judahites, Israelites, Aramean kingdoms like Damascus and Hamath, Greek colonialists in Philistine, as well as the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. As the Iron Age unfolded and powers in Egypt and Mesopotamia reestablished themselves, these empires sought to re-exert their influence. The neo-Assyrian empire, under the leadership of Tukultī-apil-Ešarra III (transliterated as Tiglath-Pileser III in English translations from a Hebrew transliteration of the name), emerged. Tiglath-Pileser III played a pivotal role in transforming the Assyrian kingdom into the neo-Assyrian empire (using “neo” to distinguish it from the Bronze Age Assyrian empire).

As Tiglath-Pileser III directed his focus in the direction of Egypt, the kings of the independent kingdoms of Israel and Aram Damascus aimed to forge an alliance against Assyrian incursions. However, Ahaz, the king of Israel, refused to join, opting instead to pay homage to Tiglath-Pileser. Faced with this, the kings of Israel and Aram Damascus were resolute in their determination to depose Ahaz and replace him with a king who would unite with them in an alliance against the imperial aggressions of the Assyrians. It seems that the kings of Israel and Aram Damascus even sent support to the Hittite kingdom of Hama in Syria, a kingdom slightly more than 100 miles north of Damascus, and thus one of the earlier objectives of nascent neo-Assyrian expansion.

All of this is described in Isaiah 7 and 8. We start with the backdrop in Isaiah 7:1-2:

In the days of Ahaz..., king of Judah,

King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah...of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem but could not conquer it.

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.

Ahaz, also known as Jehoahaz II, reigned as king of Judah from 732 to 716 BCE. Aram denotes a Semitic Aramean kingdom centered around Damascus, east of Galilea and Phoenicia, occupying what is now southwestern Syria to the east of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Pekah, the son of Remaliah, served as king of Israel, colloquially named Ephraim, primarily encompassing the Samarian highlands, the Jezreel valley, and Galilee.

Pekah and Rezin have formed an alliance to depose Ahaz. Pekah is continually referred to in Isaiah as the “son of Remaliah” to emphasize that he was not seen by the author as the legitimate king, as Pekah deposed the previous king of Israel, Pekahiah. By specifying the father's name, it is made clear that the father was not a king of Israel. For clarity, any references to “the son of Remaliah” are replaced with his name, “Pekah,” and any references to “Ephraim” are replaced with “Israel”.

Yahweh speaks to Isaiah and issues directions in Isaiah 7:3-6:

Then the Lord said to Isaiah,

“Go out to meet Ahaz...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 [Pekah].

Because Aram—with [Israel] and [Pekah]—has plotted evil against you, saying,

‘Let us go up against Judah and terrify it and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it.’”

Here is an intriguing discussion on the identity of Tabeel. Next in this narrative, Yahweh summarizes the situation and then proceeds to instruct Isaiah on what to convey in his name:

“Therefore thus says the Lord God:

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

The head of [Israel] is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is [Pekah].
If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all.”

Essentially, this is a warning that if Ahaz does not remain steadfast in his devotion to Yahweh and Yahweh alone, he will fall.

Interesting, there is a second prediction, for it says

Within sixty-five years [Israel] will be shattered, no longer a people.

This is likely an example of retroactive writing or vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy from the event), where the subsequent conquest of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians is written as if it were a prediction by Yahweh. Notably, Israel fell much sooner than sixty-five years, but that is not the primary focus of this discussion.

Now, presumably through Isaiah, Yahweh makes an offer to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:10-12:

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying,

“Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”

But Ahaz said,

“I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.”

While this is written as if it were a snub against Yahweh, it more likely was a snub against Isaiah; that is, if the event happened at all. After all, if a "prophet" appeared at your local city council meeting and offered the mayor to ask Xenu to show the city a sign, the mayor would dismiss such a character as a crackpot. Despite Ahaz refusing to ask for a sign, Isaiah offers him one in Isaiah 7:13-14:

Then Isaiah said,

“Hear then, O house of David!

Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign...”

This is Isaiah saying: if you will not ask for one, I'll give you one. Here is the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17:

“Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.

He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

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.

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 [Israel] departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The point at which a boy knows how to refuse evil and chose good is in the early teens, with the celebration called bar mitzvah. This celebration, translated into English, means “son of the commandment” and is generally celebrated when a boy becomes thirteen and coincides with the age that most boys enter puberty, although it is not directly linked to this stage of life.

Ahaz is currently under threat of an attack by two kingdoms to his north, both of which have significantly more resources than Judah. The prophecy is with respect to these current events, and does not promise something over seven centuries into the future: an event that would be of no benefit to Ahaz. In the introduction of the sign, Isaiah addresses the house of David. The phrase בֵּית דָּוִד‎ (bēt Dāvīḏ or house of David) refers to the lineage of David, and is not a reference to all of Judah, so Isaiah is addressing Ahaz directly the sign is for Ahaz. In this passage, three key predictions emerge:

Firstly, there is currently a young woman who, in the present tense, is pregnant, indicating that the child will be born within the next nine months. The is all said in the perfect tense, meaning that this young woman is pregnant.
Secondly, before that child “knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good,” the lands of Israel and Aram Damascus will be deserted.
Finally, Yahweh will unleash the forces of the neo-Assyrian empire upon Judah.

None of these predictions pertains to a future messianic figure; rather, the child being referred to is alive at the time of the southwest expansion of the neo-Assyrian empire.

What actually transpired is as follows: Ahaz rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Pekah and Rezin, instead seeking assistance from Tiglath-Pileser III, who willingly provided support and subsequently conquered both Aram Damascus and Israel.

In approximately 734 BCE, Aram Damascus fell.
Two years later, around 732 BCE, Tiglath-Pileser III conquered the northern and eastern borderlands of Israel, including Galilee. While leaving a reduced kingdom of Israel intact, he exacted tribute from Pekah.
Upon the ascension of King Shalmaneser V to the Assyrian throne, the expansionist policies continued. Political strife in Israel and the failure to send requisite tributes prompted the Assyrians to target the strategically valuable Samarian highlands:
- It yielded valuable resources such as wine, olives, and livestock.
- It provided full control of trade routes between the neo-Assyrian empire and the eastern Mediterranean.
- It allowed for the administrative control of surrounding regions through the use of Israeli infrastructure, potentially serving as a base for Assyrian forces against opposition to Assyrian suzerainty.
However, the actual conquest of Israel, marked by the fall of the capital Samaria, did not occur until King Sargon II assumed rule over the neo-Assyrian empire in 722-721 BCE.

It's worth noting that approximately thirteen years elapsed between the initiation of hostilities with the neo-Assyrian empire and the ultimate conquest of Samaria. One of the policies of the neo-Assyrian empire involved displacing a portion of the population to other regions within the empire and replacing them with Assyrian settlers from elsewhere. Another consequence of seeking Assyrian aid was that Judah became a vassal kingdom of the neo-Assyrian empire. There was no imperative to conquer Judah as it lacked significant resources, and the region, known as the Judean mountains and the Judean desert, did not offer substantial benefits to the Assyrians. Instead, the tribute willingly paid by Ahaz and his successors proved more advantageous.

Given the range of dates from 734 to 721 BCE, a plausible candidate for the aforementioned child is Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who was born in 739 BCE. By the time of his bar mitzvah, around 726 BCE, this would align closely with the beginning of the reign of Shalmaneser V of Assyria. Although not a perfect match, it is possible that this text was authored and subsequently redacted years, if not decades, later, causing the exact alignment of Hezekiah's birth and youth with the destruction of Samaria to be obscured over time. Similarly, Caesar Augustus's imperial censuses in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE did not overlap with any plausible date for the birth of Jesus. However, the author of Luke chose one of these censuses as the impetus for Mary and Joseph's journey from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem.

A narrative of Ahaz's appeal to Assyria is recorded in 2 Kings 16:7-9:

Ahaz sent messengers to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, saying,

“I am your servant and your son.

Come up and rescue me

from the hand of the king of Aram and

from the hand of the king of Israel,

who are attacking me.”

Ahaz also took the silver and gold found

in the house of the Lord and

in the treasures of the king’s house

and sent a present to the king of Assyria.

The king of Assyria listened to him;

the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus and took it,

carrying its people captive to Kir;

then he killed Rezin.

This parallels the descriptions told in Isaiah and those by archeology.

The next chapter of Isaiah continues this prophecy, for in Isaiah 8:1-4, it says:

Then the Lord said to me,

“Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters,

‘Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,’

and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah.”

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.

Then the Lord said to me,

“Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz,

for before the child knows how to call ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’

the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.”

While the child Immanuel was already in his mother's womb at the time of the first prophecy, here now we have Isaiah being told to impregnate a prophetess (his wife), and the name of this son is to be מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז or "Hurry to the spoils!" Once again, the context of this prophecy is at the time it was purported to occur: during the time of the Assyrian invasion of Aram Damascus and Israel. A child learns to speak within the first year, so perhaps this, too, refers to the initial invasion of Assyria of Aram Damascus and the northern regions of Israel, attacks that took place over two years.

The contrasting names of these two children give us additional insights:

The name of the son of Isaiah, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, symbolizes the imminent plundering and destruction of the kingdoms of Syria and Israel by the Assyrian empire. The name reflects a message of impending judgment and conquest. This name emphasizes the swift and inevitable defeat and plundering of Judah’s enemies (Syria and Samaria), reflecting God's judgment and the immediate consequences of their actions, and represents the rapid approach of doom and destruction upon the enemies of Judah, underscoring the certainty of their downfall and symbolizing the imminent destruction of Judah's enemies.
This is contrasted with the name Emmanuel, signifying God's presence and protection for the House of David amidst the political turmoil. The name represents reassurance and divine support for Judah. This name emphasizes the presence of God with Judah, offering reassurance and a promise of divine protection despite the external threats and represents the comforting and stabilizing presence of God within Judah, ensuring the survival and security of the Davidic line and the people of Judah, signifies God's protective presence and assurance of deliverance for Judah.

These names together highlight the dual themes of judgment against adversaries and divine support for God's people. Perhaps Hezekiah, being born of the line of David, is this manifestation of Yahweh securing Judah's future.

As an aside, it is interesting that Christians use the birth of the first child as a prophecy for Jesus, as the parents are unnamed, but do not include in their prophecies the second son that is explicitly the child of Isaiah and the “prophetess”.

The prophecies continue, and on the same topic, in Isaiah 8:5-8:

The Lord spoke to me again:

“Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah

that flow gently and melt in fear before Rezin and [Pekah],

therefore the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River,

the king of Assyria and all his glory;

it will rise above all its channels and

overflow all its banks;

it will sweep on into Judah as a flood and,

pouring over, will reach up to the neck, and

its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land,

O Immanuel.

The waters of Shiloah refer to a series of pools outside Jerusalem that are fed by waters from the Gihon Spring that are directed there by the Siloam Tunnel, so this refers to a rejection of Yahweh by these two kings. The "River" likely refers to the Euphrates and symbolizes the conquering armies of the neo-Assyrian empire. This ends with a cry that El is with us, perhaps echoing the name of the aforementioned child.

The prophecy continues in Isaiah 8:9-10:

Take notice, you peoples,

and be dismayed;

listen, all you far countries;

gird yourselves and be dismayed!

Take counsel together,

but it shall be brought to naught;

speak a word,

but it will not stand,

for God is with us.”

This delivers a warning, meant more to placate the Judahite people than actually threaten any foreign armies, to all that would conspire or unite against Judah would be defeated, once again echoing the cry that El is with us. This may be a foreshadowing of a subsequent invasion of Judah by the Assyrian armies two decades later.

This cycle of signs and prophecies ends with Isaiah 8:11-15:

The Lord spoke thus to me while his hand was strong upon me and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying:

“Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and

do not fear what it fears or be in dread.

But the Lord of hosts,

him you shall regard as holy;

let him be your fear, and

let him be your dread.

He will become a sanctuary,

a stone one strikes against;

for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over,

a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And many among them shall stumble;

they shall fall and be broken;

they shall be snared and taken.”

This admonishes both the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to not act out of their fears, but rather to fear Yahweh and put their trust in him. It emphasizes that Yahweh can either protect his people or cause his people to suffer:

Judah and Israel will stumble over Yahweh and they shall fall and be broken.
Jerusalem will be taken and its people will be captured and taken.

While the kingdom of Israel did fall soon after the time of these prophecies were allegedly made, Judah and Jerusalem did not fall, but rather they successfully repulsed an Assyrian attack twenty years later; perhaps the author is attributing this defeat of the Assyrian armies on the trust, fear and worship of the Judahite people in Yahweh.

Hence, the text in Isaiah 7 and 8 indeed appears to be a prophecy, but not about a messianic figure born centuries later. Instead, it seems to be a prophecy regarding the unrequested support that Yahweh provided to Judah when its king faced a threat, even if that assistance was unasked for. Most of the Tanakh was written to illustrate to the Judahite people that placing faith in Yahweh and trusting the priests and kings (who descended from Zadok, Aaron, and David) led to victory, whereas turning away from Yahweh and his earthly representatives resulted in death and destruction. This prophecy was likely composed after the events occurred to showcase Yahweh's power but also to cast Ahaz, one who did not follow Yahweh, in a negative light. It was considered his fault that Judah became a vassal of Assyria, and this outcome was entirely avoidable.

As an aside: how does Isaiah have such a prophecy that so closely parallels reality? One might claim that this is an actual recording of an actual prophecy, but more realistic, the book was written after the event in an attempt to show how Yahweh helped the people of Judah if they worshiped and served him, or more correctly, if they gave their offerings and followed the instructions of the priestly and aristocratic classes in Jerusalem. That the prophecy does indeed match reality as closely as it does, predicting known historical events occurring over a period of more than a decade starting with the Assyrian conquest of Aram Damascus up to the conquest of the entire kingdom of Israel, this suggests that the book could not have been authored to long after the events (that is, not centuries later), and the statement that in sixty-five years, Israel will be “shattered” and “no longer a people” may hint that the book was authored: around 667 BCE, so that those who read the book would realize the fulfillment of that prophecy.

To what extent does Jesus fulfill the prophecy?

Suppose, however, that this single line in a prophecy indeed referred to an individual conceived while his mother was still a virgin. Making such a claim is straightforward enough: Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, just as Abiah was a virgin when Benjamin Franklin was conceived. It is easy enough to make such a claim. But does Jesus fulfill any of the other aspects of this prophecy? In none of the Christian scriptures does Jesus undertake any significant actions before reaching the age of thirteen. It's only in his late twenties or early thirties that he embarks on his mission. The sole narrative about Jesus's early life involves a trip to Jerusalem, during which he stayed behind to engage in conversation at the Temple.

Interestingly (as an aside), while the author of Luke adeptly recorded apparently verbatim various interactions, such as those between Gabriel and Zechariah, Gabriel and Mary, and Mary and Elizabeth (including Mary's song of praise), as well as the words of Zechariah during John's birth (including Zechariah's prophecy) and the words of Simeon at the Temple, the same author failed to document a single question posed to Jesus or any answer given by Jesus as a young boy that left those around him “amazed at his understanding and his answers.”

Moreover, prophecy asserts that “they shall name him Emmanuel,” yet this name is conspicuously absent from all Christian writings. Even Matthew, the sole author to cite this prophecy, does not bestow the name Emmanuel upon Jesus. Jesus's actual name was Yeshua, an Aramaic variation of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, synonymous with the individual known as Joshua. The name signifies the “salvation of Yahweh,” whereas Immanuel means “El is with us.” If one believes that Jesus is Yahweh (or at least, a third of god), one could claim that this name refers to Jesus being that god that is with us, but Isaiah is speaking about Yahweh being with the Judahite people at the time of crisis that Ahaz is dealing with. There is nothing to suggest that Isaiah meant for the name to be taken literally. One need only look through the names in the Tanakh, remembering that 'y' is often translated to 'j' in English:

Many names are suffixed with El: Gabriel means man of god, Samuel means god has placed, Mahalalel means the shining one of god, Mehujael means that god boosts or enlivens, and Ezekiel means god is strong.
Many names are prefixed with Jo or Jeho (referring to Yahweh): Joseph means Yahweh will add, Jehoshaphat means Yahweh has judged, Josiah means Yahweh supports and heals, and Joshua means Yahweh is my salvation.
Some names are suffixed with Yahweh: Ahijah says that Yahweh is my brother.
Some names are prefixed with El: Elisha is the same as Yeshua (or Joshua) but it says that god is my salvation and Eldad says that god is my father's brother.
The name Elijah contains both a reference to El and to Yahweh, meaning Yahweh is my god.

Clearly, Ahijah is not Yahweh's brother, and Eldad's father is not the brother of Yahweh. In the same way that Immanuel is not Yahweh in person among us. Isaiah was saying that Yahweh was there with Ahaz and with Judah in the current situation. As an aside: Rachel, unfortunately, has no reference to El: the name refers to a female sheep.

Finally, none of the other associated prophecies align clearly and unambiguously with the era of Jesus. Aram Damascus had already fallen under Roman rule, and the initial Jewish–Roman War didn't commence until three decades after Jesus's death. While one might argue that Samaria, Judea, and Galilee experienced depopulation due to this conflict, the most extensive devastation was concentrated in the Judean Mountains, resulting in the complete destruction of Jerusalem. One might suggest that the admonition in Isaiah 8 specifically refers to this event, but given the numerous events described and their occurrences, one can always selectively pick an alleged prophecy here or there and claim a relationship between this event or that event. The consequences described, “they shall fall and be broken, ... snared and taken,” hardly begin to describe the deaths of 90% of the population of Jerusalem and the laying to waste of the entire city, including the Temple, replaced with a temple to Jupiter. While Roman emperors did die and were deposed over these years, there was no significant change to the Roman apparatus. None of these outcomes were predicted in Isaiah 7 and 8.

Apologetics

Many apologetic websites exclusively focus on translating the word עַלְמָה‎ ('almāh) to a Greek term often associated with virginity. However, most of these sites delve into the chronological sequence of events related to the gradual conquest of Aram Damascus and Israel under various Assyrian kings. These conquests, meticulously recorded in history, spanned slightly over a decade, the period covered by the prediction. It was meant to be a prophecy that would reassure Ahaz, and not some statement about salvation over seven centuries into the future. Some apologies suggest that Isaiah 7:14 was meant as a dual prophecy, but I will allow Rabbi Tovia Singer address this issue at his website. One sad apology claims that the prophecy was in fact not satisfied in the life of Ahaz, but rather only refers to Jesus, but it makes no attempt to explain how Jesus actually satisfied the other prophecies, as Samaria and Damascus were not depopulated. Here is another excellent response by Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Having found no enticing apologetic websites, I will instead relate the apology by one older parishioner from my previous church. When I highlighted the actual context of Isaiah 7, his immediate reaction was to suggest that Jews altered their texts to conceal the truth about Jesus being the predicted Messiah. Such anti-Semitic rhetoric is both reprehensible and a refuge for the desperate.

It should be self-evident, but perhaps it needs emphasis: the Jewish community has, throughout the years, trained proficient copyists and developed techniques ensuring almost error-free copies of the Tanakh. The effectiveness of these techniques and the skill of the copyists are evident in the minimal discrepancies between, for instance, the current Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these scrolls predate Jesus's birth, including the entire book of Isaiah, dated at least a century before his birth. This commitment to precision and meticulous copying of the Tanakh stands in stark contrast to the numerous errors and intentional variations found in the oldest copies of Christian scriptures. As has been demonstrated, the variations among the oldest manuscripts outnumber the words in the scriptures.

If there were allegations that Jews intentionally introduced errors into their scriptures to obscure the truth about Jesus, it is noteworthy that this supposed manipulation allegedly occurred even before his birth, for the text of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls does not reveal a different message. The extent to which Christians might deliberately create fanciful stories out of whole cloth and manipulate history without evidence, and to do this without any rational thought or reasoning is mind-boggling. Yet, this compulsion to bolster their own beliefs has led to millennia of oppressing, sidelining, and even murder and near-genocide of the Jews. While this parishioner may not intend to cause harm, such views inadvertently support those who seek to harm or eliminate the Jewish people: this parishioner claims to know the truth, while others take more drastic actions in the name of Jesus.

Summary

These signs and prophecies recounted by Isaiah perfectly aligns with the events that unfolded between Judah, Israel, Aram Damascus and the neo-Assyrian empire. However, a mistranslation from the Hebrew word denoting a young woman of childbearing age to a Greek word that usually refers to a virgin allowed earlier followers of Jesus, specifically those who were Greek-speaking and unfamiliar with the historical context of Isaiah 7, to introduce a prophesy of a virgin birth where Yahweh himself was the father. Such an impregnation by Yahweh finds no precedence in the Tanakh but echoes numerous parallel stories in Greek mythologies. This narrative, appealing to a Greek audience, transforms Jesus from simply the son of Mary and Joseph to the son of Yahweh. The claim, serving as “proof” that Yahweh was the father, asserts that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus's conception. By relying on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, one could one could argue that this verse predicted Jesus's virginal conception. Unfortunately, Paul and the authors of Mark and John seem to be unaware of this most miraculous event, never mentioning it once, and the author of Mark has Mary entirely unaware of Jesus's significance; something which she would have had to have been aware of if the birth narratives told in either Matthew or Luke actually occurred.

However, contemporary Jewish perspectives reject the notion that Isaiah 7:14 predicts the birth of Jesus. Examining the verse's surrounding context and historical backdrop makes it evident that this sign pertained to events within the next twelve years. Instead of specifying this decade-long timeframe, the passage employed a parallel narrative: an infant born within the next nine months would not even reach the age of bar mitzvah before the kings of Israel and Aram Damascus were deposed.

It's commonly asserted: Isaiah 7:14, declaring, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel,” predicts the birth of Jesus, aligning with the narrative of Mary's virgin conception. However, unraveling the fundamental flaws in this interpretation proves to be a more intricate task. Christians consistently stress the importance of reading everything in context, yet there appears to be a reluctance in applying this principle to Isaiah 7 and 8 within its historical context.

A more in-depth examination of Isaiah 7 and 8 implies that there was no necessity for Jesus to have a virginal conception, indicating that at least this aspect of Jesus's birth was also fabricated. The Qur'an, likewise, echoes the narrative of Jesus being born of a virgin, suggesting that the source of this story in the Qur'an is the Koine Greek Christian gospels, the same ones that introduced the notion that Jesus was the actual son of Yahweh.