Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

Since opponent has forfeited, I will simply recap the previous points made. I began this debate by showing that while Isaiah prophecied the virgin birth of "God with us" centuries in advance, we have a much later document in Matthew where it is recorded as fulfilled, and the even is independantly corobborated by Luke. Con argued that "virgin" was a mistranslation of "almah," and I refuted this by showing the Septuagint uses the Greek word for version in a much older document than the Mesoretic text, as well as give examples from the Hebrew Bible showing that "almah" can and does at times mean "virgin," hence, Matthew was correct in so translating it. He never responded to that latter point so it still stands unimpeached in this debate; but he attacked the Septuagint rendering of the prophets, which I think was well defended when comparing it other manuscripts in agreement with it, as well and New Testament quotation, against the conflict existing among Hebrew scrolls edited by Jews who were trying to escape the clear import of Isaiah 7:14 to the Messiah's birth. So I think this still stands on firm ground in this debate that Isaiah prophecied a virgin birth. Con argued that parthenos doesn't always mean virgin, but I showed that even though that's true, you can't rationally argue that because it doesn't "always" mean virgin, that it "never" does! Con argued in round 2 that God getting Mary pregnant would constitute adultery, which I demonstrated as false by comparing this situation with the Biblical definition of adultery. No sex or opposite sex was invovled, hence no adultlery. Con dropped this argument in round 3, never returning to it, so I guess either he ran out of space, or I had clearly refuted that point. He went on to claim that the sign was given to Ahaz and thus must be fulfilled in his day, but I demonstrated that not only did Ahaz reject the sign, but God turned from him and gave it to the house of David which would still be around when Jesus was born to be there for the sign. I also showed by means of the Assyrian invasion promised by God that God with not claiming to be "with" Ahaz and his Jewish contemporaries, and thus, the Immanuel (God with us) sign was clearly not meant for their day. Isaiah could not have been saying God was with them but at the same time bringing destruction on them by Assyrian hands. Con claimed Mahershalahashbaz fulfilled the sign, but I've shown he was not "God with us," for nobody in the Bible considered him to be God, nor said he was born of a virgin, nor was his birth accompanied by God's protection, but rater, an Assyrian invasion. On the other hand Jesus came at a relatively peaceful time, and was God according the Bible, and is recognized as Immanuel today by his followers. Such was not the case for Mahershalahashbaz. I have shown the agreement in Greek texts, plus Matthew's closeness to the anceint manuscripts available to thim in the first century CE, agree that "they" would call him Immacuel as oposed to the contradictory Hebrew manuscripts on this verse. In response to the objection that Jesus was never called by the name Immanuel in the Bible, I have shown that neither was Mahershalahashbaz, for the Immanuel in Isaiah 8 is not the baby, but Isaiah himself. So to use this argument against Jesus fulfilling the rophecy would also prove Mahershalahashbaz didn't fulfill it in contradiction of Con's previous point. I also demonstrated that the Jews believed Isaiah 9:6 was fulfilled in Hezekiah even though he is never called Eternal Father, Mighty God, etc, in the Bible. So even if Jesus isn't called Immanuel this would not prevent a Jew from viewing the prophecy as appliying to him, so he can't deny Isaiah intended the prophecy in this way on such grounds. FInally, I have argued that similarity between two situations doesn't make them the same. So while the portions about what will happen to the two kings before the boy knows how to reject good from bad sounds much the two kings defeat before Mahershalahashbaz can call out mother and father, this in itself doesn't prove the two are synonymous. Therefore, I believe I have indeed refuted all of my opponents objections, and hence, we have a genuinen Messianic prophecy on our hands. If Con wants to make a final rebuttal to my previous round that would be fine seeing as he is supposed to get the last word anyway. I hope he takes this opportuity because he only has one more round left. Too bad I won't get to respond to this final rebuttal if he posts it. I thank Con nfor an interesting and thoughtful debate.