The problem with your explanation is that Isaiah 7 and 9 do not refer to G-d taking human form.
Isaiah 7, has already been fulfilled long ago and if you read ALL of Isaiah 7 and 8, in context, it becomes clear.
King Ahaz was looking for a sign. It was 732 BCE and he had been faced with two armies trying to destroy him. King Pekah and King Rezin. G-d tells Isaiah to go tell Ahaz to chill out, dont worry...why?
Isa 7:3. And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.
4. And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
So, G-d is saying I have it under control...those two Kings are not going to take Judah....So, what is the sign? A virgin birth? NO! Read it carefully...it is the AGE of the child that is the sign.
7 :15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.
16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
The child will eat cream and honey (times are good) and BEFORE the child reaches the age of accountability the two Kings will be killed.
Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated.
SO, clearly in context (and in Hebrew alma doesn mean virgin)...the prophecy is the age of the child. A virgin birth of a Jewish child 700+ years into the future is NO SIGN to King Ahaz in the year 732 BCE.
And the name Immanuel is NO DIFFERENT then many Jewish names that contain the name of G-d and some atrribute about G-d. Plus, it says the mother will name him Immanuel. Mary did not name him Immanuel and it is of no value to say "oh but he was god with us", first that is false, second he HAS to be named Immanuel. He wasnt. No matter how you slice it...it doesnt not in any way mean G-d is taking human form.
I don’t understand why anybody wants to judge God when He decides He became Incarnate by His Plan, but those who reject His Provision fail to abide in Him.
What is clear...”in context” is that the way modern translators have divided the sections with chapters and numbers don’t necessarily correspond with the verses and subject matter. Prophecies in Isaiah over lap each other and can’t always be said to be in context with one another as opposed to reading Genesis or Kings. The style is much like that of reading Proverbs or Ecclesiastes where proverbial admonitions don’t flow necessarily in context with one another.
The prophetic style in Isaiah often resembles a pattern where a present problem is being addressed, followed by a near term prophecy entertwined with a much longer term prophecy .
When I read Isaiah 9:6, it juts right out of the context, abruptly changes the subject of the chapter and declares that a son is given who is called “Wonderful, Counscellor, THE MIGHTY GOD....”(a heretical view according to you) Indeed 9:6 redirects the context of the chapter to the wonderful thing God is going to do, despite the evils that had befallen Israel in the present.
Isaiah 7:14 is another context “redirector”...”a virgin bearing a son” which is prophetic in the near term as well as for a more distant time. As for your contention that the Hebrew term alma doesn’t mean ‘virgin’ many scholars including Jewish scholars better than you and me most certainly state that the term “alma” means “young woman of virginal state”. Some state while alma can certainly mean just ‘young woman’ you would almost always understand that when that term was used, the girl in question was almost certainly a virgin, not having had sex with a man. I expected that you would bring the term alma “controversy” up because your whole point of view goes up in flames should alma be understood as a virgin.
To whom was the psalmist referring when he wrote “The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand” or when the Psalmist Quoting God as declaring”Thou art my beloved son, this day have I BEGOTTEN THEE!”?
You like to argue “context” but even the issues of context have their problems. You hold the view that God would never take on a form or be represented by one and yet we have the Ark of the Covenant in which the Shekina presence of God sat between the two Cherubim. This Ark was understood to represent the very presence of God among the people. Even barring that example, the notion of God remaining locked away and invisible except thru tablets of stone(that God forced Moses to rewrite by the way after Moses had broken the originals) could very well cause a person to view the OT with the closed contextuality that you view it. The temple veil to you will always close off the Holy of Holies from the common man and you would never dare enter it and your raison d’etre is defined by Mount Sinai’s gloom, smoke and flame.
The living Christ changes the way I see the contextuality of scriptures, admittedly coloring it just as your view of God colors your view of scripture. I view Christ and Holy Spirit and the Father as one God. The temple veil for me was ripped in twain when God in Flesh pour out his blood for me as a perfect Ram sacrifice for all sin for all men for all time. Having been cleansed by His blood I can now approach the Holy of Holies which now has been made approachable. Indeed God implores all men to do so...not to kill us but to give us life, a bit of that Shekinah glory that sat between the Cherubim on the Ark so that he might write his laws on our inward hearts; not merely on tablets of stone. God would make each of his children Living Arks who bear his name and his living presence.