Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Hi CG D, The problem is one in which the "word"/"almah" translation from Hebrew is insisted to mean only "young woman" when the context it is found in within other texts/scriptures carries the Virginity of the "young woman".
That fact is acknowledged by the most ardent of critics.

Can you name one scholar or critic, who is not a Christian?

The fact that the verse state that young woman WAS ALREADY PREGNANT, as Isaiah gave the sign to Ahaz, would immediately exclude Mary as being that woman:

Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

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.

"...is with a child..." mean that the woman was already pregnant, and she was present before Isaiah and Ahaz. They both knew who the woman was, and this can be seen Isaiah 8:3-4:

7:15-17 (which is the rest of the sign) and 8:4 (as well as 8:6-8) indicate that Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz are one and the same, because all these verses (7:14-17 and 8:3-8) linked the child Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz to the King of Assyria and to the TWO KINGS.

 

[sincerly]

Can you name one scholar or critic, who is not a Christian?

The fact that the verse state that young woman WAS ALREADY PREGNANT, as Isaiah gave the sign to Ahaz, would immediately exclude Mary as being that woman:




"...is with a child..." mean that the woman was already pregnant, and she was present before Isaiah and Ahaz. They both knew who the woman was, and this can be seen Isaiah 8:3-4:

7:15-17 (which is the rest of the sign) and 8:4 (as well as 8:6-8) indicate that Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz are one and the same, because all these verses (7:14-17 and 8:3-8) linked the child Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz to the King of Assyria and to the TWO KINGS.

You! And on this thread one sees others.

The fact that the verse state that young woman WAS ALREADY PREGNANT, as Isaiah gave the sign to Ahaz, would immediately exclude Mary as being that woman:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14, NJPS or JPS 1985
Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

"...is with a child..." mean that the woman was already pregnant, and she was present before Isaiah and Ahaz. They both knew who the woman was, and this can be seen Isaiah 8:3-4:

7:15-17 (which is the rest of the sign) and 8:4 (as well as 8:6-8) indicate that Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz are one and the same, because all these verses (7:14-17 and 8:3-8) linked the child Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz to the King of Assyria and to the TWO KINGS.

Hi Gnostic, the Hebrew word "almah" has nothing in its meaning to denote "Already pregnant". That was interpolated by those who redacted the " NJPS or JPS 1985 " version and added to Isaiah 7:14.
The Mesoretic text states,(Isa.7:14), "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The context in which "hareh" is found denotes the status of the "word".

Judges 13:3,7, "But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death." (Re: Samson)
The Fact was Manoah's wife became pregnant after several visits of the "angel of the Lord"?.

2Kings 8:12, "And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child. "

Those "women with child"(pregnant) were still in the future from Elisha's prophecy of the events that would take place.

The "Son" of Isa.7:14 is not the "son" of Isaiah's wife as seen in 8:1-3.(who would fulfill the sign given--8:18)
Their given names do not indicate a similiar message. Yes, Assyria was "speeding to the prey" and taking the "spoil/riches" to Assyria".
Yes, Isaiah was saying, "O Immanuel"(8:8) "God be with us' as these events come to pass. Isaiah had warned Ahaz of making a confederancy with Assyria rather than trusting in GOD for/as his GOD and deliverer.(7/7; 8:20)
Again, it is man's interpolation of these verses rather than the sure word of GOD that is seen in your answers.

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, the Hebrew word "almah" has nothing in its meaning to denote "Already pregnant".

I didn't say it was. almah doesn't mean "pregnant young woman" or "virgin young woman"; almah just mean young woman.

But the translation say "the young woman is with a child..." or "the almah is with a child..."

"...is with a child" does mean the woman is already pregnant.

That was interpolated by those who redacted the " NJPS or JPS 1985 " version and added to Isaiah 7:14.

That's incorrect.

The 1985 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) or New JPS (NJPS) is a completely new translation of the Masoretic Text (MT). It directly translated from the Hebrew source (MT), without the Greek Septuagint OT bible.

The problem with the King James Version is that it mixed Masoretic Text (MT) with the Greek Septuagint when translating. In KJV, when translating Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, the KJV used the Septuagint when them both, hence both of them used the word "virgin". The KJV didn't translate Isaiah 7:14 from the Hebrew MT.

Since NJPS don't have the New Testament, I will use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) to demonstrate the proper translation of both Isaiah and Matthew.

When NRSV was translating Matthew 1:23 from Greek (Septuagint) to English, it translated the Greek word parthenos into "virgin" in English, which is the right thing to do, since Matthew used the Greek Septuagint and the not the Hebrew counterpart. So we have this:

“Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

But in Isaiah 7:14, NRSV didn't used Greek source, but translated directly from Hebrew MT to English, so almah translated into English "young woman":

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

It is well known that when Matthew and other NT writers were quoting the OT, they often used the Greek sources, not Hebrew or even Aramaic sources. KJV did the right thing quoting Matthew's Greek source, but the wrong thing when translating Isaiah's Greek source and not the Hebrew source.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic, the Hebrew word "almah" has nothing in its meaning to denote "Already pregnant".

I didn't say it was. almah doesn't mean "pregnant young woman" or "virgin young woman"; almah just mean young woman.

But the translation say "the young woman is with a child..." or "the almah is with a child..."

"...is with a child" does mean the woman is already pregnant.

Hi Gnostic, Therefore, your "interpretation"/"translation" is an interpolalion which explains your fondness of "myths".

Originally Posted by sincerly
That was interpolated by those who redacted the " NJPS or JPS 1985 " version and added to Isaiah 7:14.

That's incorrect.

The 1985 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) or New JPS (NJPS) is a completely new translation of the Masoretic Text (MT). It directly translated from the Hebrew source (MT), without the Greek Septuagint OT bible.

The problem with the King James Version is that it mixed Masoretic Text (MT) with the Greek Septuagint when translating. In KJV, when translating Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, the KJV used the Septuagint when them both, hence both of them used the word "virgin". The KJV didn't translate Isaiah 7:14 from the Hebrew MT.

Since NJPS don't have the New Testament, I will use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) to demonstrate the proper translation of both Isaiah and Matthew.

When NRSV was translating Matthew 1:23 from Greek (Septuagint) to English, it translated the Greek word parthenos into "virgin" in English, which is the right thing to do, since Matthew used the Greek Septuagint and the not the Hebrew counterpart. So we have this:

But in Isaiah 7:14, NRSV didn't used Greek source, but translated directly from Hebrew MT to English, so almah translated into English "young woman":

It is well known that when Matthew and other NT writers were quoting the OT, they often used the Greek sources, not Hebrew or even Aramaic sources. KJV did the right thing quoting Matthew's Greek source, but the wrong thing when translating Isaiah's Greek source and not the Hebrew source.

Gnostic, What the "Jewish Publication Society" did in 1985 was interpolation. What the writers of the Gospels did was take those Scriptures which were checked and taught from for accruacy/Truth. The hearers took and verified those teachings against the messages given in those Scriptures.
The "almah" was, indeed, a "young woman" as seen in Isaiah 7:14. And the Context of the few times the word was used gave no indications of whether or not the "almah" was still prior to marriage or not. (Remember the penalty for sexual impurity in the "camp"/Jewish Faith), That in itself is support for the "virgin" discription of an "almah"along with the "almah" which was secured for Isaac. . However, the "herah" was still future---and not by Isaiah as his Child was not to be named "Immanuel". Isaiah continues to address this "Son" introduced here throughout the rest of his "book". (Written at that time).

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by sincerly What the "Jewish Publication Society" did in 1985 was interpolation. What the writers of the Gospels did was take those Scriptures which were checked and taught from for accruacy/Truth. The hearers took and verified those teachings against the messages given in those Scriptures.

Now what? The Masoretic text was changed? But then I heard the Septuagint was only the Torah. Some other people did the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Is that true? Is anything true? So what Hebrew text is reliable? What happened to God "preserved" his word? Each side says the other did the interpolation? Wow, things are getting interesting. I can't wait to hear what Gnostic has to say.

 

[CG Didymus]

I found this article on Isaiah 7:14 by Petros Koutoupis that has both the Masoretic and Dead Sea version and the KJV.

...from ...chapter 7 verse 14 (KJV):
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

...According to the Masoretic Text (hereafter, MT)
Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Look, a young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. And she/you will call his name Emanu-El
.
Here we have the exact same verse from the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) found at
Qumrân
Therefore, YHWH Himself will give you a sign. Look, a young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. And He will call his name Emanue

So the Dead Sea scroll has "is with child" Now what? Who interpolated what?

 

[John Martin]

Dear sir,
Scriptures have different levels of meanings and people understand the scriptures according to their level of growth and experience. Biblical scholars agree that the woman mentioned is Isaiah chapter 7 is a young woman not a virgin.
I want to explore the symbolism of a virgin and virgin birth and virgin motherhood. Why God needs a virgin? Virginity is not limited to physical level but also extends to spiritual level also.
Truth or God has two aspects:eternal and historical. when Moses asked God his name, first God said 'I am what I am'. But it was difficult for Moses to understand or relate.so God tells him' I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. Moses recognized God as the God of his ancestors. This is the God of history. The difficulty with the God of history is that he divides humanity. the God of Abraham divided humanity into Jews and non-Jews. Today we have the division of abrahamic religions and non abrahamic religions. If God wants to unite humanity God needs a spiritual virgin. A spiritual virgin is one who discontinues the God of history and gives birth to the God of eternity. This child will not named after the past but of eternity-the Son of God. This Son of God breaks down all the barriers and creates one God, one creation and one humanity.
A spiritual virgin is one who says my children are not my children but God's children,my actions are not my actions but God's actions and my life is not my life but God's life. She is a virgin mother. Every person is called to be a spiritual virgin.Physical virginity is only a symbol of spiritual virginity. Every person one day has to become a spiritual virgin and virgin mother of God. This is the universal call. It is not limited to one person Mary but it is meant to every one. Christmas is not happened in the past it has to happen each moment. If the physical parents kneel down at the birth of their child and say:this child is not our child but God child, then they become virgin parents, that birth becomes virgin birth, and that is celebration of Christmas. If a person says my actions are not my actions but God actions then that person becomes a virgin mother. Every action becomes Christmas and every moment becomes Christmas. So it is not physical virginity we need to believe but to become spiritual virgins, which is a necessary condition to move from the God of history to the God of eternity.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, What the "Jewish Publication Society" did in 1985 was interpolation. What the writers of the Gospels did was take those Scriptures which were checked and taught from for accruacy/Truth. The hearers took and verified those teachings against the messages given in those Scriptures.

:no: No, you are confusing the 1985 translation with the 1917 translation.

It was the JPS 1917 translation was the ORIGINAL JPS TRANSLATION. And it is this (1917) translation that was based largely on the KJV, so there were interpolation involved with 1917-JPS. It also relied on the 19th century Revised Version (RV), which is based a revised KJV, and on 1901 American Standard Version (ASV).

The biggest problem with the KJV is that it relied on both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint for translating the Old Testament, so instead of translating Hebrew texts, it will base it translation on Greek texts. The KJV translators/editors don't always use MT even though they had access to the Masoretic Text. And there lay the problem of using the Greek parthenos ("virgin", which in Hebrew is betulah) instead of almah ("young woman").

The JPS 1985 translation (NJPS) is a modern and completely new translation and using the Masoretic Text (MT), no longer relying on the KJV or other Christian bible translations. So there are no interpolation. It no longer relied on Christian context or interpretation, which found in KJV and other translations that include OT.

I have both JPS versions.

 

[CG Didymus]

...it is not physical virginity we need to believe but to become spiritual virgins, which is a necessary condition to move from the God of history to the God of eternity.

Tell me more about your thoughts on how to make that move. But to let you know my reason for asking the question about Matthew is because so many Christian Fundamentalists tell me they take the Bible literally. Yet, in this case they take only what they can use, one verse, and leave the rest of Isaiah chapter seven behind and immaterial.

 

[gnostic]

Scriptures have different levels of meanings and people understand the scriptures according to their level of growth and experience. Biblical scholars agree that the woman mentioned is Isaiah chapter 7 is a young woman not a virgin.

Exactly.

Matthew say parthenos, "virgin", because all know that this gospel was written in Greek and Matthew or whoever is the real author of this gospel relied on Greek sources for Isaiah 7, and the Book of Isaiah wasn't originally written in Greek.

There is a Hebrew word for "virgin" and that's betulah, not almah.

Like you said, John, Isaiah 7:14 say "young woman", it doesn't "virgin". While it is true that a young woman could be a virgin, but a young woman could also be a mother who is young, or she could be young and pregnant too.

In the context of Isaiah 7:14, it say young woman (almah) "is with a child", which mean she is already pregnant. And this make sense, since the child related to the event - a war between Judah and Israel-Aram alliance (Isaiah 7:1-8 & Isaiah 8:1-18; 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-10) and the sign given (Isaiah 7:14-17).

And clearly from reading verses 15, 16 & 17, the child is related to the two (enemy) kings and the king of Assyria. But most Christians overlook these connections in favor of the virgin birth.

And that's the thing, sincerly and a few other Christian members refused to read chapter 7 in entirety. And the sign should be read as a whole starting with verse 14 and ending with verse 17; it should not be read with only a single verse.

It would be like reading only one verse from one of Jesus' parables, while ignoring the rest of the verses of the entire parable. It won't make sense, and could be open to all sorts of interpretation and take Jesus' parable out of context.

I don't think they like it when Muslims treat the verses in their gospels in the manner.

I want to explore the symbolism of a virgin and virgin birth and virgin motherhood. Why God needs a virgin? Virginity is not limited to physical level but also extends to spiritual level also.

The virgin birth is exciting myth, but reading Isaiah's sign (7:14-17) and all related texts (in chapter 7 & 8 of Isaiah and in 2 King 15 & 16), I could definite say with confidence that virgin birth has nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14. In fact, Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with the messiah.

There is nothing that relate Jesus to the abandonment of the land of the two kings (Israel & Aram, Isaiah 7:15-16), nor Jesus to the king of Assyria (7:17).

If Immanuel means anything then Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3-4). Just as Immanuel is linked to event happening in Judah and other kingdoms, so do Maher-shalal-hash-baz with those 4 kingdoms. Immanuel is mentioned again but in Isaiah 8:6-8, and it say that Isaiah and his children were the sign.

If Jesus was indeed the sign then why hasn't Jesus fulfill the complete sign (7;14-17) instead of just the partial sign (7:14)?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly What the "Jewish Publication Society" did in 1985 was interpolation. What the writers of the Gospels did was take those Scriptures which were checked and taught from for accruacy/Truth. The hearers took and verified those teachings against the messages given in those Scriptures.

Now what? The Masoretic text was changed? But then I heard the Septuagint was only the Torah. Some other people did the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Is that true? Is anything true? So what Hebrew text is reliable? What happened to God "preserved" his word? Each side says the other did the interpolation? Wow, things are getting interesting. I can't wait to hear what Gnostic has to say.

Hi CG D,Well, by now you have read Gnostic's answer. Jesus had no doubts concerning the writings of Isaiah. HE quoted from them and declared that what HE was doing was in fulfillment of those OT writings.

Nothing happened to the HOly Spirit "Preserving" those Scriptures, but that doesn't prevent certain ones from claiming them to be invalid.(as this thread attests.)

What is interesting is the fact that "Almah"= "maid' in Pro.30:19; "damsels" in Ps.68:25 and "virgin" in the other four sites it is found in the KJV(and 13 others.).
While it is said to be= "young woman", there has been no Jewish site that defended the Jewish position of sexuality which forbids premarital sex as subject to stoning in the days of Isaiah or Jesus.(unless they married."to prevent folly is Israel")

I took the Hebrew word --- "Almah" and used a translation system to translate it into English. What I received was these three words---"maid', "damsel', and "lass".--- not even "girl" or "young woman".

The important factor was that none of the six times of its usage in the KJV(and others) was there any indication that Isa.7:14 was Pregnant---that sentence usage was "Shall be"===in the future. and Isaiah continued to speak of that (7:14) "Son" throughout the rest of his "book".

Also, as shown, Jesus acknowledged those dealings were "concerning me"--in the prophetic writings.

 

[gnostic]

Hi CG D,Well, by now you have read Gnostic's answer. Jesus had no doubts concerning the writings of Isaiah. HE quoted from them and declared that what HE was doing was in fulfillment of those OT writings.

Er...Jesus didn't quote Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew, or the person who wrote the gospel, had quoted Isaiah.

I took the Hebrew word --- "Almah" and used a translation system to translate it into English. What I received was these three words---"maid', "damsel', and "lass".--- not even "girl" or "young woman".

Blah!

None of it say "virgin", just a group of words that say female.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" or "virginity" is betulah? In almost every cases, where betulah is used, betulah means "virgin", not almah.

When are you going to get it through your th#@k head of yours the distinction between almah and betulah?

 

[CG Didymus]

Nothing happened to the HOly Spirit "Preserving" those Scriptures, but that doesn't prevent certain ones from claiming them to be invalid.(as this thread attests.)

What's this thing about frubals? We have a combined 60 and Gnostic has 3859716? But besides that, could you discuss more about the interpolation thing and the Masoretic text. I know a big thing for fundy/literalist Christians is that we must have an accurate version of the Bible. Which do you use and why?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi CG D,Well, by now you have read Gnostic's answer. Jesus had no doubts concerning the writings of Isaiah. HE quoted from them and declared that what HE was doing was in fulfillment of those OT writings.

Er...Jesus didn't quote Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew, or the person who wrote the gospel, had quoted Isaiah.

Hi Gnostic, when you express the assumption that my comments above was meant only for Isa.7:14---that was your "interpolation." Would you like to see those "fulfillments"??


Originally Posted by sincerly
I took the Hebrew word --- "Almah" and used a translation system to translate it into English. What I received was these three words---"maid', "damsel', and "lass".--- not even "girl" or "young woman".

Blah!

None of it say "virgin", just a group of words that say female.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" or "virginity" is betulah? In almost every cases, where betulah is used, betulah means "virgin", not almah.

When are you going to get it through your th#@k head of yours the distinction between almah and betulah?

And the reverse of that group of words is NONE of them express any of the "group" as already pregnant.
In the context of the Scriptures which are being discussed, sexual intercourse is NOT engaged in until after marriage. Therefore, the "damsel, maid, lass" would be a virgin until such a time of marriage.

Again, the JPS "interpolarted" that meaning----"already pregant"---for Isa.7:14 when it would not even fit for Isaiah's NOT yet having "gone unto the prophetess".(8:3)
Thank GOD for my th#@k head.
(Eph.4:14-15), "That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: "

Each and all are free to Believe whatever they choose.

 

[sincerly]

What's this thing about frubals? We have a combined 60 and Gnostic has 3859716? But besides that, could you discuss more about the interpolation thing and the Masoretic text. I know a big thing for fundy/literalist Christians is that we must have an accurate version of the Bible. Which do you use and why?

Hi CG D, I'm more for hearing the "Well Done" of the Father than a page full of "frubals". In the end, the praise of men is meaningless.

It has been my experience that the "Masoretic text" has rendered the "interpretation of the written Scriptures" more to the original meaning as expressed by the Prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I can get the same message from most of the "Versions", But prefer the KJV.
There is no problem with the Masoretic Text. The problem comes when men "interpolate"----insert into the scriptures false meanings for their purposes.

Therefore, as Jesus said/warned, (John5:39), "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. "
John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

CG D, think about it for just a minute---Shouldn't GOD'S WORDS be reliable? And remembering that Human beings do make mistakes? However, the "words" that made up the message wasn't sanctified. I see "scribal" errors, but no doctrinal/life-threating ones in the Scriptures. Those were made in the the "councils of men and by the "traditions of men"



The attitude of mankind as seen from Eve has been that GOD'S sayings can be improved upon by the cogitations of mankind or "others."---evidenced by the many "back-slidings".

 

[gnostic]

So almah can be a young woman, and not be married and pregnant?

Sorry, but that's a load of craps.

The young woman can indeed be single, but she could also be married and pregnant. Almah denotes the age of young woman, not that she is single or married, nor virgin or pregnant.

I didn't say that almah is "a women who is pregnant". The word almah ONLY MEANS "young woman" AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS WHAT IT SAY AFTER almah or young woman that we know she us pregnant!

We know that she is pregnant when the passage say she "is with a child". That's how we know that the young woman is pregnant.

"...is with a child" equals pregnant.

In the context of the Scriptures which are being discussed, sexual intercourse is NOT engaged in until after marriage. Therefore, the "damsel, maid, lass" would be a virgin until such a time of marriage.

Man! You cannot speak or write without hypocritical craps.

You speak of young woman cannot have sex before marriage and if that's really the case, then it is equally true that a woman should be pregnant.

Well guess, you du#b-*** hypocrite, you're forgetting that birth stories (Luke's & Matthew's) both say that Mary wasn't married when she found out she was "with a child". Joseph and Mary were only betrothed, not married, hence she was pregnant out of wedlock.

The "almah" was, indeed, a "young woman" as seen in Isaiah 7:14. And the Context of the few times the word was used gave no indications of whether or not the "almah" was still prior to marriage or not. (Remember the penalty for sexual impurity in the "camp"/Jewish Faith), That in itself is support for the "virgin" discription of an "almah"along with the "almah" which was secured for Isaac. . However, the "herah" was still future---and not by Isaiah as his Child was not to be named "Immanuel". Isaiah continues to address this "Son" introduced here throughout the rest of his "book". (Written at that time).

So don't give me this crap about premarital sex or pregnancy out of wedlock, when Mary herself was pregnant out of wedlock.

And beside, you are forgetting that it is possible for a man to sire a child without being married to a woman. In ancient Hebrew society, a man can have a child or children with a concubine. A concubine is not a wife but apparently quite legal for such a woman to have a child or children with a man who is not her husband.

Abraham and Jacob both had concubines (Hagar, and Zilpah & Bilhah) and had children with them. Abraham and Jacob weren't married to these women, so your faulty reasoning is really quite moot. Abraham and Jacob were both patriarchs and prophets, as Isaiah was a prophet, so Isaiah could have wives or concubines if he chose to.

And let's not forget Judah and Tamar. Tamar was Judah's daughter-in-law, 3 times, but it was Judah who got Tamar pregnant - out of wedlock to one another, and one of her sons (Perez) became the ancestor of David and supposedly that of Jesus. I don't know if Judah married Tamar or not, but it make your silly claims of premarital sex as "wrong" or "immoral" quite meaningless and moot.

"Sexual impurity", blah! You do realise that sexual impurity is frequent themes when a large number people in Genesis to Exodus were involved in incest . Even Moses' mother had married her own nephew.

Do you put blinkers before your eyes so that you ignore all the sexual impurities that goes on in the OT bible? Without these impurities most of Jesus' supposed ancestral lines would disappear!

That's not to say that Isaiah's prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 wasn't his wife. We actually don't know enough about Isaiah's private life to say the prophetess was a wife or concubine, but the former is probably true. And who's to say a prophet like Isaiah can't have more than one wife. It could be that the prophetess was a young woman when she married Isaiah.

So you had made a lot of presumptions and interpolations in assuming that a man can't have a child from a woman out of wedlock. And you had made presumption that the prophetess can't be "young".

Jesus, your ignorance and hypocrisy know no bounds. So forgive me if I don't give your moral outrage over premarital sex or premarital pregnancy argument (and "sexual impurity") much weight.

 

[John Martin]

I do feel that Isaiah 7.14 is nothing to do with the Messiah. But the author Mathew looking at the text from his own present understanding of divine plan. The author of the Mathew's gospel has in mind to present to the Jewish Christians that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT expectations and for that he is using and interpreting the texts that can be helpful to him. Sometimes prophets may say things which they themselves do not fully realize their implications. Only future may reveal it because God who is the director of the drama of this world and has entire script in his hands. Even though the prophet may not be speaking of Messiah at that time, he sees the divine plan for the evolution of human consciousness in which God dwells with in. It is the same with the prophesy of Jeremiah, 'Behold the days are coming, I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel-- I will write the Law in their hearts...(Jer.31.31-34) Was he speaking of the Messiah who would inaugurate this New Covenant? Jesus inaugurated this New Covenant at the moment of his baptism,where God does not give him commandments but revels who Jesus was, 'You are my beloved son'. this is writing the Law in the heart of Jesus. In the First Covenant God reveals what people should do and shouldn't. In the New Covenant God reveals who human beings are. This is also birth of Emanuel,the birth of God in the human consciousness. The heavens were opened and the spirit of God descends on Jesus. Later he was able to say, I am in the Father and the Father is in me'. To happen this birth of God in the soul, the soul has to become a virgin discontinuing the God of history,the God of the past. Hence the birth of God in the soul,the inauguration of the New Covenant are intimately connected. Only in the inauguration of the New Covenant that we can bring peace in the world.

 

[gnostic]

I do feel that Isaiah 7.14 is nothing to do with the Messiah. But the author Mathew looking at the text from his own present understanding of divine plan.

I do understand what you mean by Matthew presenting his own view to Isaiah's verse.

But this doesn't change the fact that Matthew (or whoever is the real author to this gospel), had changed the context of the verse.

He after all had an agenda, which was to promote the early Christianity and Jesus as their promised messiah.

The whole idea of child being born through virgin birth or that the child born from part mortal and part divine are a bit over the top (but only for Judaism), and would be considered by Judaism of that time, as well as before and after that period, as nothing more than blasphemy.

However, the concepts of virgin birth and divine-mortal duality are not really original idea, but these concepts were definitely foreign ones.

At the time of Jesus, and even before that, Judaea (or Israel-Judah) was a place that were conquered by several civilisations (Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian/Greek-Macedonian/Roman).

The translation of the Hebrew scriptures to Greek (hence, the Septuagint bible) occurred in Alexandria, Ptolemaic Egypt. The Jews living in Alexandria, as well as those living in Judaea, could speak, read and write Hebrew, Aramaic (as far back as the 7th century BCE) and Greek (Hellenistic period, from 3rd century BCE, onwards). Judaea was also along trade routes between east and west (Egypt). So it is understandable that some pre-Christian Jews had adopted or adapted foreign religious concepts.

You can speak of this whole Old Covenant and New Covenant, but the fact is, there was no Jewish concepts (prior to the Exile in the 6th century BCE) of hell, of devil and demons, of resurrection in heaven, of virgin birth, of a person being part god, part human. They were all foreign religious concepts, and these being implanted into Hellenistic Judaism of 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE, which later flowered in 1st and 2nd century early Christianity.

 

[sincerly]

So almah can be a young woman, and not be married and pregnant?

Sorry, but that's a load of craps.

The young woman can indeed be single, but she could also be married and pregnant. Almah denotes the age of young woman, not that she is single or married, nor virgin or pregnant.

I didn't say that almah is "a women who is pregnant". The word almah ONLY MEANS "young woman" AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS WHAT IT SAY AFTER almah or young woman that we know she us pregnant!

We know that she is pregnant when the passage say she "is with a child". That's how we know that the young woman is pregnant.

"...is with a child" equals pregnant.

Gnostic, How is it that my first sentence is "craps"--- when your acknowledgement is the same?
Again, that claim of "she--is with child"---is interpolated. The "hareh" is in the future tense.-----"imperfect"---to be completed.

The interpolations are coming from you.---which is the giving falsness to the Scriptures.
No, there is a difference between "having sex" and it being done in accordance to as GOD initially directed.---"A man and a woman"---"being one flesh".
Mary was informed and agreed to the implantation of the promised(from Eden) "Seed" by the Holy Spirit..
It was not by Joseph. and was NOT a forbidden act.----One might call it the first artificial insemination.
BTW, regardless of your assumptions, I am well aware of the sexuality of mankind and animals. (even that of plants).
I,also, know of the geneologies of the patriarchs----even with regards to their failings in complying to the laws of GOD.
Their "failings" do not "moot" and render GOD'S Laws "meaningless."
"Blah"---"Blah" all you choose, but it doesn't nullify one of GOD'S expectations for HIS CREATION(mankind) as seen in Scriptures.

The Scriptures have the weight---what you and I say will not change that fact.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, How is it that my first sentence is "craps"--- when your acknowledgement is the same?
Again, that claim of "she--is with child"---is interpolated.

So is "virgin birth", that's an interpolation.

And "virgin" instead of "young woman" is clearly a mistranslation if it isn't an interpolation.

When are you going to get it through your thick head that betulah means "virgin", not almah?

No, there is a difference between "having sex" and it being done in accordance to as GOD initially directed.---"A man and a woman"---"being one flesh".
Mary was informed and agreed to the implantation of the promised(from Eden) "Seed" by the Holy Spirit..
It was not by Joseph. and was NOT a forbidden act.----One might call it the first artificial insemination.

This thread is about Matthew 1 & 2, not Luke's gospel, and it is completely different stories. Adding Luke to Matthew's version only complicate the already badly written fiction.

And nothing in Matthew say that Mary had been informed her pregnancy beforehand.

So who's interpolating? You are, by mixing Matthew's version with Luke's.

And this whole you-woman, me-man, and "being one flesh" is nothing more than misdirecting the subject of what Isaiah was writing in his verse, and what Matthew had misused in his own passage, and the Mary-Jesus story.

You have done nothing to-date, except twist your own gospels, until it no longer is Matthew's story, nor Isaiah's.

Congratulations, sincerly. Your dishonesty and illogical reasoning have just dismantled gospel into nothing but incoherent sham.

I,also, know of the geneologies of the patriarchs----even with regards to their failings in complying to the laws of GOD.
Their "failings" do not "moot" and render GOD'S Laws "meaningless."

Again, double standard. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.

"Blah"---"Blah" all you choose, but it doesn't nullify one of GOD'S expectations for HIS CREATION(mankind) as seen in Scriptures.

And does God encourage you to lie for him about the scriptures? Does he encourage you to making things up in his name or in Jesus' name?