Virgin birth

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2009,19:25)

Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 16 2009,19:22)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2009,18:08)

I'm curious about something, Adam…..

Have you been chating with Kevin much? Over on his site?

He also went along the same paths that you seem to be following. Starting out with a Christian base, and then leaning toward Jewish beliefs….then….onto other paths.

I don't know about Kevin Sis. But I am in touch with few Jews who are well versed in Hebrew scriptures. Christianity seems to me a departure from true religion of Jesus our Lord. We have to bridge the gap between Judaism and Christianity by moving closure to the primitive Christology of earliest Christian Jews. Hope God will direct us to the originality of Gospel.

Love and peace
Adam

Bro,

I don't think you can reconcile the two. It hasn't been done yet. You must cling to one and abandoned the other. If you find another way….be sure to let me know.

Love you,
Mandy

I know Sis it is too difficult to reconcile because both have gone apart so far. But one day Yahshua will bring them together that will be the climax of the true religion of the Bible. I am praying for that. In fact God has shown me that in dream some seven years ago. My quest for the Real Christ continues inspite of brother Nick and others cursing me. God knows my heart Sis, the way I long to know Him and His Christ in full.

Thanks for your peronal understanding of me
Adam

October 16, 2009 at 9:39 am#151965

Participant

THE HEBREW BEHIND THE GREEK… BEHIND THE ENGLISH… CORRECTS THE VIRGIN BIRTH DOCTRINE
Christians have always argued for Yeshua’s virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. This overlooks that if virgin born, Yeshua’s 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of this descent – Luke l:6, l:36). That means she was a Levite and not from Judah, thus being discredited from Davidic lineage and not capable of being a source to the Davidic throne. But Rome did not know that, and when they created the Infancy Narratives after 200 A.D. and added it to the existing documents which would later become the New Testament, the ground work was settled for saving their concepts of Gods cohabiting with women and having super-babies along with allowing for the Jeconiah’s curse and still maintain links to the Jewish David. Little did they know the Old Testament, for it they did, they would have known God relented from the Jeconiah’s curse because of his repentance in captivity, and no longer is Joseph prohibited from being Yeshua’s human father and maintaining the throne of David. But that is a story for another day. On with this article.

Answer for yourself: Do you see that if Yeshua did not come from Joseph and the Davidic line, then he is disqualified from being the Messiah as the Messiah was to come from Judah, the tribe of David and not Levi, the tribe of Aaron?

As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Yeshua, if virgin born, could not therefore be of Davidic descent and could not be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the N.T statements that Yeshua was a descendent of David – Matt 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark 10:47, Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5.

Yeshua didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom 1:3 makes it quite clear that Yeshua was of David's 'seed' (semen). So there is a problem!

Yeshua was either of David's line – but that means he wasn't virgin born (ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception),

Yeshua was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) – so he couldn't have been the Messiah/Christ as the N.T teaches.

The virgin-birth story is only found in 2 of the 27 N.T writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the infancy was written quite separately (added to the existing gospels around 200 A.D.), and added to the main story that begins in 3:1 (Note how 3:1 opens as a commencement here). Even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. Check it out for yourself.

In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, for example:

Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (2:2,3-7), whilst Matt has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. There is no substance in the argument that the Ramsay Inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir 'proves' he was governor in Herod's time. In fact Quirinius was governor in 9 A.D., yet we are to believe that Yeshua was a baby when the census was taken. Impossible! This is problematic in that Yeshua was born according to the Roman calendar at 4 B.C. making him 12-13 years old at the time of the census. Thus we have a historical inaccuracy recorded in the infancy narrative.
Matthew states that the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt (2:4-14) and stayed there; Luke has the family calmly going to Jerusalem in Judea after the birth and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39) and omits all references to a proposed Egyptian trip.
The only reason that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew seems to have the story is because he misunderstood Isa 7:14. He read it as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't).

Answer for yourself: Don't you find it rather amusing that God would choose one to write a book of scripture and in doing so chose one who would misinterpret his own Hebraic Old Testament passages which all other Jews understood quite well to mean entirely different that his interpretation? Answer this!

This is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over (7:14-17). There is nothing messianic about it at all. In this, the child was to be called Emmanuel meaning 'God with us', but the name 'Yeshua’s (in fact the Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', so Yeshua was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and therefore did not fulfill this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunderstood this and therefore couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he was not a Palestinian Jew (nor an eyewitness as he had to use Mark to write his Gospel).

Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went and then impregnated his wife and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria.

Therefore it appears Isa 7:14 relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations. In fact there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman would conceive. He does not say that a girl who would give birth would still be a virgin at/after the conception.

The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' – the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the 2nd century BCE for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. However, it is not a good translation in some parts, eg. in the case of Daniel, the Jews would not use it. They understood what we do not today. Namely, that the Jewish Scribes only translated the first 5 books of the LXX Septuagint and the non-Jews the rest. That means that the Greek translated Isaiah and the prophets and are responsible for the changing of the word “young woman” in the Hebrew to “virgin” in the Greek. This is a blatant mistranslation.

The Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 for the woman/'virgin' is “almah” and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but “denotes fullness or the like – fully developed”. The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state. As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Palestinian Jews (ie. the apostles) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors. The author of Matthew makes other errors, eg. in 27:9-10 he says he is quoting Jeremiah, but in fact he's quoting Zechariah 11:12-13.

Answer for yourself: Would the Holy Spirit make such a mistake if He was guiding the writing of such a document?

Answer for yourself: Would the Holy Spirit use such a man to write an “inspired” document who does not even know his own Bible…the Old Testament and the Prophets?

There are other examples of this throughout the New Testament to the discriminating reader who is well versed in the Bible, but a casual reader will overlook such discrepancies.

It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were not Palestinian Jews and in the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first century Palestine. But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd.

Yeshua was supposedly a true Jew – a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Son o
f David (Matt 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament, he quoted the GREEK LXX version!

Come on now! Listen to what you are saying, even more, listen to what you are supposed to believe. The only reason we believe such stuff is that we never knew the facts as I am unfolding them to you.
Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7:1-23 Yeshua does this, but although it seems the LXX would support the point Yeshua is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original would not.

So we are asked to believe that Yeshua – a true Hebrew Jew – chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was defective and the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but also, according to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this – a mistranslation of their own scriptures – and they didn't challenge this?
The fact is, therefore, Yeshua could not have spoken what the Gospels reports, and such sayings are put into his mouth by the Gospel writers who being ignorant of Hebrew made their handiwork obvious.

The same applies with James (supposedly Yeshua’s brother) in Acts 15 – he uses the LXX to support his argument, although again, the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn't comment on this!

Answer for yourself: So what are we to do when studying the English Bible?

WE MUST STUDY THE JEWISH ROOTS OF CHRISTIANITY
Answer for yourself: Can the teachings and nuances of first century Israel be fully understood from the perspective of twentieth century?

As far as settlement of peoples other than the American Indian, our nation is only about 220 years old. Our nation was established in 1776, a little over 200 years ago. The Americas were settled a little over 500 years ago. This gives us, at best, a historical perspective of five centuries. In the “New Testament:” we are looking at a culture half-way around the world some 2,000 years ago. This same culture started some 4,000 years before that. Continuous in the same place for about 6,000 years is a people from which our faith springs.

I will quote some statements that will clarify my position. I trust these will help you to understand why I have the interest that I have and spark some interest in you as well.

“The Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people…he has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him…the Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound, and splendor, then faded to dream- stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed and made a vast noise, and they're gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was…all things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”- by Mark Twain

“To explore and understand the Jewish roots of our faith is to expand and to enrich our Christian experience. This premise is at the heart of the educational endeavors of Bet Emet Ministries, and other Messianic Ministries like it, that are restoring to the Church an appreciation of its full Hebrew heritage.”
It is my hope to assist believers in developing a deeper, more intimate relationship with God through the study of Hebrew language and culture.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 42A) states that Jewish boys were taught Deuteronomy 6:4 (Shema) as soon as they could speak. The Talmud specifies that “The father must teach him.” Early sources suggest that this must have been the first portion from the Hebrew Bible that Yeshua committed to memory. We may assume that Joseph was responsible for fulfilling this task. This portion of scripture is known simply as “The Shema.” In HEBREW it is…”Shema Yisra'el Adoni Eloheynu Adoni Ehad”…ENGLISH…”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” The Shema was to be recited first thing in the morning and last thing at night. Countless martyrs through the ages have died with The Shema as the last utterance from their lips, leaving this world with the proclamation of God the last words spoken. This is an affirmation of monotheism in opposition to a polytheistic environment. The Hebrews were/are to know there is only one God, not many.

From the beginning there were only two classes of people; Jews and Gentiles, those who believed in the one true God and everyone else…who, then, are we? We believe in the one true God. This is a Hebrew concept. We are therefore no longer Gentiles, regardless of our ethnic or geographical background. We, in fact, are spiritually Jewish. We have not replaced the Jews as some would have us believe, the Jews have not passed away or become irrelevant with the advent of Yeshua. Judaism is just as valid today as it was 2,000 years ago. The vast majority of traditional or formal Jews simply do not accept Yeshua as Messiah, they are still looking for Messiah to come and establish an earthly kingdom. We are now grafted into the root of the Olive Tree, Israel, according to the eleventh chapter of Romans.

Paul teaches us that God did not reject His people, Romans 11:1-6. The elect obtained what Israel so earnestly sought, the rest rejected it, and because of this, salvation came to the Gentiles according to verses 7-12. Paul seeks to arouse the Jews to envy and save them. Verse 16 says that “If the root is holy, so are the branches.” Paul declares that the root is holy! Furthermore, he declares that the grafted in branches are holy! We are not to despise the Jews, we are to embrace them. They are our spiritual kinsmen and, as such, we have much to learn from them. We also have much to share, but it must be done in love and not from arrogance. We see that branches have been broken off and wild olive shoots are grafted in – we, Gentiles, have accepted God through the ministry of Yeshua and thereby are grafted into Judaism – we do not support the root but the root supports us! We are warned not to be arrogant for if the natural branches were not spared, neither will the grafted in branches be spared. We are part of the same tree by grace, God is also able to engraft the natural branches again if they believe (verses 17-24.) Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles have been saved (grafted in) and then all Israel will be saved. We are all candidates for mercy (verses 25-32.)

This is why I feel it is important to study our Jewish background. We are “grafted in Jews,” [we as Christians are Israel and not Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc.]. We need to know who we are, where we come from and how we are to relate to our roots. Without this understanding, we can hardly expect to grasp the depth of the scripture. I would like to quote David Bivin and Roy Blizzard from their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Yeshua. “The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew.”

Answer for yourself: If this is true, shouldn't we try to know just who the Hebrews were and are today?

Oh, by the way, is it not interesting that when Yeshua was asked the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-31, He answers by quoting The Shema? In other words, because God is One, then we are to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and t
hose created in His image. So, basically, monotheism is the basic teaching of the Greatest Commandment, and loving God and His creations are how we carry it out. Shalom.

Sorce: http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/hebrew_….gin.htm

October 16, 2009 at 10:01 am#151966

Participant

gollamudi'a source reads:

Quote

This overlooks that if virgin born, Yeshua’s 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of this descent – Luke l:6, l:36). That means she was a Levite and not from Judah, thus being discredited from Davidic lineage and not capable of being a source to the Davidic throne.

Mary and Elizabeth are relatives though Elizabeth is a descendant of Aaron and Mary is not. That would pretty much say the relationship is through a female family member, possibly an aunt, who married into the line of Aaron. That did not take me too long to figure out so your source seems a bit slow, or more likely just biased. In King James Version they are called cousins.

Your sources are of fairly poor quality as their logic is deeply flawed. You should really test them.

I did not read the rest of your source as I doubt that after such a poor start the author came out with a good well thought out argument. If you do find one then can you phrase it for yourself?

I am still waiting for you answers to previous questions I have asked.

October 16, 2009 at 6:14 pm#151967

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Kerwin………If Mary and Elizabeth are cousins, then they most likely were of the Levitus tribe. Because the Levites were prohibited from marring out side of there tribe, as i recall. Adam and you both are making some good posts. I agree with Adam on the Virgin quotation in Isiahi through, the word there is young woman not Virgin and it does seem to deal with the situation of the Jews at that time and not deal with a futures prophesy about the Messiah. Good points by both, IMO

peace and love to you both………………………….gene

October 16, 2009 at 9:57 pm#151968

Participant

Gene wrote:

Quote

Because the Levites were prohibited from marring out side of there tribe, as i recall.

I did a search in scripture and found no such prohibition. I even found where a daughter of Levi could marry outside the tribe. I suppose it depends on how this following instruction in interpreted.

Leviticus 21:14(KJV) reads:

Quote

A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Considering there would be no such thing as a harlot that a daughter of Levi to be married if the law were followed because she would have been executed, I am going to say “his own people” does not mean Levites.

Leviticus 21:9(KJV) reads:

Quote

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Verse 14 is also speaking of the High Priest. The following one applies to all priests.

Leviticus 21:7(KJV) reads:

Quote

They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

That is what I found in the books of Law. I did not look at the other books of the Old Testament

Gene wrote:

Quote

I agree with Adam on the Virgin quotation in Isiahi through, the word there is young woman not Virgin and it does seem to deal with the situation of the Jews at that time and not deal with a futures prophesy about the Messiah. Good points by both, IMO

I am not even sure that Matthew is saying Jesus fulfilled that scripture so much as he was saying the scripture was true of Jesus. But to point out the flaw in Adam's argument.

The problem is that Adam is going by the Masoretic text which is known to be written after the New Testament and also in a time that the so called Jews were looking to a solution to Christian evangelism poaching believers from their congregations. That sounds like quite the temptation they were faced not to choose words that would contradict the Christian message. Also consider that the some fragments found in the Dead Sea area are closer to the Septuagint than the Masoretic text.

From what I have heard there were many versions of Old Testament scripture at the time of Jesus as no standardization existed and each scribe seems to have taken his own liberties. Those who call themselves Jews claim that there was a Hebrew version in the Temple that was considered the primary source. This may be true but the Temple was destroyed about 80 years previous to when the Masoretic text is reputed to have come about. I also believe that the Masoretic text came about approximately a few decades after the Bar Kohba Revolt. That revolt is important to Judeo-Christian history.

October 17, 2009 at 2:03 am#151969

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Kerwin……I think the saying of HIs own People is where i got the Idea He meant from his own tribe. I could be wrong though. So I can not conclusively say Mary and Elisabeth were of Livital descents. Thanks Kerwin wasn't sure. Good discussion you and Adam are having through. Kerwin i still believe Adam has some strong point from a Jewish perspective. I wish we had some older texts to clarify this up, maybe GOD will Cause to be discovered some buried text that goes way back some day. Any way this is a interesting decisions going on here, between you and Adam.

peace and love……………………gene

October 17, 2009 at 5:06 am#151970

Participant

Quote (Gene @ Oct. 17 2009,09:03)

peace and love……………………gene

I agree that it would be nice to have some older texts since the oldest ones I know of are fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest whole texts seem to date from 2nd and 3rd Centuries. Still, God has a purpose in what information he chooses to give us.

October 17, 2009 at 5:12 am#151971

Participant

Hi brother Gene,
I thank you for your understanding on my posts. But I would like to disagree with brother Kerwin because he seems to be repelled by the material I bring out from Jewish sources. He need not do that I feel. He is not answering my questions fully because he is more biased by this so called virgin birth. I have noticed this from the beginning of this thread. You know so far I am also believer of virgin birth and other major Christian tenets. But now I am unlearning everything to see truth from otherside I mean from Jewish side. Brother Kerwin need not search for a realiable source for correct text of O.T. My simple reasoning would have answered him based on the query; who was the first virgin at the time of Isaiah if at all he prophesied for Ahaz. That's all it could have solved all his dilemma. But he is so much strong in his beliefs on virgin birth. If you want to be fundementalist you need not discuss all these issues here. But we should prove every thing according to God's word.

I hope we will find that truth soon.
Adam

October 17, 2009 at 6:14 am#151972

Participant

gollamudi wrote:

Quote

My simple reasoning would have answered him based on the query; who was the first virgin at the time of Isaiah if at all he prophesied for Ahaz.

I consider that question irrelevant to the virgin birth of Jesus since it has nothing to do with the way Matthew chose to use that scripture.

If you want to discuss what event the scripture in Isaiah was speaking of then all I can say is that there is no way to be certain because it is not addressed again in scripture that I know of. Some say the virgin was the prophetess that Isaiah begot his son with. That is plausible though I have trouble understanding how a woman conceiving a child after coupling with a man is very much of a sign. Since Isaiah is that man it was not much of a prophecy to say that I am going to have sex with this woman and she will conceive a child. I would thus say plausible but hardly as miraculous as he seemed to claim.

Of course Matthew may have been telling us the “hidden” meaning of that scripture as some Jews even today claim to do. There is evidence in Paul's writings that he believed in things “hidden” by God but there is also evidence that God condemned “Satan's so-called deep secrets”. I know that the book of Deuteronomy also mentions secret things of God.

Here is another scripture that appears to contain hidden knowledge.

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

Zechariah 11:12-13(NIV) reads:

Quote

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

It sounds familiar though I do not believe the context matches the later event. In fact I believe it was speaking of Zachariah's actions and not Judas' though after a fashion it applies to the latter's as well.

October 17, 2009 at 8:01 am#151973

Catholic Apologist

Participant

The Scripture says, Is 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Before Christian theologians who came centuries later translated alma as virgin, the Septuagint, the rabbis’ own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, two centuries before Jesus’ arrival on earth, translated Is 7:14 alma into Greek as parthenos, virgin. Why would the rabbis have done that?

The Hebrew word alma, from the root alm, does indeed mean a young woman. During the Old Testament days it meant a very young woman, often too young to bear children. An alma would not likely have been of sexual interest to an elem, a boy at that age, and so was always regarded as a virgin. The same root alm also gives us the Hebrew word alum, hidden, secret, unknown. Moreover, the Torah required that a young woman of marriageable age be a virgin. Deut 22:20 “But if … the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then … the men of her city shall stone her to death.” An alma was apt to be a virgin at the time of her marriage!

Today in Israel moral standards have changed dramatically. In modern Hebrew, an alma means simply a young woman. But we are discussing Isaiah, who wrote during Biblical Hebrew’s “golden age,” 1200 BC to 500 BC, and so we must take the meaning that a word had then.

Moreover, Hebrew is a concise language in which much is taken from context. Since any young woman could conceive a child in the usual way and name him Immanuel, that would not be a sign from God. However, a virgin birth would be a supernatural event.

Isaiah could have written that a betula would conceive and bear a son. The Hebrew word betula definitely means a virgin. But a betula is a virgin of any age. Up to that time, the sign of a miraculous conception had been an old woman bearing a child. In the Old Testament we find, Gen 17:15 “And God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” And in the New Testament, Lk 1:7 “But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years … But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John … And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.’” But, God in His mighty providence willed that the mother of His Son fulfill His warning to Satan after the original sin, Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” To visibly work at His side, to be associated with Him for all the generations to come, His blessed mother would have to be a very young woman, an alma. And so God, speaking through Isaiah, used the word alma to rule out a miraculous birth to an old woman and point instead to a miraculous birth by a young woman.

October 17, 2009 at 8:38 am#151974

Participant

Catholic Apologist quoting unnamed source writes:

Quote

Out of curiosity 'how do you know the original Hebrew word was “alma”' since the version of Hebrew scripture we have today came about in the second century. The Greek version is actually older.

The more modern rabbi's who came up with the Hebrew test could have just as easily replaced a word meaning virgin with one meaning maiden, i.e. “alma.

October 18, 2009 at 5:01 am#151975

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 17 2009,18:14)

So Matthew used Isa 7:14 not for Virgin birth?

You always quote that if no virgin birth no miraculous sign. In one of the posts it is told that conception and giving birth to a child itself is God's miracle. Do you think one giving birth to a child is no miracle? Here God is not givng the sign of any virgin birth but giving the sign of young woman who is already pregnant and will give birth to a son who will be the sign for Ahaz and Israel not the woman or virgin as you always seems to quote.

October 18, 2009 at 5:15 am#151976

Participant

Hi GM,
Scripture is truth whether it quotes other verses exactly or adds more detail.
When did you lose faith?

October 18, 2009 at 5:22 am#151977

Participant

Hi GM,
So Matthew and Luke are liars but you are an oracle of truth?

October 18, 2009 at 8:11 am#151978

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 18 2009,12:01)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 17 2009,18:14)

So Matthew used Isa 7:14 not for Virgin birth?

I believe Matthew used Isaiah because it was true of Jesus even if the scripture was not specifically speaking of Jesus. He may well have considered that the “hidden” meaning of the scripture was speaking of Jesus' birth. He probably perceived the virgin birth as a sign, being a Jew. Luke did not seem to share his ideas on the subject but then Luke is a Gentile who searches for wisdom and not signs.

What women? Isaiah was mighty vague and there were most likely many young women in his time. I am also sure quite a few of them gave birth to a child that fits the prophecy in question if you choose to make it so generic. That sounds like a trick like some modern so called astrologers use in the newspaper. Do you now believe that Isaiah was a trickster and not a prophet of God?

At best Isaiah should have stated I am going to lay with this virgin and she will bear a child etc. That would have been more of a sign than what you propose since there is always the possibility she may not conceive a child.

Maybe we are missing some of the context of the verse which would remove some of its vagueness and make your case stronger.

October 18, 2009 at 8:57 am#151979

Participant

Hi K,
Do we know what Jesus said to the disciples about his place in scripture en route to Emmaeus?
If we were with him would we believe him?

October 18, 2009 at 9:37 am#151980

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 18 2009,15:57)

Hi K,
Do we know what Jesus said to the disciples about his place in scripture en route to Emmaeus?
If we were with him would we believe him?

From what I have heard “if we believe him now we would believe him then and if we believed him then we would believe him now”.

I believe Father Abraham said something like that to the Rich man in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.

Thank you for directing me to Luke because it states.

Luke 24:26-27(NIV) reads:

Quote

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

I wonder if those individuals understand Jesus was expounding a Jewish belief based on hidden knowledge since the books of Mosses do not directly speak of the Anointed One.

October 18, 2009 at 11:23 am#151981

Participant

Hi brother Kerwin,
You are right in saying that what Luke quoted in his last chapter(24) again proves that the Gospel writers wanted prove Jesus as Jewish Messiah by quoting Jewish scriptures irrespective of their context. Luke avoided quoting Isa 7:14 because he knows that it was disproved by Jews of his time. But he quoted scriptures for Jesus' public ministry. Your way of depending Luke was not honest as I see from your post above as if gentiles didn't need scriptures. But Luke wanted prove Jesus as Jewish Messiah for both Jews and gentiles if you notice correctly. I recommend you to read few books if you like;
1. The Birth of Messiah by Fr Raymond E. Brown
2. Born Divine: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God by Robert J Miller
3. Born of woman by John Shelby Spong

October 18, 2009 at 6:12 pm#151982

Participant

Hi GM,
You are not wiser than the Spirit.
The Spirit of God wrote the books through men and your mind need expanding to accept it .

October 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm#151983