Re: Distinguishing 'Hate': JESUS' Hate Compared To Satan's Hate.

weed4cash

Active Member
As touching the question about whether or not Jesus was a man. What do the scriptures tell us? The old testament prophesied of a coming savior before Jesus was even born. This man would do many miracles to prove he was the son of God. He would be born of a virgin and would speak in parables things pertaining to the kingdom of God kept secret from the foundation of the world. He would speak with authority and not as a man speaks but with the authority of God. But before he would come a prophet would prepare the way for every one to prepare to meet him.

This was old testament scripture. It was written before Jesus was even born and is a testimony of not only the divinity of Jesus but also a testimony that we would know he was not just a man but the son of God.

Which is easier? To say Jesus was the son of God or to say to a man who was blind from birth, open your eyes and see!?

When some of John the Baptist disciples asked Jesus if he was the Christ or if they should wait for another, Jesus told them "go and tell John what you have seen and heard, the blind can see, the lame can walk. Happy are those who have no doubts about me."
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Ignoring for a moment the fallacy of using the bible to provide evidence that the bible is true. You are wrong on the accounts of the Hebrew Bible. There is never any claim that miracles will provide the evidence that the messiah is the son of God. The Moshiach (Hebrew) or Messiah (Greek) merely means anointed and is the way a person was initiated into God's work, by being anointed in special oil (which happens to include cannabis oil). All kings and high priests were anointed and therefore a Messiah. This is what they did for new kings. The Jewish people never thought a coming messiah would be anything but a man. God also warned of false prophets using miracles as evidence of claims, "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." Deut 13:1-3

There was no mention of a virgin birth in the Hebrew Bible. That was added to the Greek translation called the Septuagint. Here, in Isaiah 7:14 the translators took the Hebrew word 'alamah' which generally refers to a young woman, similar to the English 'maiden' and translated it to the Greek 'parthenos' which is definitely virgin. This is the translation that Matthew had available to him when he wrote his Gospel, also in Greek. The thing is if the writer of Isaiah wanted to convey the woman in that story was a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew 'bethulah.' This in addition to the fact that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 has to do with King Ahaz and was not a foretelling of a future king. This is clearly not a messianic prophecy to begin with.
 

H2grOw

Active Member
^^Well said^^ You do realize, though, that using logic and reason is only gonna make him use twice the number of verses in his next post. You can point out untruths in the bible all day to a fanatic, and they will choose to ignore them, while still insisting that every word in the bible is true.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
Ignoring for a moment the fallacy of using the bible to provide evidence that the bible is true. You are wrong on the accounts of the Hebrew Bible. There is never any claim that miracles will provide the evidence that the messiah is the son of God. The Moshiach (Hebrew) or Messiah (Greek) merely means anointed and is the way a person was initiated into God's work, by being anointed in special oil (which happens to include cannabis oil). All kings and high priests were anointed and therefore a Messiah. This is what they did for new kings. The Jewish people never thought a coming messiah would be anything but a man. God also warned of false prophets using miracles as evidence of claims, "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." Deut 13:1-3

There was no mention of a virgin birth in the Hebrew Bible. That was added to the Greek translation called the Septuagint. Here, in Isaiah 7:14 the translators took the Hebrew word 'alamah' which generally refers to a young woman, similar to the English 'maiden' and translated it to the Greek 'parthenos' which is definitely virgin. This is the translation that Matthew had available to him when he wrote his Gospel, also in Greek. The thing is if the writer of Isaiah wanted to convey the woman in that story was a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew 'bethulah.' This in addition to the fact that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 has to do with King Ahaz and was not a foretelling of a future king. This is clearly not a messianic prophecy to begin with.

No, sorry but what you have stated is full of half truths. If you go back to verse 10 than you will see how this dialog is going. ISAIAH 7:10 "More over the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11: Ask again a sign for yourself from the LORD your God;" This is God telling Ahaz to ask for a sign. Then in verse 12: "But Ahaz said, Hear I will not ask, nor will I tempt the LORD". So at this point Ahaz is like no way man I'm not going to test God. Verse 13 is Ahaz restating why he won't test God. So then God is forced to make a sign for him. In verse 14: "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign. Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. In order to properly translate the Hebrew word used for virgin you have to look at the context in which it was used. When you compare how that word is used in Gen.24:23 , Prov.30:19, song. 1:3; 6:8 you will see that it is appropriate to translate it this way.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
No, sorry but what you have stated is full of half truths. If you go back to verse 10 than you will see how this dialog is going. ISAIAH 7:10 "More over the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11: Ask again a sign for yourself from the LORD your God;" This is God telling Ahaz to ask for a sign. Then in verse 12: "But Ahaz said, Hear I will not ask, nor will I tempt the LORD". So at this point Ahaz is like no way man I'm not going to test God. Verse 13 is Ahaz restating why he won't test God. So then God is forced to make a sign for him. In verse 14: "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign. Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. In order to properly translate the Hebrew word used for virgin you have to look at the context in which it was used. When you compare how that word is used in Gen.24:23 , Prov.30:19, song. 1:3; 6:8 you will see that it is appropriate to translate it this way.
The text does not say 'virgin' it says almah, which should not be translated as virgin.

Okay, let's look at the other passages and see which Hebrew word is used in the Hebrew bible:
Song of Songs 1:3
3
Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens love thee. (almah again)
לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים, שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ; עַל-כֵּן, עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ.
Here I underlined 'alamot' the plural of almah.


Proverbs 19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; {N}
the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman. (almah again)
דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר;
דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.
Here I underlined the word b'almah


Genesis 24:16
16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
וְהַנַּעֲרָ, טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד--בְּתוּלָה, וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ; וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה, וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל.
Here I underlined the word bethulah which is used in this passage, not almah. It is clear the speaker was indeed referring to a virgin.


The point is, no it's not appropriate to translate any use of the word almah as virgin but when a virgin is meant, the word used is never almah but bethulah.

Your summary of the prophecy is correct. Your words support what I said that it was for King Ahaz about an imminent threat. If the passage was truly referring to Jesus, then the prophecy failed because the King would have been long dead before the sign appeared. Also, Jesus was not named Immanuel.
 
God is satan, Which in my opinion isnt a bad thing.. IM a pantheist and my conclusion for the existence if there is a REAL christian/jewish/islamic God.. If the all loving God has the power to deny you of your salvation, and He does...does that not make him the devil?

ON top of that.. If a REAL Satan exist like the one according to Christianity... If the Devil wants to surround you by temptation leading to your failed salvation, only to punish you in hell.......lets face it. that sounds DUMB. Why would he want you to lie, and fail in Gods eyes just to make you suffer more? If anything he should praise you.
 
Distinguishing ‘Hate’: DIVINE (Rationale, PRINCIPALLY Reasonable, And Orderly And Just. Motivated By LOVE, SPIRITUALITY, And REALITY) Hate Compared To Worldly Hate (Irrational, Unreasonable, Disorderly, Unjust. Motivated By Lust, Carnality And Superficiality).

JESUS’ Hate For Satan Was DIVINE And Selfless Priorities, Whereas Satan’s Hate For JESUS CHRIST Was/Is Worldly And Selfish Priorities.

JESUS’ Hate Is The Equivalent Of An Electron Or The Negative Affect Of Infinity Or Divinity; Satan’s Hate Is The Equivalent Of A Toxic.
For Jesus to hate, only makes him contradictory. For He said "Love you enemy as I love you." What is it really?
If Jesus wanted someone to die, would that be divine?
 

crackerboy

Active Member
The text does not say 'virgin' it says almah, which should not be translated as virgin.

Okay, let's look at the other passages and see which Hebrew word is used in the Hebrew bible:
Song of Songs 1:3
3
Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens love thee. (almah again)
לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים, שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ; עַל-כֵּן, עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ.
Here I underlined 'alamot' the plural of almah.


Proverbs 19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; {N}
the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman. (almah again)
דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר;
דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.
Here I underlined the word b'almah


Genesis 24:16
16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
וְהַנַּעֲרָ, טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד--בְּתוּלָה, וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ; וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה, וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל.
Here I underlined the word bethulah which is used in this passage, not almah. It is clear the speaker was indeed referring to a virgin.


The point is, no it's not appropriate to translate any use of the word almah as virgin but when a virgin is meant, the word used is never almah but bethulah.

Your summary of the prophecy is correct. Your words support what I said that it was for King Ahaz about an imminent threat. If the passage was truly referring to Jesus, then the prophecy failed because the King would have been long dead before the sign appeared. Also, Jesus was not named Immanuel.


Ok so I admit I made a very lazy attempt to explain this issue. So I will go into a little more detail this time.

There is a long-standing approach to this passage, and I think the proper one - from early Christians to Martin Luther to as recently as, for instance, the words of the study column in the Quest study Bible. Basically the idea is that this prophecy has double meanings.

The first meaning in Isaiah’s prophecy relates directly to people at the time when the prophecy was first given – a little over 700 years before the birth of Jesus. The second meaning relates to Christ himself. In this case, the use of the word almah in the Hebrew would make sense. It can definitely refer to a young woman who is what we today would call a “virgin,” but basically it means “a woman of marriageable age” (whether married or not). On the other hand, as you point out, bethulah is used normally only in the sense of virgin” as in our usage today.

Again, keep in mind that God didn’t simply use the people of Isaiah’s time as mere pawns for what came 700 years later, so there is a double meaning here. Isaiah’s prophecy spoke first to the people of his own day, when Judah (southern Israel) felt that its very existence was being threatened. To express this first meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy as briefly as possible, let me simply paraphrase the note in the Quest Study Bible, on page 987: “A child, perhaps another son of Isaiah, would be born to a virgin or young woman during the time of Judah’s King Ahaz. By the time he was grown, Judah’s enemies would be destroyed. “

Although we’re not sure of the precise identity of that child, and therefore who the “virgin” or “young (married?) woman” was, we know that in the amount of time it would take for this child to grow to the point where he would “know enough to reject the wrong and chose the right” (Isaiah 7:15), two of Judah’s immediate enemies were destroyed, just as Isaiah prophesied.

When it came to the second meaning of the prophecy, the birth of Jesus, the New Testament is very clear, of course, that a “virgin” (in our sense) was the mother of Jesus. So almah still fits, because of its double meaning, no matter who the mother was in Isaiah's time. Again, bethulah would have fit this second meaning, but perhaps not the situation in 700 B.C.

But there’s more to it than that. The primary Bible read by early Christians, including the authors of the New Testament, was not the Hebrew Bible, but rather a Greek translation of it, known as the Septuagint. In this famous and widely used version from a couple of centuries before Christ, God inspired the translators to render Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “virgin” in our strict sense. (By the way, the famous temple in Athens called the Parthenon comes from this word). So it fit beautifully that early Christians, beholding the wonder of what the Holy Spirit had accomplished through the Virgin Mary, would see the word parthenos, or (true) virgin, in the Isaiah passage, because now the focus was on the wonderful second meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy.

So… to make a long story even longer… almah works for both meanings of the prophecy. And the wonderful Greek translation, parthenos, makes it very clear that Jesus our Lord was born to the Virgin Mary. Thanks be to God for his care for his people in all ages, as exemplified in this marvelous prophecy.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Typical apologetic bullshit. The translator of LXX must have been inspired by god to use 'parthenos.' Give me a fucking break. So now any mistakes or alternate meanings in any translations can be explained with a wave of the hand as inspired by god? And of course now this 'inspired' translation becomes the source of the whole idea of a virgin birth which of course proves that Mary was a virgin. I know you guys like circular reasoning but this borders on the insane.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
Typical apologetic bullshit. The translator of LXX must have been inspired by god to use 'parthenos.' Give me a fucking break. So now any mistakes or alternate meanings in any translations can be explained with a wave of the hand as inspired by god? And of course now this 'inspired' translation becomes the source of the whole idea of a virgin birth which of course proves that Mary was a virgin. I know you guys like circular reasoning but this borders on the insane.

So like I said that translation was done many years before Jesus was born. So the fact that it was changed has nothing to do with Christianity. This was an accepted translation by all the Jews. You for some reason seem to think you have a better understanding than the people of the time. They made that translation for a very specific reason. As far as they where concerned it had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus since he had not yet been born. So when Jesus was born of a Virgin they instantly made the connection and realized the duel fulfillment of the prophecy. The fact that you think you are more knowledgeable about the translations than the people that actually performed them is what is insane.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
There was no instant recognition of the prophecy since Matthew Gospel was not written until years after Jesus' death. Funny how the Earlier Gospels of Mark or John fail to mention such an important aspect of Jesus' divinity. Or more likely, the story of Mary's virginity didn't come around until later.
If almah could indeed be translated properly as virgin, then who was the virgin that conceived Immanuel to fulfill the initial prophecy? Why don't we hear about her miraculous conception more? Oh wait, Mary was the first and only virgin to conceive according to Xians. Why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel instead of Jesus. Why would Jesus, having been the only one ever born without sin, have to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? When did Jesus eat cream and honey and what exactly does that refer to? What were the two Kingdoms that were abandon in Jesus' time?

Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and contrived. It obviously was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
There was no instant recognition of the prophecy since Matthew Gospel was not written until years after Jesus' death. Funny how the Earlier Gospels of Mark or John fail to mention such an important aspect of Jesus' divinity. Or more likely, the story of Mary's virginity didn't come around until later.
If almah could indeed be translated properly as virgin, then who was the virgin that conceived Immanuel to fulfill the initial prophecy? Why don't we hear about her miraculous conception more? Oh wait, Mary was the first and only virgin to conceive according to Xians. Why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel instead of Jesus. Why would Jesus, having been the only one ever born without sin, have to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? When did Jesus eat cream and honey and what exactly does that refer to? What were the two Kingdoms that were abandon in Jesus' time?

Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and contrived. It obviously was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.

This article was take from (www.seedofabraham.net) There are many other commentaries on this subject.

Many Jewish leaders (as well as some liberal Christians) have maligned the virgin conception and birth of Messiah Yeshua that the prophet Isaiah spoke of. Many laugh and say that, 'It's not only impossible, but that isn't what Isaiah meant at all! The word for virgin,' they tell us, 'doesn't really mean virgin, but a young woman (who could very well be married).' It's easy to understand how they could do this with men like Rabbi Rosenberg supplying the scholarship. He states,
'the translation, 'virgin,' for almah is completely erroneous. The word is used for young woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not.' 1
The Talmud tells us that Miryam (Mary), was raped by a Roman soldier, and that's how Jesus came to be. Of course, this is certainly not what is written in the New Covenant. The Rabbis obviously made that up. Why? It was designed to keep Jews from checking out the claims of Yeshua being the Messiah because once a Jew hears that Yeshua was conceived illegitimately, they would know that he couldn't be Messiah. The Law of Moses states that no one of illegitimate birth could enter the Assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:2). How then, could one born like that be Messiah? That's why we know it is a very deliberate falsehood by the Rabbis.2 The prophecy in question states:
'Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, the young woman (almah), shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.' (Isaiah 7:14) 3
Most traditional Jews who have studied this prophecy agree with Rabbi Rosenberg and say that the Hebrew means, a young woman, who could be married. Unfortunately for them however, the Hebrew Bible disagrees with their assessment of almah. There is no place in the Tanach (Old Testament; Hebrew Bible), where almah is used (or its plural), that refers to a young woman who is married or has known a man. But this is conveniently left out by Rabbi Rosenberg and others.

One such time that we see this term translated as either 'young maiden' or 'young woman', with it meaning being one that is a virgin, is when Abraham's servant is sent to get a wife for Isaac. He says,
'behold, I am standing by the spring, and may it be that the maiden (almah), who comes out to draw, and to whom I say, 'Please let me drink a little water from your jar,' (Gen. 24:43)​
Was Rebecca already married? Had she known a man? We don't think Rabbi Rosenberg would want to have almah translated in this case as a young maiden who was already married or had previously known a man. Rebecca was a young woman who was a virgin and almah perfectly described her state. Risto Santala writes,
'The word alma used by Isaiah does unquestionably also mean 'a young woman'. Isaac's bride Rebecca was an alma (Gen. 24:43), but she was also a betulah, 'a virgin; no man had ever lain with her' (v. 16).'4
Almah is never used of any young women who were married or who had had sexual relations with men (whores, etc.). Santala goes on to tell us that the Zohar, the mystical 'Bible' of Judaism, says that the Messiah would be born 'from a 'closed womb'.'5 Seems like some Jew had an interesting insight here. Closed wombs were notoriously present in the birth of the Jewish nation as seen in Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel. Alfred Edersheim tells us that the miracles of Israel were a picture of what would happen to Messiah and what He would do for Israel:
'perhaps the most valuable element in Rabbinic commentation on Messianic times is that in which, as so frequently, it is explained, that all the miracles and deliverances of Israel's past would be re-enacted, only in a much wider manner, in the days of the Messiah. Thus the whole past was symbolic, and typical of the future'. 'It is in this sense that we would understand the two sayings of the Talmud: 'All the prophets prophesied only the days of the Messiah' (Sanh. 99a), and 'The world was created only for the Messiah' (Sanh. 98b).'6
If the deeds of Israel were to be reflected and amplified in Messiah, why shouldn't we have expected him to have come from a 'closed womb'? More on this below and how it relates to Messiah's birth.

Another instance where almah (singular), is used is the time when baby Moses, about three months old (Ex. 2:2), was floating down the Nile in his hovercraft. When Miryam, the older sister of Moses, suggests to Pharaoh's daughter, that she would get a woman who could nurse the baby, the Scriptures call Miryam an almah (Ex. 2:8). No one would suggest that Miryam had already known a man. She was a virgin. The third and last instance of almah is found in Proverbs 30:18-19:
There are three things that are too amazing for me; four things that I don't understand: The way of the eagle in the sky; the way of the snake on the rock; the way of the ship in the heart of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid' (almah).7
Here too one would be hard pressed to authoritatively state that the woman is anything but a virgin. These are all the four times (including Is. 7:14) that 'almah' in the singular is used in the Hebrew Tanach. The plural of almah (alamot), (relating to women), is used in three places. The understanding also points to 'alamot' as virgins although it's not as definitive as the cases with the singular:
'because of this, the virgins 8 (alamot), love you.' (Song of Songs 1:3).

'Sixty are the queens; eighty are the concubines; and virgins 9 (alamot) without number.' (Song of Songs 6:8)

'among maidens (alamot), playing tambourines' (Ps. 68:26 Heb.; v. 25 Eng.).​
The argument can be made that alamot can't explicitly be seen to be a reference to virgins. But it cannot authoritatively be proven that they have known men either. These are all the times where either almah or its plural, alamot, is used in relation to women. From the Hebrew word itself, and the Hebrew texts, almah is always used to refer to a young maiden who is obviously a virgin, and this is the way Is. 7:14 should be understood (unless we have a compelling reason to see it otherwise, but none exists).

Benjamin Davidson writes that almah is, 'a maiden, virgin, marriageable but not married' 'so in the seven passages of its occurrences' in the Old Testament.10 This is not the only point of reference we have in determining that almah in Is. 7:14 means, 'virgin'. The Septuagint

The Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) translated into Greek by Jewish Sages 200 years before Jesus came (200 BCE), is a valuable tool for helping us to understand how the ancient Jewish people of that time understood the Hebrew Scriptures. For almah in Isaiah 7:14, the Jewish translators used the specific Greek word for virgin 11 (par-thay-nos)12. Therefore, before any controversy about Jesus being born of a virgin came into Jewish and Christian understanding, the authoritative Jewish version of the Greek Old Testament declared that the virgin would conceive and bear a son, and that he would be God with us. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament tells us that,
'Since betula is used many times in the OT as a specific word for 'virgin,' it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of this word is not a technical word for a virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX' (Septuagint), 'translates it as parthenos in two of its seven occurrences, and that its use in Isa 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth.'

'Some translators interpret Mt 1:22-23 as being simply a comment by Matthew, but it is more reasonable to consider that the argument that convinced Joseph was the fact, pointed out to him by the angel, that such an event had already been predicted by Isaiah. There is no instance where it can be proved that 'alma' designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where alma is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac. Also obvious is Ex 3:8. Song 6:8 refers to three types of women, two of whom are called queens and concubines. It could be only reasonable to understand the name of the third group, for which the plural of 'alma' is used, as meaning 'virgins.' In Ugaritic the word is used in poetic parallel with the cognate of betula.'13
Isaiah's prophecy is cognizant of the impossibility of a virgin conceiving, but offsets it with the understanding that it will be a miracle. Perhaps this is what many 'miss' or don't want to believe:
'Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: (oat); behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son'. (Is. 7:14)​
The Hebrew word for 'sign' means a 'miracle'.14 Now, it's no miracle for a 'young maiden' to conceive. Young women who are married (and tragically unmarried today!, conceive all the time. But it is a miracle (sign), for a virgin to conceive. Is it coincidence, deliberate fraud, or divine inspiration, that the New Covenant proclaims Miryam to be a virgin?
'The angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Miryam, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Yeshua. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High God. And the Lord God will give Him the Throne of His Father David and He will reign over the House of Jacob forever, and His Kingdom will have no end.' Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' 15 The angel answered and said to her, 'The Spirit of the Holy One will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High God will overshadow you. For that reason, the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God.' (Lk. 1:30-35)​
Some commentators would have us believe that the only 'miracle' being spoken of by Isaiah is that of the threatening armies devastating Judah. We believe this to be part of the 'immediate' fulfillment of the prophecy but that its fulfillment doesn't exhaust God's Word to Isaiah. Note well that the word for miracle is directly in front of the almah conceiving, and not the relief of Jerusalem (v. 16):
Is. 7:14: 'Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign! Behold! The virgin shall conceive, and bear a son'. (Is. 7:14; our italics and exclamation points)

Is. 7:16: 'For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.'
With 'oat' found directly in front of 'the virgin' conceiving in v. 14, it should alert us to the understanding that the miracle speaks of the virgin, and not what will happen two verses later. That the prophecy also relates to Isaiah's time is part of the beauty of prophecy being able to speak to more than one event.

F. Delitzsch translates almah as 'virgin'16 for Is. 7:14 and tells us that it is, 'applied to one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage.'17 He goes on to say that,
'it is also certain that the child who was to be born was the Messiah,' 'no other than that 'wonderful' heir of the throne of David, whose birth is hailed with joy in ch. 9'. 'It was the Messiah whom the prophet saw here as about to be born, then again in ch. 9 as actually born, and again in ch. 11 as reigning, - an indivisible triad of consolatory images in three distinct states'.18
Something that many would overlook or render superficial is the name or character (inherent in Hebrew names), that the child would be given.19 Immanuel literally means, 'With us (is) God'. Delitzsch relates this, and Messiah's nature, and the miracle involved here saying,
'the incarnation of Deity was unquestionably a secret that was not clearly unveiled in the Old Testament, but the veil was not so thick but that some rays could pass through. Such a ray, directed by the spirit of prophecy into the mind of the prophet, was the prediction of Immanuel. But if the Messiah was to be Immanuel in this sense, that He would Himself by El (God), as the prophet expressly affirms, His birth must also of necessity be a wonderful or miraculous one.'20
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
This article was take from (www.seedofabraham.net) There are many other commentaries on this subject.

Many Jewish leaders (as well as some liberal Christians) have maligned the virgin conception and birth of Messiah Yeshua .
.
.
[Extremely long cut & paste that answers none of the questions deleted]
So I guess you are unable to answer my questions in your own words.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
So I guess you are unable to answer my questions in your own words.

Nice cop out...

No I just think I have made my point. So I copied and pasted a commentary for you to read so that you have a full understanding of where your argument originally came from as well as a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong. I don't see the point in paraphrasing that much info so I just copy and paste. We have already had this discussion and I believe that I told you before that I will continue to copy and paste because I'm too lazy to retype.
 

smokey2117

Member
Why do you capitalize every word in your diatribe?
Is your education so lacking that you actually don't know when or where to use capitals?

Why do you have to flame him for the way he types? That's just pointless. You just made yourself look like a douche by trying to undermine someones intelligence according to the way they type.. Who cares how people type or what they think? Why don't you worry about yourself? Oh wait.. you're too busy trying to make everyone else look stupid to make up for your lack of intelligence.. you can't just accept that others are smarter then you can you? Sorry buddy, but the truth hurts.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Nice cop out...

No I just think I have made my point. So I copied and pasted a commentary for you to read so that you have a full understanding of where your argument originally came from as well as a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong.
Ha! I'm copping out? That's rich.
That commentary answers none of the questions. It is more apologetics which use twisted logic and circular reasoning to convince the sheep not to listen to logic.

Answer my questions as your C&P obviously couldn't. How about ANY biblical evidence for the legitimacy of dual prophecy? How about explain how Mary could have been the first and only virgin to give birth if it also happened 700 years earlier?

How come Xians claim the LXX was authoritative when clearly contradicts the original Hebrew in many places. Translations are written for people that don't know how to read the original. If a translation is in error, don't expect the readers to know that, at least right away. Just because LXX was written pre-Jesus does not make it accurate. There could be a number of reasons the translator used parthenos. Your reason requires that the translation is inspired by God yet you never assume that it was the put either accidental or even put there by hasatan.
I don't see the point in paraphrasing that much info so I just copy and paste. We have already had this discussion and I believe that I told you before that I will continue to copy and paste because I'm too lazy to retype.
Isn't sloth a deadly sin?
 

crackerboy

Active Member
Ha! I'm copping out? That's rich.
That commentary answers none of the questions. It is more apologetics which use twisted logic and circular reasoning to convince the sheep not to listen to logic.

Answer my questions as your C&P obviously couldn't. How about ANY biblical evidence for the legitimacy of dual prophecy? How about explain how Mary could have been the first and only virgin to give birth if it also happened 700 years earlier?

How come Xians claim the LXX was authoritative when clearly contradicts the original Hebrew in many places. Translations are written for people that don't know how to read the original. If a translation is in error, don't expect the readers to know that, at least right away. Just because LXX was written pre-Jesus does not make it accurate. There could be a number of reasons the translator used parthenos. Your reason requires that the translation is inspired by God yet you never assume that it was the put either accidental or even put there by hasatan.
Isn't sloth a deadly sin?
I actually work very hard in my career. But this site is my leisurely conversations. I provide well for my family. As far as that translation goes, you only think that there are contradictions because you yourself don't understand all the background information that goes along with those translations. It was the Jews that made those translations themselves many many years before Christians existed so your attempt to make it sound like some Christian conspiracy is retarded.

You ask for evidence for the legitimacy of a duel prophecy? How about they where both fulfilled. That would be pretty good evidence huh. Well history shows that both of these things actually happened.

By the way why is it that you always claim to be a hardcore atheist, but when ever we have a theological debate all your arguments are from a traditional Jewish perspective? All the arguments you make against Christians are the same ones that the Jews have. This is also why you seem to hate apologetics so much. Do you not understand where that term comes from? It is those very attacks on doctrine that forced the church to formulate defenses and systematic theologies. You hate it so because there is an explanation for all your attacks. Its called the truth, you can only dance around it for so long before it smacks you in the face.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I actually work very hard in my career. But this site is my leisurely conversations. I provide well for my family. As far as that translation goes, you only think that there are contradictions because you yourself don't understand all the background information that goes along with those translations. It was the Jews that made those translations themselves many many years before Christians existed so your attempt to make it sound like some Christian conspiracy is retarded.
Either you are not paying attention to my argument or you are just too fucking stubborn to actually acknowledge a point.
You are saying the Hebrew bible was translated to LXX prior to Jesus. I have not disagreed. You also seem to admit that ha'almah was the original wording used in the Hebrew bible. Isaiah either meant virgin or maiden. If he meant virgin, then it is agreed he would have used a different word. However, because you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, you make a prophecy that was never about him or a virgin, about him and his virgin mum. And to top it off, you can't even see how fucked up your reasoning is. The only way you get around it is to claim the translator of LXX was also blessed with the gift of prophecy rather than just made a fucking mistake.
You ask for evidence for the legitimacy of a duel prophecy? How about they where both fulfilled. That would be pretty good evidence huh. Well history shows that both of these things actually happened.
I see, so again you beg the question, you assume it was a prophecy for Jesus and use said prophecy as evidence that he was born of a virgin. I wonder if anyone else in this thread will buy this load of circular reasoning crap.

You still seem unable to answer simple question as it was pointed out how if the original meaning was virgin, then the first one was not fulfilled OR Jesus wasn't the first and only virgin birth. If the second one was fulfilled, why isn't he called Immanuel? Where is the rest of the fulfillment by Jesus?
By the way why is it that you always claim to be a hardcore atheist, but when ever we have a theological debate all your arguments are from a traditional Jewish perspective? All the arguments you make against Christians are the same ones that the Jews have. This is also why you seem to hate apologetics so much. Do you not understand where that term comes from? It is those very attacks on doctrine that forced the church to formulate defenses and systematic theologies. You hate it so because there is an explanation for all your attacks. Its called the truth, you can only dance around it for so long before it smacks you in the face.
Where have I claimed to be a hardcore atheist? It appears that is a label you have made for me. I don't hate apologetics in general, I hate twisted logic and stupid rationalizations as well as the hubris displayed when the pinnacle of your argument is that you believe it to be the truth without being able to back it up. Just because someone wrote some words that appear in your mind to counter the arguments, does not make them valid, especially if you cannot expound on them when asked pointed questions that they haven't answered. That's the problem with cut and paste. Since you didn't choose any that answered my specific questions and your addled brain appears unable to do so either, you leave them unanswered.

Why would it be improper for me to point out how Xianity is built upon lies and distortions of the original Jewish religion of which they claim to be descended from? Why should I ignore a good argument just because it was made by the Jews before?
 
Top