Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Matthew and the misreading of Isaiah 7:14

Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If gMat 1:22-23 is the result of a faulty interpretation of a bad Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, does that not seriously undermine the virgin birth doctrine and the credibility of its author?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:11:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
If gMat 1:22-23 is the result of a faulty interpretation of a bad Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, does that not seriously undermine the virgin birth doctrine and the credibility of its author?

According to the scriptures there was never such a thing as the virgin birth of Jesus.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: "Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV "Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. "

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

There are of course some on this forum who will argue that Matthew meant "Virgin" when using the ambiguous Greek term "Parthenos, but this is their own personal UNSUPPORTED erroneous opinion, and they are absolutely incorrect.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:31:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:25:59 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:11:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
If gMat 1:22-23 is the result of a faulty interpretation of a bad Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, does that not seriously undermine the virgin birth doctrine and the credibility of its author?

According to the scriptures there was never such a thing as the virgin birth of Jesus. ...

Good post.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:25:59 PM, Gentorev wrote:
There are of course some on this forum who will argue that Matthew meant "Virgin" when using the ambiguous Greek term "Parthenos, but this is their own personal UNSUPPORTED erroneous opinion, and they are absolutely incorrect.
This, however, seems like little more than eisegesis with a dash of bravado. What precisely do you think he meant when he wrote "

18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah* took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.
20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel",
which means, "God is with us."
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,
25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;* and he named him Jesus.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:45:58 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:25:59 PM, Gentorev wrote:
There are of course some on this forum who will argue that Matthew meant "Virgin" when using the ambiguous Greek term "Parthenos, but this is their own personal UNSUPPORTED erroneous opinion, and they are absolutely incorrect.
This, however, seems like little more than eisegesis with a dash of bravado. What precisely do you think he meant when he wrote "

18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah* took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.
20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel",
which means, "God is with us."
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,
25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;* and he named him Jesus.

If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:13:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM, Gentorev wrote:
If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.

And you know this how?
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:13:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM, Gentorev wrote:
If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.

And you know this how?

Again, what is the most reasonable explanation of ...

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ... All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel", "
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:04:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 6:46:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:13:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM, Gentorev wrote:
If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.

And you know this how?

Again, what is the most reasonable explanation of ...

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ... All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel", "

The emphasise should not be placed on the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, but on the fact that his name would be called Emmanuel, meaning "God is with us," and for two thousand years, that child has been seen as the body which had been filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, who revealed himself to us through his obedient servant "The Man Jesus."

The word for Tabernacle, mishkan, is a derivative of the same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the Bible, e.g. Psalm 132:5 ("Before I find a place for God, mishkanot (dwelling-places) for the Strong One of Israel.") Accordingly, in classic Jewish thought, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable.

Some Christian theologians have connected the concept of Shekhinah to the Greek term "Parousia", "presence" "arrival," which is used in the New Testament in a similar way for "Divine Presence".

The Light of man came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down and fill with his spirit that body that his Father had prepared for him, the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

And we see here, how the body of Jesus was prepared for God's only begotten Son and heir to the Throne of Godhead.

Hebrew 5: 7-10; "In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. But even though he was A son of God, (Not God"s Son, or THE son of God, but A son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong"s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God"s word, see Psalms 82: 6; "You are gods," I said; "all of you are sons of the Most High.") he learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience) he became the only source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise all they, who are united to him also.

After he was made perfect in his obedience to our indwelling ancestral father, Our Lord God and saviour (The Son of Man) made him high priest in the order of Melchizedek, not that Jesus took upon himself the honour of being high priest, instead, the Lord made him high priest with these words, (When he was baptised) "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."See Hebrew 5: 5.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:06:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:04:13 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:46:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:13:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM, Gentorev wrote:
If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.

And you know this how?

Again, what is the most reasonable explanation of ...

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ... All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel", "

The emphasise should not be placed on the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, but on the fact that ...

You're polluting the thread with fantasy. Please either provide a credible source for the the above lore or take your meds and toddle away.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:19:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:04:13 PM, Gentorev wrote:
The emphasise should not be placed on the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, but on the fact that his name would be called Emmanuel, meaning "God is with us," and for two thousand years, that child has been seen as the body which had been filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, who revealed himself to us through his obedient servant "The Man Jesus."
More of your fallacious interpretations Gentorev!

I don't know what you study during your MILK breaks but it surely isn't of value to you!

Matthew 1:23 (Isaiah 7:14)

It is sometimes asserted that the name Immanuel - "God is with us" - given to Jesus proves that he is God. If that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was given by Isaiah in the days of Ahaz, would also have been God.

The name, however, does not tell us that Jesus is God, but that in his life God has intervened to save His people. The parents who in Old Testament times called their son Ithiel (Prov. 30:1) - "God is with me" - did not believe their offspring to be Deity.

Names of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. God, the Father of Jesus, was certainly with Israel as He worked through His unique Son. In the life of Jesus, the Son of God, God had visited His people.

A Trinitarian scholar of the last century wrote: "To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine [of the Deity of Jesus] is a fallacious argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called 'Jehovah our Righteousness.' Is Jerusalem also Divine?"36

36. Moses Stuart, Answer to Channing, cited in Concessions, 236.

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour Moi!
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 3:02:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:06:24 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:04:13 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:46:00 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:13:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:10:10 PM, Gentorev wrote:
If Joseph ben Jacob had not taken to wife, Mary who was pregnant to her half brother Joseph ben Heli, but instead had broken their engagement agreement, the Jewish authorities would have been aware of this and according to the Jewish law, she may have been stoned to death .

Joseph ben Jacob, the step father of Jesus later sired a child to Mary, who was named after his father, and it is my belief that he was the Joseph of Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used; suggesting that his father, "Joseph ben Jacob" was still alive at that time, but no longer married to Mary.

And you know this how?

Again, what is the most reasonable explanation of ...

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ... All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel", "

The emphasise should not be placed on the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, but on the fact that ...

You're polluting the thread with fantasy. Please either provide a credible source for the the above lore or take your meds and toddle away.

What significance does a child born to an unmarried girl have in the prophecy? None.
The significance of the prophecy, is in the fact that the child would be called "God is with us. And there is no fantasy in what I have said, unless you believe that the bible is a book of fantasy.

Jesus was the biological son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli and Alexander Helios was also the father of Mary .

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth, the sister to Hanna and aunty to Mary. Elizabeth, who was to become the mother of John the Baptist, was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the youngest of the three daughters, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) A Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of David.

Heli, according to the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, Uriah became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi.

Heli and his descendants were heirs to the throne of David, through Naria, who was a descendant of Nathan the adopted son of King David, and Naria had married Tamar, a female descendant of King Solomon. After the death of Naria, Tamar was taken to wife by King Jeconiah.

Heli, who died in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the Davidian princes, had previously sired a son who we know by the name "Joseph the Levite from Cyprus," and Heli was to later sire the child Mary to Hanna the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III.

It is said that Jehoshua III died three years before the birth of his grand-daughter, "Mary." If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, the same year as Philip the son of Herod and his young Jewess wife, "Cleopatra."

Therefore Mary would have been 7 years old when her father Heli died in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC, making Mary, who, after being divorced by Joseph the son of Jacob, married Cleophas/Alpheaus, who is the father of James the younger of Mary"s three biological sons, about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons was crucified.

It is said that after the death of her father (Heli) "a father of renown," Mary was taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

James the son of Alpheaus, is the brother=adelphos of the Lord, ADELPHOS the Greek, meaning "born of the same womb".

Matthew 113: 55; "Isn't he the carpenters son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simeon and Judas his brothers, etc.

Simeon, is the stepbrother of Jesus, who succeeded James the brother of Jesus to the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem. And Simeon was the son of Cleophas/Alpheaus to a previous marriage,as was Judas the son of Cleophas/Alpheaus, the other stepbrother of Jesus.

According to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Cleophas and Alpheaus, which names mean, "Of a renown father," are one and the same person. Cleophas is the male abbreviation of the female Cleopatra, which is a Macedonian name and is the Greek, for "Of a renown father," and Alpheaus, who is the biological father of James the younger of Mary"s three biological sons who, according to Paul, is the brother of the Lord, and "Alpheaus" is the Aramaic of the same meaning, "Of a renown father."

It was not uncommon for a man to have three names in those days, a Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic name all with the same meaning.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 4:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 3:02:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
What significance does a child born to an unmarried girl have in the prophecy? None.
The significance of the prophecy, is in the fact that the child would be called "God is with us. And there is no fantasy in what I have said, unless you believe that the bible is a book of fantasy.
Posts like YOURS re-confirm what we already know, that YES! it is a book containing copious amounts of fantasy!
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:19:57 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:04:13 PM, Gentorev wrote:
The emphasise should not be placed on the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, but on the fact that his name would be called Emmanuel, meaning "God is with us," and for two thousand years, that child has been seen as the body which had been filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, who revealed himself to us through his obedient servant "The Man Jesus."
More of your fallacious interpretations Gentorev!

I don't know what you study during your MILK breaks but it surely isn't of value to you!

Matthew 1:23 (Isaiah 7:14)

It is sometimes asserted that the name Immanuel - "God is with us" - given to Jesus proves that he is God. If that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was given by Isaiah in the days of Ahaz, would also have been God.

The name, however, does not tell us that Jesus is God, but that in his life God has intervened to save His people. The parents who in Old Testament times called their son Ithiel (Prov. 30:1) - "God is with me" - did not believe their offspring to be Deity.

Names of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. God, the Father of Jesus, was certainly with Israel as He worked through His unique Son. In the life of Jesus, the Son of God, God had visited His people.

A Trinitarian scholar of the last century wrote: "To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine [of the Deity of Jesus] is a fallacious argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called 'Jehovah our Righteousness.' Is Jerusalem also Divine?"36

36. Moses Stuart, Answer to Channing, cited in Concessions, 236.

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour Moi!

Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 5:31:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
I did read your BS, and it is based primarily upon at best ' hearsay ', as you admitted yourself -

e.g: Your Post#2, " . . . . . . In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, . . . . "

Just where do you go to get your (ahem) information from?
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:25:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 3:02:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:06:24 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:

You're polluting the thread with fantasy. Please either provide a credible source for the the above lore or take your meds and toddle away.

What significance does a child born to an unmarried girl have in the prophecy? ...

So you cannot provide a source for your silly nativity drivel. What a surprise.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 8:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:11:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
If gMat 1:22-23 is the result of a faulty interpretation of a bad Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, does that not seriously undermine the virgin birth doctrine and the credibility of its author?

Is there anyone interested in the above and capable of rational discussion?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 8:25:16 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/7/2015 3:02:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:06:24 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:

You're polluting the thread with fantasy. Please either provide a credible source for the the above lore or take your meds and toddle away.

What significance does a child born to an unmarried girl have in the prophecy? ...

So you cannot provide a source for your silly nativity drivel. What a surprise.

Of course I can. But unlike the atheists who haunt these religious forums night and day, I have a life to live, people to visit, work to be done, and many other commitments.

Is it "Silly Nativity Drivel to prove that there never was a woman who gave birth to a child while still remaining a virgin, and that the lie of virgin birth can be shown to have been an erroneous translation of the Greek word "Parthenos" by naive and ignorant people?

Is it possible that you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin conception? Or do you fear that christians might see the truth and abandon the lie, and thereby taking away from the atheists who belong to the godless religion, the greatest weapon that they have against those who have been deceived by the Great Harlot and her prostitute daughters?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 5:31:35 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
I did read your BS, and it is based primarily upon at best ' hearsay ', as you admitted yourself -

e.g: Your Post#2, " . . . . . . In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, . . . . "

Just where do you go to get your (ahem) information from?

Gentorev........And why do you have to ask, are you so blind as not to be able to see from where it was taken? But then you are an atheist and belong to the godless religion, so it becomes obvious that you cannot see nor understand the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

The reference that you have asked for can be found in Luke 2: 36. Many apparent errors have crept into the bible over the nearly two thousand years that Jerome compiled the canon of the universal church that was established by the non-christian Emperor Constantine, but any serious student who is guided by the indwelling parental spirit, can rectify those errors as I have done here, concerning the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

Reading from the KJV, it is said that Anna the prophetess had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity and was a widow of about 84 years.

Assuming that she was married at the age of 16/18, lived with her husband for 7 years and was a widow of 84 years, this would make her 103/105 when she nursed the baby Jesus.

Of course by saying "A widow of 84 years" could mean that Hanna/Anna was an 84 year old widow. Although that is not how others translations saw it. "The Amplified Version" states that Hanna lived as a widow for even 84 years.

The "Living New Testament" Hanna was very old, for she had been a widow for 84 years.

But according to the RSV, Hanna had lived with her husband 7 years from her virginity, and as a widow until she was 84. According to the RSV, Hanna was 84 and not 103/105 as other erroneous translations would have you believe.

Now only one of these contradictory translations can possibly be correct, but then again, all may be erroneous, and they are.

The Greek term "Parthenia" is used only once in the New Testament and that is in Luke 2: 36; check out Young"s Analytical Concordance, and "Parthenia" means, "A STATE OF SECLUSION." Does it sound correct to say, "Hanna had lived with her husband 7 years from her state of seclusion? Of course not.

The correct translation of the Greek in Luke 2: 36; is: "And there was a prophetess named Hanna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she was an 84 years old widow and had lived 7 years in her state of seclusion=Parthenia."

And thank you for reading my BS, which I presume you mean, is the Best Scenario of the literary work in question, that you have ever read.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:24:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 5:31:35 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
I did read your BS, and it is based primarily upon at best ' hearsay ', as you admitted yourself -

e.g: Your Post#2, " . . . . . . In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, . . . . "

Just where do you go to get your (ahem) information from?

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Gentorev........And why do you have to ask, are you so blind as not to be able to see from where it was taken? But then you are an atheist and belong to the godless religion,
There are NO literal supernatural god(s)!

Posts like YOURS re-confirm what I knew long ago!

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
so it becomes obvious that you cannot see nor understand the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Which ' scriptures? '

Jewish Talmud?
Qu'ran?
bible?
Mormon D & C?
Hindu?
Others?

and why those particular Story books based primarily upon some men's fanciful imaginations?

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
The reference that you have asked for can be found in Luke 2: 36. Many apparent errors have crept into the bible over the nearly two thousand years that Jerome compiled the canon of the universal church that was established by the non-christian Emperor Constantine, but any serious student who is guided by the indwelling parental spirit, can rectify those errors as I have done here, concerning the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

The entire NT is corrupt say top scholars -

e.g. Griesbach:
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

Hug:
"the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane literature"

Colwell:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons."

Ehrman:
Ehrman's recent book on the subject is entitled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Its title speaks for itself.

So whatever Cult ideology YOU try to inflict on others is obviously based upon corrupted Story book(s)

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
And thank you for reading my BS, which I presume you mean, is the Best Scenario of the literary work in question, that you have ever read.
Nah!

You ' presume ' far too much yet again! LMAO@U with vindication!

Just more of your typical empty speculation, regarding known corrupt text!

Much much much better luck next times!

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour benevolent, Wise, Moi!
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:13:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:24:29 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:31:35 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
I did read your BS, and it is based primarily upon at best ' hearsay ', as you admitted yourself -

e.g: Your Post#2, " . . . . . . In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, . . . . "

Just where do you go to get your (ahem) information from?

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Gentorev........And why do you have to ask, are you so blind as not to be able to see from where it was taken? But then you are an atheist and belong to the godless religion,
There are NO literal supernatural god(s)!

Posts like YOURS re-confirm what I knew long ago!

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
so it becomes obvious that you cannot see nor understand the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Which ' scriptures? '

Jewish Talmud?
Qu'ran?
bible?
Mormon D & C?
Hindu?
Others?

and why those particular Story books based primarily upon some men's fanciful imaginations?


At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
The reference that you have asked for can be found in Luke 2: 36. Many apparent errors have crept into the bible over the nearly two thousand years that Jerome compiled the canon of the universal church that was established by the non-christian Emperor Constantine, but any serious student who is guided by the indwelling parental spirit, can rectify those errors as I have done here, concerning the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

The entire NT is corrupt say top scholars -

e.g. Griesbach:
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

Hug:
"the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane literature"

Colwell:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons."

Ehrman:
Ehrman's recent book on the subject is entitled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Its title speaks for itself.

So whatever Cult ideology YOU try to inflict on others is obviously based upon corrupted Story book(s)

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
And thank you for reading my BS, which I presume you mean, is the Best Scenario of the literary work in question, that you have ever read.
Nah!

You ' presume ' far too much yet again! LMAO@U with vindication!

Just more of your typical empty speculation, regarding known corrupt text!

Much much much better luck next times!

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour benevolent, Wise, Moi!

And what more could one expect from an atheist who belongs to the godless religion who attack that, of which they have absolutely no understanding.

The godless, who believe by faith and faith alone, that there is no God. The godless who have separated themselves from their indwelling ancestral spirit, who is the compilation of all their ancestors, human and pre-human, He who dwells behind the veil to the innermost sanctuary of their bodies, which is his temporary tabernacle as he awaits the creation of his glorious Temple of light.

The godless, who of all people are the most to be pitied.

The scholars that I would use in the defence of the Holy Scriptures far outnumber the few disbelievers chosen by the godless, but why bother, the blind who choose to remain blind will remain forever blind.

And as it is obvious that you are lacking the intellect to contribute anything of substance to the topic at hand, I will bid thee Good night..
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:41:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd say faulty interpretation (some would even say direct plagiarism) applies more. I don't see how it can be attributed to a bad translation as presumably the author would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.

The B'rit Khadasha (NT) is actually believed to been originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

In order to establish what the *true* meaning of Yesha'yahu 7:14 is and whether it really does suggest a virgin birth of the Messiah, one has to look at the whole context. You'll find that Yesha'yahu is referring to his own "alma" (which is "fair maiden", not "virgin") and her conception of a child.

Verse 7:15 states: "Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. "

7:16: "For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

Naturally this cannot be applying to Jesus (who Christians see as G-d himself) as he would've already known how to reject and separate bad from good.

Even more explicitly, chapter 8:3: "And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz."

Therefore, prophecy fulfilled. The additional context of these two chapters absolutely must be looked at.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:45:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:24:29 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 5:31:35 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2015 4:52:49 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts, numbered 2, 5, and 8, otherwise you would not be now mouthing off about that which you have no idea, and hurling insults. Nowhere and never have I ever claimed that the man Jesus was born anything other than a normal human being, sired and conceive by two human parents.
I did read your BS, and it is based primarily upon at best ' hearsay ', as you admitted yourself -

e.g: Your Post#2, " . . . . . . In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, . . . . "

Just where do you go to get your (ahem) information from?

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Gentorev........And why do you have to ask, are you so blind as not to be able to see from where it was taken? But then you are an atheist and belong to the godless religion,
There are NO literal supernatural god(s)!

Posts like YOURS re-confirm what I knew long ago!

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
so it becomes obvious that you cannot see nor understand the truths as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Which ' scriptures? '

Jewish Talmud?
Qu'ran?
bible?
Mormon D & C?
Hindu?
Others?


Lol, the Talmud is a book of Law.
and why those particular Story books based primarily upon some men's fanciful imaginations?


At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
The reference that you have asked for can be found in Luke 2: 36. Many apparent errors have crept into the bible over the nearly two thousand years that Jerome compiled the canon of the universal church that was established by the non-christian Emperor Constantine, but any serious student who is guided by the indwelling parental spirit, can rectify those errors as I have done here, concerning the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

The entire NT is corrupt say top scholars -

e.g. Griesbach:
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

Hug:
"the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane literature"

Colwell:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons."

Ehrman:
Ehrman's recent book on the subject is entitled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Its title speaks for itself.

So whatever Cult ideology YOU try to inflict on others is obviously based upon corrupted Story book(s)

At 1/8/2015 2:53:35 AM, Gentorev wrote:
And thank you for reading my BS, which I presume you mean, is the Best Scenario of the literary work in question, that you have ever read.
Nah!

You ' presume ' far too much yet again! LMAO@U with vindication!

Just more of your typical empty speculation, regarding known corrupt text!

Much much much better luck next times!

Your vindicated Mentor & Saviour benevolent, Wise, Moi!
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 7:25:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:19:59 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2015 8:25:16 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/7/2015 3:02:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:06:24 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:

You're polluting the thread with fantasy. Please either provide a credible source for the the above lore or take your meds and toddle away.

What significance does a child born to an unmarried girl have in the prophecy? ...

So you cannot provide a source for your silly nativity drivel. What a surprise.

Of course I can. But ...

Stop dancing. Cite your source(s) or crawl away having shown yourself to be little more than a pathetic joke.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 7:48:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 6:41:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I'd say faulty interpretation (some would even say direct plagiarism) applies more. I don't see how it can be attributed to a bad translation as presumably the author would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.

There should be no such presumption.

First, there is no consensus that the author of Matthew was Jewish.
Second, it is recognized that that the author was referencing the Septuagint.

The B'rit Khadasha (NT) is actually believed to been originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

That is simply nonsense.

In order to establish what the *true* meaning of Yesha'yahu 7:14 is and whether it really does suggest a virgin birth of the Messiah, one has to look at the whole context. You'll find that Yesha'yahu is referring to his own "alma" (which is "fair maiden", not "virgin") and her conception of a child.

Using Hebrew names strikes me as rather silly posturing but, so that you may better impress next time, "alma" should be rendered as "alma" since it ends in ה and 'maiden' would be far better than the equally silly (and archaic "fair maiden".

Furthermore, while alma is, indeed, mistranslated, I would maintain that the rendering of harah is far more problematic.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:48:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 7:48:40 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 6:41:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I'd say faulty interpretation (some would even say direct plagiarism) applies more. I don't see how it can be attributed to a bad translation as presumably the author would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.

There should be no such presumption.

Lol, I'm just giving an answer.

First, there is no consensus that the author of Matthew was Jewish.

Hmm, my point Yesha'yahu 7:14 verse was either badly misinterpreted or falsely applied to the birth of Jesus. IF the author that wrote the text of Mathew was a disiple, naturally he would've been Jewish--however, that's not for me to say and I'm mainly commenting on the contextual meaning of verse 7:14.

Second, it is recognized that that the author was referencing the Septuagint.

The B'rit Khadasha (NT) is actually believed to been originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

That is simply nonsense.

Actually it's not, there is a common belief among scholars that at least *some* parts (others have even said all of it) were written in Aramaic. The Aramaic copy is called the "Peshitta".

In order to establish what the *true* meaning of Yesha'yahu 7:14 is and whether it really does suggest a virgin birth of the Messiah, one has to look at the whole context. You'll find that Yesha'yahu is referring to his own "alma" (which is "fair maiden", not "virgin") and her conception of a child.

Using Hebrew names strikes me as rather silly posturing but, so that you may better impress next time, "alma" should be rendered as "alma" since it ends in ה and 'maiden' would be far better than the equally silly (and archaic "fair maiden".

I really don't see what's "silly" about using the original names. That's how I actually memorize them. This response is pretty much pointless as both terms I've used are correct.

Furthermore, while alma is, indeed, mistranslated, I would maintain that the rendering of harah is far more problematic.

I outlined the additional context of the chapter, prophecy solved. It would seem obvious that Yeshayahu was talking about his "alma" and his child. The only reason why the verse is disputed is because Christians believe it applies to Jesus. Alma is completely mistranslated as the Hebrew term for "virgin" is "betula".
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:07:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 10:48:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/8/2015 7:48:40 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 6:41:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I'd say faulty interpretation (some would even say direct plagiarism) applies more. I don't see how it can be attributed to a bad translation as presumably the author would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.

There should be no such presumption.

Lol, I'm just giving an answer.

Lol - and an uninformed one.


First, there is no consensus that the author of Matthew was Jewish.

Hmm, my point Yesha'yahu 7:14 verse was either badly misinterpreted or falsely applied to the birth of Jesus. IF the author that wrote the text of Mathew was a disiple, naturally he would've been Jewish--however, that's not for me to say and I'm mainly commenting on the contextual meaning of verse 7:14.

Second, it is recognized that that the author was referencing the Septuagint.

The B'rit Khadasha (NT) is actually believed to been originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

That is simply nonsense.

Actually it's not, there is a common belief among scholars that at least *some* parts (others have even said all of it) were written in Aramaic. The Aramaic copy is called the "Peshitta".

That is inaccurate. So, for example, from Wikipedia: "The general, but not universal, consensus is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek."

Peshitta primacy is a fringe theory at best.


In order to establish what the *true* meaning of Yesha'yahu 7:14 is and whether it really does suggest a virgin birth of the Messiah, one has to look at the whole context. You'll find that Yesha'yahu is referring to his own "alma" (which is "fair maiden", not "virgin") and her conception of a child.

Using Hebrew names strikes me as rather silly posturing but, so that you may better impress next time, "alma" should be rendered as "alma" since it ends in ה and 'maiden' would be far better than the equally silly (and archaic "fair maiden".

I really don't see what's "silly" about using the original names. That's how I actually memorize them. This response is pretty much pointless as both terms I've used are correct.

Furthermore, while alma is, indeed, mistranslated, I would maintain that the rendering of harah is far more problematic.

I outlined the additional context of the chapter, prophecy solved. It would seem obvious that Yeshayahu was talking about his "alma" and his child. The only reason why the verse is disputed is because Christians believe it applies to Jesus. Alma is completely mistranslated as the Hebrew term for "virgin" is "betula".

Again, the word is "almah" and not "alma." As for betulah, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:22:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:07:16 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:48:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/8/2015 7:48:40 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 6:41:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I'd say faulty interpretation (some would even say direct plagiarism) applies more. I don't see how it can be attributed to a bad translation as presumably the author would've been able to read the Hebrew bible.

There should be no such presumption.

Lol, I'm just giving an answer.

Lol - and an uninformed one.

Uninformed? Hardly. Literally everything I've said is correct.

First, there is no consensus that the author of Matthew was Jewish.

Hmm, my point Yesha'yahu 7:14 verse was either badly misinterpreted or falsely applied to the birth of Jesus. IF the author that wrote the text of Mathew was a disiple, naturally he would've been Jewish--however, that's not for me to say and I'm mainly commenting on the contextual meaning of verse 7:14.

Second, it is recognized that that the author was referencing the Septuagint.

The B'rit Khadasha (NT) is actually believed to been originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

That is simply nonsense.

Actually it's not, there is a common belief among scholars that at least *some* parts (others have even said all of it) were written in Aramaic. The Aramaic copy is called the "Peshitta".

That is inaccurate. So, for example, from Wikipedia: "The general, but not universal, consensus is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek."

I'll state again that a number of scholars of the B'rit Khadasha believe that if not all, at least parts of it were written in Aramaic, keeping in mind that it would've been the language of those who presumably wrote it. Wikipedia doesn't always have the exact answers.

Peshitta primacy is a fringe theory at best.


In order to establish what the *true* meaning of Yesha'yahu 7:14 is and whether it really does suggest a virgin birth of the Messiah, one has to look at the whole context. You'll find that Yesha'yahu is referring to his own "alma" (which is "fair maiden", not "virgin") and her conception of a child.

Using Hebrew names strikes me as rather silly posturing but, so that you may better impress next time, "alma" should be rendered as "alma" since it ends in ה and 'maiden' would be far better than the equally silly (and archaic "fair maiden".

I really don't see what's "silly" about using the original names. That's how I actually memorize them. This response is pretty much pointless as both terms I've used are correct.

Furthermore, while alma is, indeed, mistranslated, I would maintain that the rendering of harah is far more problematic.

I outlined the additional context of the chapter, prophecy solved. It would seem obvious that Yeshayahu was talking about his "alma" and his child. The only reason why the verse is disputed is because Christians believe it applies to Jesus. Alma is completely mistranslated as the Hebrew term for "virgin" is "betula".

Again, the word is "almah" and not "alma." As for betulah, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

The word can absolutely be known as "alma", it depends on what your precise dialect and pronunciation of Hebrew is.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:53:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:22:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Uninformed? Hardly. Literally everything I've said is correct.
Rubbish.

I'll state again that a number of scholars of the B'rit Khadasha believe that if not all, at least parts of it were written in Aramaic, keeping in mind that it would've been the language of those who presumably wrote it. Wikipedia doesn't always have the exact answers.

You are being ignorant, dishonest, or both.

The word can absolutely be known as "alma", it depends on what your precise dialect and pronunciation of Hebrew is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with dialect. The proper transliteration should end in an 'h'.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:53:06 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:22:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Uninformed? Hardly. Literally everything I've said is correct.
Rubbish.

You've accused me of being "uninformed" without providing any real explanation for doing so. I'll summarize what I've actually said:

[1.] That the author of the NT misinterpreted, or as some would see, plagiarized the 7:14 prophecy.

[2.] That when additional context is studied, it's obvious Yeshayahu is referring to the conception of his own child.

[3.] That some scholars believe it likely that certain parts, or all, of the NT was written in Aramaic.

[4.] That "alama" and betula" can be both be written without an "h".

It just seems you've taken great exception to what I've wrote..rather illogically.

I'll state again that a number of scholars of the B'rit Khadasha believe that if not all, at least parts of it were written in Aramaic, keeping in mind that it would've been the language of those who presumably wrote it. Wikipedia doesn't always have the exact answers.

You are being ignorant, dishonest, or both.


Point out where I've displayed ignorance or been dishonest. Assess what I've written and highlight where such accusations are warranted. Again, you're sounding irrational without explaining why I'm "ignorant" or "dishonest".

What exactly do you find fault with concerning my interpretation of verse 7:14? As that's what most of initial argument actually centered around.

The word can absolutely be known as "alma", it depends on what your precise dialect and pronunciation of Hebrew is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with dialect. The proper transliteration should end in an 'h'.

I've read many a Rabbi just use the "a".
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:24:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:02:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:53:06 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:22:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Uninformed? Hardly. Literally everything I've said is correct.
Rubbish.

You've accused me of being "uninformed" without providing any real explanation for doing so.

I'm pretty much done with you. See http://en.wikipedia.org...