MATTHEW 1:23, ISAIAH 7:11, a prophecy fulfilled?

[oneGOD]

Before we get into this subject I would like you to think about this scenario:

You are a king ,your country is being invaded by the strongest empire on earth and you know you have no chance against it.
Then comes a prophet and tell you this: " God has given you a sign and that sign is that a virgin will be born in 800 hundred years and she will have a son"

Put yourself in this king's position and see how ridiculous this will sound like. You are worried about being eliminate and someone tells you about what will happen in 800 years. No way Isaiah is talking about Jesus because the purpose of his visit is to inform Ahaz that Judah will not be eliminated.

Matthew 1:23 ""Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). "

ISAIAH 7:11 " 11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test."
13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

1) the word "virgin" is translated incorrectly , the proper meaning is “girl” or “maid”
2) No where in the bible Jesus is called Imman'u-el. And it does not mean Jesus or messiah
3) Prophecy is actually fulfilled in ISAIAH 8:3
ISAIAH 8 " 3: And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz;
4: for before the child knows how to cry `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

The sign is fulfilled and the son is found and Assyria did not take Judah down.

[Alpha]

The New John Gill Exposition: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son;
this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in [Isaiah 8:8] nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in (Isaiah 8:3) nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as (Genesis 24:43) [Exodus 2:8] (Psalms 68:25) (Song of Solomon 1:3) [6:8] and even in (Proverbs 30:19) which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture.

And shall call his name Immanuel;
which is, by interpretation, "God with us", (Matthew 1:23) whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See (John 1:14) (1 Timothy 3:16) .

[Scorpion]

Isaiah 7:14 States -

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Firstly ... you did not provide any evidence as to HOW this is a wrong translation. Thats quite misleading. I will refute this right here...

The Hebrew word i want to look at is Almah ... I want to clarify some things about this scripture and the Hebrew translation...

===============================================

The virgin birth (more correctly, "virginal conception") of Jesus is clearly taught in the New Testament (Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35). According to Matthew 1:22,23, it was in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14*: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [‘almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

The focus of this article is to see whether the Hebrew word ‘almah is best translated virgin. The question may seem impious, but even a staunchly conservative translation like the NASB, in the margin, gives the alternate translation maiden. Does ‘almah mean virgin? If it does not, is there a Hebrew word which clearly does? If so, why did Isaiah not use it? The answer to the first question is no; to the second, yes. The answer to the third question will grow out of the discussion of the first two, as well as a look at the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Reliable lexicons all say that ‘almah means maiden, young woman, young woman of marriageable age. The idea of virginity is neither affirmed nor denied by the word. It is, rather, an inclusive word for a young adolescent female; it occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3,6:8; Isaiah 7:14). There is no clear Old Testament example for the meaning "married woman," though some commentators suggest one "newly married" as a possible meaning. That the word can include the idea of virginity is clear from its use in connection with the yet unmarried Rebekah who is called a "maiden" (‘almah) in Genesis 24:43, but a "virgin" (bethulah) previously in verse 16. "Virgin" is then followed by an explanatory note: "and no man had relations with her." This is the first occurrence of the word bethulah in the Hebrew Bible; it is significant that at this early stage an explanation of the word is given. An examination of the more than 10 occurrences of bethulah in the Old Testament shows that it, and not ‘almah, correctly conveys the meaning "virgin." (See, for example, Exodus 22:16,17; Deuteronomy 22:19,23,28; Judges 19:24.)

Why then does Isaiah 7:14 use the word ‘almah? The answer lies in the historical circumstances surrounding the giving of the promise. It was made to Ahaz, king of Judah, at a time when Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel were threatening to invade his land and set up their own king (verses 1–6). The Lord told Ahaz this would not happen and encouraged him to believe it (verses 7–9). The Lord even encouraged Ahaz to ask for a sign, which he refused to do (verses 10–13). Then follows the statement, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign" (verse 14).

Isaiah 7:14 is a good example of what some call double reference—a prophecy that will be fulfilled both in the near future and in the distant future. Two Old Testament examples illustrate this.

The Book of Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation, which will take place (9:27,11:31,12:11). This was fulfilled initially in the second century B.C. when Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid king of Syria, invaded Jerusalem and sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Jewish temple. Yet Jesus spoke of the abomination of desolation as yet to come (Matthew 24:15).

A second example is found in what is often called the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12–16). The offspring of David who is promised is certainly Solomon, who "shall build a house for My name" (verse 13) but who will also be guilty of iniquity (verse 14). Yet the covenant has elements that cannot apply to Solomon, for the Lord says, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (verse 13), and "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever" (verse 16).

In Isaiah 7:14, a double fulfillment is intended, and this is precisely why the more inclusive word ‘almah is used since it may include the idea of virginity but not necessarily. There has been and forever will be only one Virgin Birth. If our passage used the word bethulah, then the Child promised in the near future would have to be virgin born as well as a Child in the distant future. I quote from the Beacon Bible Commentary:

"The Bible affirms only one Virgin Birth, not two, as would be the case if we both accept the historical accuracy of Isaiah 7 and at the same time insist that ‘almah here must be translated ‘virgin."’

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the identity of the ‘almah in the immediate fulfillment of the promise. Suggestions include Isaiah’s wife, Ahaz’s wife, or someone else of the royal household.

Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew text. For reasons best known to the translators of the Septuagint, they rendered ‘almah as "virgin" (parthenos) only in this passage and in Genesis 24:43, where the context already spoke of Rebekah as a virgin. In the other occurrences it is rendered more accurately by neanis (young woman, maiden) four times and neotis (youth) once. Even though the Septuagint is often a free translation and cannot be placed on a par with the inspired Hebrew text, perhaps it was providential that its translators selected "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14.

Concerning the name of the prophesied Child—Immanuel (‘immanuel)—which means "God with us," the birth of the Child in Isaiah’s day was to be a sign (‘oth) that God was with His people and would bring deliverance. The name did not necessarily mean that the Child was God, since the Old Testament contains more than 110 personal names that are compounded with the word God ‘(El). Yet when applied to Christ it, of course, speaks of His deity. Two chapters later is another very familiar prophecy: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us"; and this promised One is called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" (Isaiah 9:6). The Broadman Bible Commentary states it well:

"In the fullness of time…this ancient prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) was transposed to a higher key, and the messianic reign was inaugurated at the birth of Jesus. The promise of God’s presence with His people (Immanuel) was uniquely fulfilled in the advent of His Son."

*Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

Anthony D. Palma

===============================================

Also read the following, it answers your questions. Sorry i have to give you what other's say, others explain it better than me. This is very contraversial subject, it cannot be dismissed simply by saying it's a mistranslation, you obviously dont know much about the Bible, thats why your quick in falling...

Ha Alma

Robert S. Fritzius - 305 Hillside Drive Starkville, MS

On page 213 of Worlds in Collision (MacMillan 1950) Velikovsky says:

Isaiah appeared before King Ahaz and offered him a sign, on the earth or "in the height above." Ahaz refused: "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord" (7:12).
This sign from the Lord was intended to give Ahaz the courage to resist an ultimatim to throw open the gates of Jerusalem to northern invaders.

Velikovsky goes on to discuss selected aspects of upcoming devastations, (that he attributes to inter-planetary encounters) which are detailed in subsequent passages of Isaiah. He does not, however, address Isaiah's rejoinder to Ahaz's rejection of God's offer for a sign, to wit:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 KJV)
Keep in mind that even though mainstream Christianity holds this passage in high regard as a distant prophecy of the birth of Jesus it is also of importance to develop an understanding of what the very short term prophecy to Ahaz meant.

Isaiah had just relayed an offer from God to Ahaz regarding a "keep the faith" sign which Ahaz would be compelled to admit was outside the control of men. (It is doubtful that he would take Isaiah's word that such and such young lady was indeed a virgin, nor that he would be willing to wait months for the confirmation. He needed to know right away.) Ahaz had been given two categories to choose from: (1) a sign in the depths below or (2) a sign in the heights above. Choices from the first category could include things like: an earthquake at the fourth hour on friday; the ground splitting wide open a safe distance away on command; the dead sea drying up abruptly; etc. From the second category he could have his pick from things like: fire falling from heaven; an explosion on the moon; or a tornado standing still over some specified location for a specified time; etc.

My view of verse 7:14 is that God decided to give Ahaz a sign from category two, from the height above. (Velikovsky apparently was pushing that view too. He places the phrase "in the height above" in quotes.) I say this in part because the middle part of verse 7:14 should properly be translated as:

Behold The Virgin shall conceive,...

not

Behold a virgin shall conceive, ...



The Hebrew word 'ALMAH translated as "virgin" is immediately preceeded by the definite article HA. We have HA'ALMAH. "The Virgin" is a better translation.

I suggest that the sign intended for Ahaz, concerned something in the heavens, known unambiguously to both Isaiah and Ahaz as "The Virgin."

If so, what was "The Virgin" of Isaiah's day? This is a rhetorical question.

In his book "The Hebrew Goddess" (1978) Raphael Patai makes the following statements which are very parallel with Velikovsky's version of how the ancient world perceived Venus for a thousand years or so starting with the Exodus. (He does not mention Velikovsky.)

On the goddess of love and war:

Her name varied from culture to culture--Inanna in Sumer, Ishtar in Akkad, Anath in Canaan--yet her character remained the same for centuries, even millennia. The life domains in which she primarily manifested herself were love and war, and her personality exhibited everywhere the same four basic traits of chasity and promiscuity, motherliness and bloodthirstiness. (p. 154) The oldest of them was Inanna ... That she was regarded a virgin is evident from the two epithets which accompany her name: ... "the maid Inanna" and "the pure Inanna." Yet throughout Sumerian history she was the goddess primarily responsible for sexual love, procreation, and fertility, ... (p. 154) In the Babylonian Ishtar, however a certain shift occurred in the balance between the virginal and promiscuous poles of her character: her virginal aspect was underplayed, while her promiscuity was emphasized... (p. 155) One of her titles was "sweet-voiced mistress of the gods." Yet she was also "the most awesome of the goddesses," Ishtar of the battlefield," clad in divine fire, carrying the melammu-headwear, who would rain fire on the enemies." (pp. 155-156) In astrology, the Iranians themselves regarded her as the personification of the planet VENUS. (p. 157) [emphasis added]

On the Jewish Kabbalistic Matronit:

The same four traits of chastity and promiscuity, motherliness and bloodthirstiness, characterize the Matronit, the daughter-goddess of Kabbalistic literature. (p. 158) ... the prototype [of the Matronit] was the Sumerian Inanna, whose features can be clearly recognized in the Babylonian Ishtar, the Canaanite Anath, and the Persian Anahita. (p. 177)
A related matter; on the Queen of heaven:

... Nevertheless, it is from Biblical sources that we know the names of the three goddesses who were worshiped by the ancient Hebrews down to the days of the Babylonian exile: Asherah, Astarte, and the Queen of heaven, who was probably identical with [the Canaanite] Anath. (p. 19) [For Queen of Heaven See Jeremiah 7:18.]
I contend that the planet Venus was Isaiah's Virgin.

If Venus was the virgin, what/who was Immanuel?

We read:


Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. ... (Isaiah 7:15)
If one chooses to look at this verse from an astronomical viewpoint (and I do) it could be considered as describing the movements of a smaller planetary body (the child) passing through the manna tail of the comet Venus, i.e., eating butter and honey.

Refusing the evil and choosing the good, in the astronomical sense, would refer to the object settling into an orbit which removes it from any more close encounters with the earth-moon system. This object may have been Mars which Velikovsky says became especially prominent to earth-bound observers starting in 747 BC. (See WiC pp. 238-239)

[oneGOD]

Anyway scorp, what you fail to realize is that this prophecy accured 700 years before Jesus.
Ahaz was asking for a sign that it will show him he will defeat his enemies, so Isiaih told him that the sign is that a a boy will be born.

Now you tell me, how stupid would this sound if Isiaih is actually talking about Jesus?
Ahaz is asking for a sign that will be fullfilled so that he knows he will defeat them, and the sign was fullfilled when you read the rest of the chapter and that boy was born.

This will sound dumb is Isiaih was like: umm...your sign king Ahaz is that in 700 years, Jesus will be born, that is the sign that shows you will defeat your enemies.....
come on now, no one can be this dumb and believe this is about Jesus (pbuh), read the whole story, it's just so clear.

read below again:

You are a king ,your country is being invaded by the strongest empire on earth and you know you have no chance against it.
Then comes a prophet and tell you this: " God has given you a sign and that sign is that a virgin will be born in 800 hundred years and she will have a son"

Put yourself in this king's position and see how ridiculous this will sound like. You are worried about being eliminate and someone tells you about what will happen in 800 years. No way Isaiah is talking about Jesus because the purpose of his visit is to inform Ahaz that Judah will not be eliminated.

About the name : Emmanuel

If we are to use the logic of your outstanding christian scholars, then there are many Gods beside Jesus in the bible, that is if Jesus was ever called Emmanuel.

1)Ezekiel means "Strong God". It also means "Yahweh is Strong God".
2)Joshua means "Yahweh Saves". I guess Jesus was supposed to be named Joshua according to your scholars
3)Eliab means "my God is Father". This refutes that Jesus was the first to call God his father, this is a common Jewish name
4)Michael means "who is like God". Surprise...lmao.
www.jewsforjudaism.org

[Alpha]

oneGOD, Christ was the ultimate fulfilment of that prophecy as stated in Matthew. I'd rather believe the Holy Bible, which is divine rather than human in origin.

[oneGOD]

Well, obviously the ghost writer of Matthew just slammed this verse out of context. Logic simply says that this can't be a prophecy about Jesus, since Ahaz asked for the sign that will show him he will defeat his enemies, logic says this ain't about Jesus but about a son to be born as a sign for Ahaz and that is 700 years before Jesus.

[Alpha]

Well, obviously the ghost writer of Matthew just slammed this verse out of context. Logic simply says that this can't be a prophecy about Jesus, since Ahaz asked for the sign that will show him he will defeat his enemies, logic says this ain't about Jesus but about a son to be born as a sign for Ahaz and that is 700 years before Jesus.

Since you want to use logic, then you should realize that you arguing a verse on the virgin birth on Christ is futile. You're a Muslim, you believe in the virgin birth of Christ. If you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, then do not say the writer took the Isaiah verse out of context. Should I believe you when you say the writter took the verse out of context, or should I believe God who has made it clear that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy? Again, that's why I say non-Christians have no right to interpret the Bible. The things of God are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14>But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

[oneGOD]

Hi Alpha,

This has nothing to do in what I believe in, I believe he was born to a virgin. I am talking about the context of the whole prophecy showing that it's not about Jesus(pbuh).

I'm just showing you that the ghost writer of Matthew made a mistake.

[Scorpion]

oneGod:
This is a VERY contraversial issue here ... Please dont give up on this thread, its hard for me too.

My Dad says though ... That Matthew 1:23 is referring to what Isaiah 7:14 says and that this is a prophecy about Jesus.

on htmlbible.com this is what it says ...

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Behold Isa 7:14


Thats interesting is that htmlbible.com have referenced Isaiah 7:14 for this scripture too and also Both scriptures use the word Emmanuel.

I will do some research on this and post my findings to you sometime tomorrow.

God Bless.

[Scorpion]

Ok i feel on fire, im just going to start posting up my results right here...

Firstly ... The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is never incorrect, man is though.

So firstly i beleive the contraversary exists around this due to human's poor understanding.

Right, now ...

One of the reasons why i know Matthew 1:23 is talking about Isaiah 7:14 is because the word "Emmanuel" is used in both the verses ... and Matthew at that time was talking about Jesus.

the word Emmanuel means "God With Us" ... Jesus WAS GOD WITH US. He was the word who became "flesh and dwelt among us" and was God with us in the form of a human.

Now ... before i start, i would like to point out that whenever in doubt ... always ALWAYS read the verse in context, which means ... to read a few verses above and a verss below the one you are studying to know what is properly going on.

Heres Isaiah 7 verses 10 to 16 say ...

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Behold Matt 1:23

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

.... Now lets read Matthew 1 verses 18 to 23 to get the context ...

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
espoused Luke 1:27

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
put Deut 24:1-3 Jer 3:1 Matt 5:31, 19:7 Mark 10:4

20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
dream Gen 20:3, Gen 31:24
Holy Ghost Luke 1:35

21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
JESUS Luke 1:31 Acts 4:12, Acts 13:38

22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet (Isaiah), saying,

23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Behold Isa 7:14

The context clearly shows Isaiah was referring to Jesus in this and should be enough to end this debate right here. But i will go further and break this down further...

Isaiah does not explain what Emmanuel means, but Matthew 1:23 says..

which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jesus was God with us

Isaiah was speaking to King Ahaz if you read Isaiah chapter 7, if you've read about King Ahaz, he was a wicked king, he did not follow the God of his forefathers, but followed idols. Ahaz even sacrified his own sons to the gods of the demons.

At the dark hour of Ahaz's life, Isaiah came to him and gave him this word.

There was a child born in Isaiah's time, not much is known about him, but it was a sign to them that god was with them.

Isaiah 9:6 says - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Some scholar's beleive this baby was Isaiah's son. This was a sign to the people though.

What did Immanuel mean to Matthew? What did it mean to this Jewish writer?

This was a sign, a DUAL PROPHECY ... That God was with King Ahaz and with the people ... and that ALSO one day in the future ... there would be born another Son from a virgin who would deliver his people.

Matthew knew what Emmanuel meant to Isaiah and what it meant to the Jews. The word Emmanuel signifies Gods presence with the people, that God is there, God is WITH us.

I really dont need to go further with this, the Context of Matthew 1 verses 18-23 clears everything up. It was a dual prophecy, 2 signs. One for king Ahaz, and one for the Jews.

[oneGOD]

Hi scorp,

Obviouslym you didn't read Isiaih right, because Ahaz asked for s ign showing him he will defeat his enemy. Again, Isiaiah shows up and tell him that that sign which he WILL SEE is that a son will be born to a maid.

The ghost writer of Matthew took taht prophecy out of context and applied it to Jesus.

The name Immanual is a common jewish name. It does not mean that Jesus is God because there are other names in Hebrew implying that people are God when they are not actually:

1)Ezekiel means "Strong God". It also means "Yahweh is Strong God".
2)Joshua means "Yahweh Saves". s
3)Eliab means "my God is Father". Jesus calling God his father is not unique, and God calling his people sons or son is not unique either.
4)Michael means "who is like God".

This was a sign, a DUAL PROPHECY

And I see now that you can not deny that the sign was also for Ahaz to SEE and know he will defeat his enemy, and now you are using the concept of DUAL PROPHECY.
Your Logic is kinda stupid, here is why:
You insist that A VIRGIN will conceive a son, if this is a dual prophecy then there existed another virgin before Mary and conveived a son.
See why your logic doesn't work here?

The word Emmanuel signifies Gods presence with the people, that God is there, God is WITH us.

Again, check the list of names above, By the way, Emmanuel is one of the most common jewish names at that time. ALso, Jesus is no where in the NT called Immanuel except this one time when Matthew forged that prophecy into a messaianic one.

[Alpha]

oneGOD, it's either we take your word that it is a mistake in Matthew, or we take the Bible's word (which is proven to be divine rather than human in origin) that the prophecy was on Christ. Like I said:

Non-Christians have no right to interpret the Bible. The things of God are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14>But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

When Adam and Eve sinned, God said "cursed be the ground for your sake." Soon after that (before the flood) man was rebellious and God's saying was right. Now, the fact that God's prediction came true before the flood, does that mean His saying does not apply to human life after the flood to this generation? How then does the prophecy in Isaiah (if it refers to Ahaz) does not in its true fulfillment refer to Christ?

You insist that A VIRGIN will conceive a son, if this is a dual prophecy then there existed another virgin before Mary and conveived a son.
See why your logic doesn't work here?

This is just proof that the prophecy in Isaiah does refer to Christ, because it says a "virgin" will conceive. You can interpret the word "virgin" however you want, but it can also mean what it means--and we already had this discussion: http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 3415#13415

[Scorpion]

OneGod: Read the context of the verse from Matthew chapter 1 verses 18 to 23 and you'll see that Matthew was referring to Isaiah. I really dont need to take it further, the scriptures explain themselves.

You'll notice that Jesus called his Father "Abba" Father, i will give you some study info about this sometime and why Abba Father is different than just 'Father'.

Remember ... Jesus was BOTH God and Man, God-man if you like. This is one of the reason's he would pray to the Father and also called Father "God" ... Because he was FULLY HUMAN. When he died on the cross, he represented a human, because he took OUR place on the cross remember, he paid OUR PRICE FOR US. It should have been us on that cross.

I really dont need to waste my time argueing with you, Read the context of Matthew like i said.

Defination of the word Virgin from Strongs Concordance:

H5959
עלמה
‛almâh
al-maw'
Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, VIRGIN.


This was a DUAL PROPHECY, because the sign God gave to Ahaz was not via a virgin birth, There has been only 1 virgin birth in history, thats Mary's. The Prophecy Isaiah gave is Dual because its a sign for Ahaz and a FUTURE sign for the Jews is well for their Promised deliverer, the Messiah.

Please read the scriptures in context to get their meaning, read Isaiah chapter 17, all of it, and read also Isaiah chapter 8 verses 5 to 11 properly.

AND read Matthew in context is well.

[Omega]

You'll notice that Jesus called his Father "Abba" Father, i will give you some study info about this sometime and why Abba Father is different than just 'Father'

So True Scorpz, Abba denotes a more personal relationship then just Father, go and learn what that means onegod.

There is absolute unity in Heaven and all who dwell there are in sync.

If you want to know what that means, it's less than a stones throw away.

And whether you realise it in scripture, the Messiah is God. Reject it and you will one day face one who claim to be the messiah and God, and will call himself "Allah" and will imitate the resurrection of Christ and will deceive the world by his similarities to Christ{God}

Who is currently at work in that area of expertise? hmmm...


God Bless!

[oneGOD]

When Adam and Eve sinned, God said "cursed be the ground for your sake." Soon after that (before the flood) man was rebellious and God's saying was right. Now, the fact that God's prediction came true before the flood, does that mean His saying does not apply to human life after the flood to this generation? How then does the prophecy in Isaiah (if it refers to Ahaz) does not in its true fulfillment refer to Christ?

And as I see now, you can't deny the VERY FACT that the sign was for Ahaz to see he will defeat his enemies.

As I said above this can not be a dual prophecy for the very simply fact that you insist on the word "virgin". If this is true, then there is another virgin before Mary who conceived a boy.

It's rather simple to read Isiaih and clearly see that he is not refering to Jesus in anyway, as you continue reading of course.

And now you are faced with the fact tha the ghost writer of Matthew made a mistake, will you admit it? I don't think so.

This is just proof that the prophecy in Isaiah does refer to Christ, because it says a "virgin" will conceive. You can interpret the word "virgin" however you want, but it can also mean what it means--and we already had this discussion:

Again, if this word really means "virgin" then we know that there is another virgin before Mary who conceived a boy.
To make it easier, I suggest you accept that it means a maid, that Jesus is the only human born to a virgin, and admit that ghost writer of Matthew made a mistake as he did on so many occasions.

OneGod: Read the context of the verse from Matthew chapter 1 verses 18 to 23 and you'll see that Matthew was referring to Isaiah. I really dont need to take it further, the scriptures explain themselves.

I did scorp, and it's obvious, he made a mistake. The sign is for Ahaz to see that he will defeat his enemy, how dumb will this sound if Isiaih shows up and say : you're sign is that in 700 years a boy will be born. No logic at all here. The sign was fulfilled when the boy was born in chapter 8.

This was a DUAL PROPHECY, because the sign God gave to Ahaz was not via a virgin birth, There has been only 1 virgin birth in history, thats Mary's. The Prophecy Isaiah gave is Dual because its a sign for Ahaz and a FUTURE sign for the Jews is well for their Promised deliverer, the Messiah

.

I'll quote myself again to show that your logic is flawed:

Your Logic is kinda stupid, here is why:
You insist that A VIRGIN will conceive a son, if this is a dual prophecy then there existed another virgin before Mary and conveived a son.
See why your logic doesn't work here?

Again, if this word really means "virgin" then we know that there is another virgin before Mary who conceived a boy.
To make it easier, I suggest you accept that it means a maid, that Jesus is the only human born to a virgin, and admit that ghost writer of Matthew made a mistake as he did on so many occasions.

[Omega]

Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means "virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the word into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Why would the Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.

______________
1. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
2. Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

[Believer]

As I said above this can not be a dual prophecy for the very simply fact that you insist on the word "virgin". If this is true, then there is another virgin before Mary who conceived a boy.

If Jesus wasn't born from a virgin then Islam is false too.

What is the Hebrew word for "virgin"? Is it the same for a young woman?
Jesus Christ was born of a young woman, Mary must only have been 14 or so, certainly she was a virgin when she bore Jesus Christ.

[webmaster]

If Jesus wasn't born from a virgin then Islam is false too.

Islam is false and they know it, that's why they are saying this stuff!
They would destroy their own book to prove the Bible wrong.

Weird huh?

[oneGOD]

Nice

That's all you have to say, and now because none of you is actually making sense and you all are using flawed logic ....DUAL PROPHECY...LOL.

This is not a dual prophecy for the reasons stated above. It is only between Isiaih and Ahaz.

The Ghost writer of Matthew showed nothing but ignorance of the Jewish material.

Admit it....MAtthew is WRONG.

[Believer]

Jesus was born of a virgin, do you deny this?
Your attempts to defraud Matthew are just pathetic.

[Scorpion]

OneGod:

What did i tell you? I told you that the prophecy is A DUAL PROPHECY ... can you not get this through your head?

Listen mate ... Isaiah's prophecy was for AHAZ AND FOR JESUS IS WELL. Got that?

It was as a sign to Ahaz for his dark hour and a prophecy of a deliverer for the Jews in the future.

Would you like to see some examples of dual prophecy in the Bible? Hmmmm? Yes or no?

[webmaster]

onegod: you are starting to sound Jewish, have you converted to Judaism?

[Alpha]

oneGOD, let's take a look at your "flawed logic." One of the reasons you say the prophecy isn't about Jesus is because He was not called "Immanuel." (He was by the way--Matt 1:23). But I do not see the child born during Isaiah's time being called Immanuel either!

Also: "Some Muslims have taken over the atheist reasoning based on anti-supernaturalist presuppositions which claims that Isaiah 7:14 does not speak about a virgin but just about a young woman. This is to deflect from the prophetic evidence and authority of the Bible. The below article is a posting from the TCode mailing list where a Professor of Hebraic Studies answers to a doubter of this passage."......... http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html

[Scorpion]

Thanks Alpha, the Hebrew translations explain by the site make perfect sense to me.

Case closed.

[oneGOD]

Hi,

Let's see. I read the link, and it's rather funny and misleading also.

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

Let's read:

Isaiah 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. [12] But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. [13] And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? [14] Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [15] Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. [16] For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (KJV)

Wow, what do we understand from that?

The event is to take place in Ahaz time as you can see clearly when you read the above verses. What sense does it make to offer a sign to Ahaz if it wasn’t going to come to pass within his lifetime?

Here is what other christian bibles translate:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Revised Standard Version)

Because you do, the Lord of His own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel. (Revised English Bible)

The link you provided was right when it used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin", but they deceive here for the following simple reason:

The Septuagint is the Greece translation of the OT. The Jews only translated the first five books of Moses, BUT the rest was translaled by NON JEWS.

check the following verses please from Isiaih:

Isaiah 23:4 Be thou ashamed, O Zidon: for the sea hath spoken, [even] the strength of the sea, saying, I travail not, nor bring forth children, neither do I nourish up young men, [nor] bring up virgins. (KJV)

[23:12] And he said, Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon: arise, pass over to Chittim; there also shalt thou have no rest. (KJV)

[62:5] For [as] a young man marrieth a virgin, [so] shall thy sons marry thee: and [as] the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, [so] shall thy G-d rejoice over thee. (KJV)

The word "almah" is not used here. The word "be’tulah" is used here instead.

So of course all you can say here is that it's a dual prophecy.
I'll repeat myself again and expose your flawed logic:
If this is a dual prophecy and we are to take your very trusted KJV translation, THEN there existed another virgin before virgin Mary.
And since this is not true, then that word can not mean virgin.

[Believer]

Again, Christ was born of a virgin.
What more can we say? Jesus WAS born from the virgin Mary.
Supposedly you Muslims believe this, so you're just an odd one.

[Alpha]

If this is a dual prophecy and we are to take your very trusted KJV translation, THEN there existed another virgin before virgin Mary. And since this is not true, then that word can not mean virgin.

You make a semi good argument oneGOD. But Scorpion's logic is not flawed whatsoever. Let's say we accept the translation of virgin meaning young woman. Then the dual prophecy still exists because both Mahershalalhashbaz and Jesus were born of a young woman. Therefore the saying in Matthew is legit.

And what have you said that the link I gave you does not already respond to? Let me see if you really read it as you claim.

[Scorpion]

OneGod: read through the below information, its on a site i visit often, it gives a FANTASTIC explanation of the Messianic Birth and Isaiah 7:14 contraversary and goes through Hebrew and Greek translations and all sorts ...

ISAIAH 7:14 AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH


Recently there has been some debate presented over the issue of the virgin
birth of the Messiah. Because the issue has caused such debate I felt that
I should address some of the concerns that have been raised.


LOOKING AT ISAIAH 7:14 IN CONTEXT

To begin with we must examine the controversial prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.

The passage in question reads:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [ALMA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)

Now there are three issues I want to look at here. The first is the
meaning of the Hebrew word ALMA and why it would be used here. The second
is the reading of the other ancient versions of Isaiah 7:14. And the
third is the overall context of this passage.

Now great controversy surrounds the Hebrew word ALMA in Isaiah 7:14.

It has been suggested that the Hebrew word "ALMA" simply means "young
woman" and that if Isaiah had intended to refer to a "virgin" he would have
used the Hebrew word BETULAH. SO the question arises, what is an
ALMA? What is a BETULAH and why would Isaiah use the word ALMA rather than
BETULAH if it were to be a virgin birth?

The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose
characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is
used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare
Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA
clearly refers to virgins. In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company
Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as "virgin" in Gen. 24:43 and in Song
1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses
ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the
cognate of BETULAH. For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists,
Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of
Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as "virgin" (Almah in
Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used
ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman
who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).


Now it has been suggested that Isaiah 7:14 refers not to a birth to a
"virgin" but to a birth to a "young woman".

Now in order to understand how this passage was understood anciently we
should look at the other ancient versions of the book of Isaiah. The
Aramaic Peshitta Tanak has:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [B'TULTA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)

The Aramaic word B'TULTA clearly means "virgin" and not simply "young lady".

Now lets look at the Greek Septuagint reading:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [PARTHENOS] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)

The Greek PARTHENOS means "virgin" and not simply "young lady".

Thus both the ancient Aramaic and ancient Greek versions of Isaiah 7:14
understand ALMA here to refer to a virgin.

Finally I want to examine the context of Isaiah 7:14. First I will want to
examine the immediate context of Isaiah 7 and then the broader context of
this whole section of Isaiah.

Literal translation of Hebrew of Is. 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give to you(pl) a sign:
behold the ALMA will conceive and bear a son
and she will call his name Immanuel.

"you" in verse 14 is plural. By contrast King Achaz is singular you in
verses 11 and 16-17. The sign to
Achaz was that before a child should know how to choose good from bad, the
siege would end (16-17). That child was NOT be the newborn child of verse
14 the child is Isaiah's son Sh'ar-Yashuv from Isaiah 7:3. The prophecy of
Is. 7:14 is not addressed only to Achaz as is the rest of the prophecy.

The following literal translation clears things up: (s)=singular (pl)=plural

7:3a Then YHWH said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Achaz, you(s) and
Shear-Jashub your(s) son...
7:10 ...YHWH spoke again to Achaz saying:
7:11 "Ask a sign for yourself(s) from YHWH your(s) God; ask it either in
the depth or in the height above."
7:12 But Achaz said: "I will not ask, nor will I test YHWH"
7:13 Then he said: "Hear now, O House of David! Is it a small thing for
you(pl) to weary men, but will you(pl) weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give to you(pl) a sign: behold the
ALMA will conceive and bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel.
7:15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and
choose the good.
7:16 For behold before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose
the good, the land that you(s) dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
7:17 YHWH will bring the King of Assyria upon you(s) and your(s) people and
your(s) father's house...

Note the clear distinction to what is addressed to you(pl) and what is
addressed to you(s) (Achaz) and how this creates a distinction between the
newborn in verse 14 and the child in verse 16. Thus the birth in Is. 7:14
is not a sign to Achaz alone.

Now Isaiah 8:8-9:7 also speaks of this same "Immanuael" figure. Thus it is
clear that the "Immanuel" of Is. 7:14 & 8:8 is also the child born in
Isaiah 9:6-7.

Now the NT clearly applies these passages to Yeshua as Messiah. Rev. 21:3
alludes to Is. 7:14 & 8:8, 10. 1Kefa 3:14-15 cites Isaiah 8:12-13 in
regards to Messiah. Romans 9:32 & 1Kefa 2: apply Is. 8:14 to
Messiah. Hebrews 2:13 applies Isaiah 8:17-18 to Messiah. Finally Mt.
4:15-16 and Luke 1:79 apply Isaiah 8:23-9:1 (9:1-2) to Messiah.

Of the 5 surviving fragments of the ancient Netzarim Midrash on Isaiah,
three of them fall in this section of Isaiah and all three apply the
passages to Yeshua.

Moreover the Talmud applies Is. 8:14 to Messiah (b.San. 38a) and the Targum
Jonathan on Isaiah applies Is. 9:6-7 to the Messiah as well.

Finally the figure in Isaiah 9:6-7 certainly seems to be the same as that
in Is. 11:1f. This is important because EVEYONE agrees that Is. 11:1f
refers to the Messiah.

Thus by examining the overall context of Isaiah 7:14 it becomes clear that
Isaiah 7:14 is indeed a messianic prophecy. However this would not seem to
be the case if it did not refer to a virgin birth.


LOOKING AT MATTHEW 1 AND LUKE 1

Now is clear from examining the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke
that they each describe a virgin birth. Matthew 1:18 indicates that Miriam
was found to be "with child of the Ruach HaKodesh" "before they [Yosef and
Miriam] came together". Matt. 1:18-25 record that Yosef had to deal with
this unusual pregnancy and Mt. 1:25 specifies that Yosef "knew her not"
until after Yeshua was born. A similar account appears in Luke
1:26-35. Moreover Matthew 1:18-25 actually cites the story as a
fulfillment of the prophecy of Is. 7:14. Thus in order to reject the
virgin birth of Messiah one must also reject the clear account of Mt.
1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35. As a result a rejection of the virgin birth of
Yeshua must also entail a rejection of at least parts of the "New
Testament" canon.

DID PAUL KNOW?

Now it has been suggested that it is somehow suspicious that the virgin
birth is mentioned in the New Testament only in M. 1:18-25 and in Luke
1:26-35. Some have asked why does Paul not mention a virgin birth of the
Messiah. Well the truth is that Paul DOES in fact allude to the virgin
birth of Messiah.
In Galatians 4:4 Paul writes:

But when the fullness of the time had come,
God sent forth his Son, born of a woman,
born under the Torah.

Now normally Paul uses the phrase "under the Torah" to describe a false
theology held to by his opponents.
But here Paul uses the term with irony AGAINST his opponents. He points
out that Messiah fulfilled a Torah prophecy about Messiah in that he was
God's "Son, born of a woman."

This is a reference to an implied prophecy in Gen. 3:15 which speaks of the
Messianic figure what would one day crush the serpent. This Messianic
figure is referred to as "her seed" even though Adam was present. The
implication would seem to be from the context that the redeemer would be
her seed but not HIS seed. Moreover the Targums on Gen. 3:15 and Midrash
Rabbah all apply this passage to Messiah.

However even if we were to acknowledge that Paul never mentions a virgin
birth, that would not prove that he did not know of one. An absence of
evidence is NOT an evidence of absence.


THE CLAIM THAT YESHUA WAS A MAMZER

Another factor that must be considered is the fact that from the very
beginning Yeshua's enemies labeled him as a mamzer (bastard). For example
in Yochanan 8:41 Yeshua's enemies imply that they view him as a "son of
fornication". Moreover in even the earliest of Rabbinic writings (such as
the Toldot Yeshu) Yeshua is attacked for being a mamzer. These attacks
attest to the mutually accepted fact that Yosef was NOT Yeshua's biological
father.


NETZARIM AND EBIONITES

One of the best ancient descriptions we have of the ancient Netzarim is
made by the ancient writer Epiphanius who says of them:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

Epiphanius contrasts this description of the Nazarenes with a description
of the Ebionites in the following section of Panarian. Epiphanius described
the Ebionites as using a version of Matthew which omitted the first two
chapters and began with the story of the ministry of Yochanan (Pan.
30:13:6) Epiphanius notes that this is because the Ebionite version of
Matthew was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated (30:13:2).
This in contrast to the Nazarenes whom he said had Matthew "in its
entirety". Moreover while Epiphanius says of the Nazarenes: "They use...
the New Testament..." (Epiphanius; Panarion 20)
Irenaeus writes of the Ebionites: "But the Ebionites use only...
Matthew..." (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 1:16:2). So the Nazarenes used the
"New Testament" and had Matthew "in its entirety" but the Ebionites used
only Matthew in a version that was "not wholly complete but falsified and
mutilated" in such a way that it among other things, omitted the virgin
birth story in the first two chapters. It is important to note
that this important distinction (among others) distinguished Nazarenes from
Ebionites.

We must also ask the question, what did Epiphanius mean when he said:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

Well certainly part of what he meant was that the Nazarenes were NOT like
the Ebionites in that they used the entire NT including a Matthew which was
complete and contained the first two chapters (and therefore the virgin
birth account). Epiphanius's book Panarian is a list of groups which Rome
had labeled apostate. In this book Epiphanius seeks to discredit each of
these groups. One issue that comes up frequently is that Epiphanius does
not hesitate to attack groups for rejecting all or parts of books he
[Epiphanius] regarded as canon, or for accepting books that he [Epiphanius]
regarded as apostate or questionable. He even questions the Nazarenes for
using the "Old Testament" right along side of the "New Testament". If the
Nazarenes rejected all or parts of what Epiphanius knew as the "New
Testament" then Epiphanius would not have hesitated to make this clear in
his attack on them. While he clarifies that they use Hebrew Matthew rather
than Greek Matthew (and I believe that they used the Aramaic NT as well) he
does NOT question their
choice of canonical NT books. Now since Epiphanius clearly did not disagree
with the Nazarene NT canon,
if we can determine the NT canon Epiphanius understood as canonical, we
would seem to also know what books the Nazarenes used as NT canon.

At this point I want to address the false claim that the 27 books we know
as the NT canon today was the product of Rome or that it was manipulated
and altered by Roman Catholic Monks. while it is true that Rome officially
acknowledged the 27 books we call the NT as the NT canon at the council of
Carthage in 397 CE this was simply an act to acknowledge the books which
were already accepted as the canon.
Now the earliest list of NT books that matches our own exactly was given by
Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE. Shortly afterward Jerome and Augustine
also listed the same 27 books. Now at this point I should clarify that two
NT canons existed. In the east a 22 book canon was used (it lacked 2Pt.,
2&3 John, Jude and Rev.) while in the west the familiar 27 books were used.
Note that this eastern canon of 22 books was the standard in the Parthian
Empire, which bordered the Roman Empire as a rival and was never under
Roman control. The historian Eusebius (300-320 CE) gave a list of books
identical to our 27 though he omitted Hebrews. This was likely an oversight
because he elsewhere acknowledges Hebrews as a Pauline epistle. Much
earlier Origen (245 CE) had listed the books he called
"homologoumena" (acknowledged) books. His list lacked only 2Peter, 2 & 3
Jn, Jude and Hebrews. Although elsewhere he refers to both 2Peter and
Hebrews. However this may have been an error because he elsewhere
identifies Hebrews as an
authentic Pauline production and he cites 2Peter as "scripture". The only
variances then would be between the 22 book canon of the east and the 27
books of the west). Prior to this time, if we trace back the so-called
"church fathers" of Christendom all the way back through and into the
first century. we find
them quoting as "Scripture" from the same 27 books we know today as
the "New Testament". And if we go all the way back to "New Testament
times" we find Paul quoting Matthew=Luke right along side the Torah as
"Scripture" (1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10 = Lk. 10:7 with Deut. 25:4 as
"scripture") we also find 2Kefa referring to the Pauline Epistles as being
twisted by some as the do with "the rest of the scriptures" (2Kefa
3:15-16). So in NT times it seems that at least Matthew and/or Luke and the
Pauline epistles had already been canonized. In other words, like the
Tanak, the various sections of the NT were being canonized as they went.

Now when Epiphanius wrote in 370 CE of the Nazarenes:

They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)

It is clear that he is saying that the ancient Nazarenes accepted and used
the same New Testament books that we know today as the New Testament. We
believe that it is clear that if this is the case and therefore Mt. 1:18-25
& Luke 1:27-35 are to be accepted as canonical, and in the absence of
manuscript evidence or interpretive issues that would discount the virgin
birth account in these passages, an acceptance of the NT as canon would
require also the acceptance of the virgin birth, and a rejection of the
virgin birth would require a rejection of all or part of the NT canon which
we as Nazarenes accept


PARALLELS WITH PAGANISM

Now it has been suggested that the fact that various pagan deities were
also supposed to have had virgin births, that this itself disproves the
virgin birth of Yeshua.

Parallels with Pagan systems does not disprove something. There are many
parallels between Judaism and/or the Tanak and Paganism.

"Adonai" in the Tanak could be said to parallel the pagan gods Adonus or
Odin...

The cananites worshiped a god named El.

"Elohim" can mean "gods".

Scholars have pointed to many parallels between the Genesis and the
Babylonian Creation stories.

The story of the flood parallels a story in many pagan systems
including the Babylonian system.

The names Abram and Sarai the patriarchs of Judaism parallel the names
Brama and Sivan the patrirachs of Hinduism.

The Torah has parallels with the code of Hammurapi the pagan King from the
days of Avraham, long befor the Torah of Moses.

The word NETZER "shoot/branch" as a title of the Messiah (Is. 11:1f)
parallels the Akkadian word Tammuz (akkadian equivalent of NETZER) the name
of a pagan god.

The names Ester and Mordechai parallel the Babylonian gods Astarte and Mardek.

Who is the "Sun of righteousness" with "wings" in Mal. 4:2? Could it be
said to parallel the Assyrian winged solar disk?

Moses set up an image of a serpent... doesn't that contradict Torah?

Didn't the pagans sacrifice animals, circumcise and have ritual washings?

Is not the Star of David used in Paganism?

All of this just scratching the surface. HaSatan is a counterfeiter.

Such parallels prove nothing, if they did they would disprove Judaism and
the Tanak as well.


AN ISSUE OF SALVATION?

Finally is belief in the virgin birth essential for salvation? The answer
is clearly NO. It certainly NOT a rejection of the blood atonement of
the Messiah. It is not a rejection of the covenant and in and of itself it
is not a rejection of the Messiah or even his status as the "Son of Yah" or
his deity as the middle pillar of the godhead. However rejection of the
virgin birth is a step down the wrong road to be sure. It is a rejection
of the NT canon and a rejection of historical Nazarene Judaism.

James Trimm

Conclusion: Case Closed. Bible wins again.
God bless you oneGod, thanks for your question, but the contraversary should be resolved now unless you would like to refute each and every fact presented above.

Thanks for your time, and make sure you read the above word by word. God Bless.

Scorpz.

[oneGOD]

Dude,

did you even read what I posted above?
You are back to the same old habbit, copy paste stuff.You're site is just dumb and ignorant for te following reason:

I'll quote myself:

here is what your site said:

Now lets look at the Greek Septuagint reading:

Here is what I said:

The Septuagint is the Greece translation of the OT. The Jews only translated the first five books of Moses, BUT the rest was translaled by NON JEWS.

There you go, your church knows that the Septuagint is mostly mistranslated, and that is why you have lots of translation errors when compared to the hebrew bible.

Alpha now clearly understands my argument that this can not be a dual prophecy if the word means virgin.


I would rather you scorpion, read for yourself, use your own logic and answer. It's ok to learn from other websites and books of course, but pasting a whole website will make this forum useless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Alpha,

And what have you said that the link I gave you does not already respond to? Let me see if you really read it as you claim.

You can read my post above and compare it with your link.

You make a semi good argument oneGOD. But Scorpion's logic is not flawed whatsoever. Let's say we accept the translation of virgin meaning young woman. Then the dual prophecy still exists because both Mahershalalhashbaz and Jesus were born of a young woman. Therefore the saying in Matthew is legit.

Now if you want to think of it as dual prophecy, this will not work also. The sign is for Ahaz to SEE and KNOW, it will happen to confirm he will win against the Assyrians. There is no way that Isiaih is telling Ahaz that in 700 years years a boy will be born and this is the sign that the lord will show you to prove to you that you will overcome your enemies. One can clearly read and compare.

The ghost wroter of MATTHEW used the Septuagint. As he did on so many other occasions. When comparing the Septuagint with the hebrew bible we see some major differences.

[Alpha]

Now if you want to think of it as dual prophecy, this will not work also. The sign is for Ahaz to SEE and KNOW, it will happen to confirm he will win against the Assyrians. There is no way that Isiaih is telling Ahaz that in 700 years years a boy will be born and this is the sign that the lord will show you to prove to you that you will overcome your enemies. One can clearly read and compare.

The ghost wroter of MATTHEW used the Septuagint. As he did on so many other occasions. When comparing the Septuagint with the hebrew bible we see some major differences.

You misunderstand. Let's say that the word virgin means literally a virgin and Christ was the only one the prophecy refers to. First, you have to realize the sign was not directed towards Ahaz. God told Ahaz to ask for a sign (Isa 7:11), but Ahaz did not want to put God to the test (Isa 7:12). So God then turns towards Israel ("the House of David") in the following verses. God changed His conversation from Ahaz (a single person) towards the House of David (many people). In fact, it was Ahaz who spoke on the behalf of God TO Israel. The prophecy was not given to Ahaz, but to Israel. Christ is then the fulfillment of the prophecy.

James D. Price: "Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction which was the cause of their fear and dread, but with a promise of survival and hope for the distant future."

[Alpha]

And what have you said that the link I gave you does not already respond to? Let me see if you really read it as you claim.

You can read my post above and compare it with your link.

It already discusses every argument you went over.

The ghost wroter of MATTHEW used the Septuagint. As he did on so many other occasions. When comparing the Septuagint with the hebrew bible we see some major differences.

The site which I gave already discusses the Hebrew translation. The word "Almah" in the Hebrew Bible refers to a "virgin" on some occassions. The word is used several times in the Hebrew Bible when referring to a virgin.

Gen 24:43--where the word refers to the virgin Rebekah.
Exod 2:8--where the word refers to Moses' sister Miriam. Who would question that she was a virgin at the time Moses was born?
Psa 68:25--where the word refers to the female musicians in the procession escorting the king into the sanctuary. There is no reason to question the virginity of these choice young women?
Song 1:3; 6:8--where the word refers to the attendants of Solomon's queens and concubines. There is no reason to question the virginity of these choice young women.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/is7-14.html

[oneGOD]

4: for before the child knows how to cry `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

There you go.

ALso,

For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.

Let's see what you have to say about this now.

[Alpha]

4: for before the child knows how to cry `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

I don't see the problem. This was fulfilled before Christ was born.

For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.

When was Christ born? Clearly after the two kings were long dead.

[oneGOD]

Ya speaking of 700 years before christ of course, that is just non sense.
Funny how you convince yourself this way when it is clear and very obvious. Yes God spoke to the house of David, and the sign is that the child will be born and this sign will confirm that God will destroy the enemies of Judeah.

The sign is fullfilled if you read before chapter 7 and after chapter 8, and you will see that the child have been indeed been born, and before he learned how to cry or whatever, those enemies were defeated.

What common sense would this make if this child is to be born 700 later?

[Scorpion]

Im really getting tired of your claims oneGod ... listen matey, i answered them above that this was a double prophecy ... did you even study the hebrew words above in that last information i posted from the hebroots website?

Hmmm? Did you bother to read every word?

The sign came to pass during Ahaz's time and also was a prophecy of Jesus's birth according to my understabding. I will post more information on this. Be patient, dont jump to conclusion yet. Ok? Patience my friend.

[Alpha]

Ya speaking of 700 years before christ of course, that is just non sense.
Funny how you convince yourself this way when it is clear and very obvious. Yes God spoke to the house of David, and the sign is that the child will be born and this sign will confirm that God will destroy the enemies of Judeah.

The sign is fullfilled if you read before chapter 7 and after chapter 8, and you will see that the child have been indeed been born, and before he learned how to cry or whatever, those enemies were defeated.

What common sense would this make if this child is to be born 700 later?

James D. Price :"Since the prophecy was not given to Ahaz but to Israel, it can now be understood to have shifted from short range to long range; it ceased to be assurance of short term deliverance, and shifted to long range assurance of Messianic hope. When a prophetic sign is given to a nation, its fulfillment is not bound to the life span of any individual of the nation. In fact, the sign often is long range. Since Ahaz had rejected God's help, the only thing left for his people Israel was the impending defeat and destruction which was the cause of their fear and dread, but with a promise of survival and hope for the distant future."

Also, the child whom you refer to did not fulfill the prophecy because he was not called Immanuel. Earlier on you said Christ did not fulfill the sign because He was not called Immanuel. Indeed he was. Just read the gospels. But why do you claim the child in Isaiah is fulfillment of the sign when he was never called Immanuel? Atleast Christ was called Immanuel.
Also, Christ being called Immanuel does not only have to be fulfilled in scripture. People all over the Church refer to Christ as Immanuel. There are hyms which refer to Christ as Immanuel. So the prophecy is about Christ because people today (even in my church) refer to Christ as Immanuel.

There are two solutions:
(1) A dual prophecy in which the word "virgin" means young woman.
(2) A prophecy only invoving Christ

No matter which you choose, Christ is a fulfillment of the prophecy, and Matthew was right.

[Alpha]

Also, the verse that says "for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:4) has nothing to do with the prophecy of Immanuel. I did a little reading and found out that verse refers to the verse before it. Therefore Isaiah 8:4 is talking about Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But Maher-shalal-hash-baz has nothing to do with the sign of the virgin concieving in Isaiah 7.

[oneGOD]

I don't think you understand the symbols behind names in the OT I guess.

Jesus was never ever referred to as Immanuel. No one ever called him that. The only time he was called Immanuel was when supposedly the angel told Mary that she will call him that.

Secondly, you talked about speaking to the house of david. It's true Ahaz refused to test God but as you can read God refused to let his nation be destroyed. Therefore the sign that was promised is that this son will be born to prove that GOS IS WITH US.

As we discussed the notion of that it is a dual prophecy is false. So we are left with the only choice of believing that She is a maid not a virgin. Now, since the kid was promised, right at the beginning of chapter 8 ISIAIH like in the case of Shearjashub names his son with a prophetic significance. The name warns of imminent destruction (the name means literally, “to speed the spoil, he hasteneth the prey”) and it has reference to the imminent destruction of Syria.

Now since we know it can't be a dual prophecy, and since the son was promised to the house of ISrael, and king Ahaz was there to hear the SIGN that will be shown to prove that God Is with HIS people as the name indicates, it's logical to assume that they are the same kid.

When Isiaih spoke to the house of david, Ahaz was part of the house of David, he was surounded by the house of David.

I'll quote myself,

Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah , where a child called "Immanuel" is born. As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same. Both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel. The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".

Before Birth of Immanuel

Isaiah 7:14-16 " The young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste"

After Birth of Immanuel

Isaiah 8:3-8 " And she conceived and gave birth to a son. Before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off ......O Immanuel"

[Believer]

Jesus was never ever referred to as Immanuel. No one ever called him that. The only time he was called Immanuel was when supposedly the angel told Mary that she will call him that.

OneGOD, Jesus WAS God-with-us.
Who else could possibly be God-with-us????
Jesus was God and He was with us!!!

By the way, Gabriel told Mary that she would bear the Son of God, but your "jibreel" says otherwise. Your "jibreel" is an imposter angel, not the true Gabriel.

[Alpha]

I don't think you understand the symbols behind names in the OT I guess.

Jesus was never ever referred to as Immanuel. No one ever called him that. The only time he was called Immanuel was when supposedly the angel told Mary that she will call him that.

Like I already said: "Also, the child whom you refer to did not fulfill the prophecy because he was not called Immanuel. Earlier on you said Christ did not fulfill the sign because He was not called Immanuel. Indeed he was. Just read the gospels. But why do you claim the child in Isaiah is fulfillment of the sign when he was never called Immanuel? Atleast Christ was called Immanuel. Christ being called Immanuel does not only have to be fulfilled in scripture. People all over the Church refer to Christ as Immanuel. There are hyms which refer to Christ as Immanuel. So the prophecy is about Christ because people today (even in my church) refer to Christ as Immanuel. "

As we discussed the notion of that it is a dual prophecy is false. So we are left with the only choice of believing that She is a maid not a virgin. Now, since the kid was promised, right at the beginning of chapter 8 ISIAIH like in the case of Shearjashub names his son with a prophetic significance. The name warns of imminent destruction (the name means literally, “to speed the spoil, he hasteneth the prey”) and it has reference to the imminent destruction of Syria.

First off, the word can literally mean virgin as proved to you earlier on. Hence, the prophecy can be towards the Messiah only. Secondly, if this is not a dual prophecy, the child in Isaiah 8 has nothing to do with the sign in Isaiah 7.

Now since we know it can't be a dual prophecy, and since the son was promised to the house of ISrael, and king Ahaz was there to hear the SIGN that will be shown to prove that God Is with HIS people as the name indicates, it's logical to assume that they are the same kid.

I personally think this is not a dual prophecy, but you have not proven that it isn't. All you have shown is your opinion that the prophecy refers to the child in Isaiah 8, but you have not disproven that the child is not Christ. Hence, you have not proven that there is no dual prophecy. Also, the sign was not given to Ahaz. Ahaz did not live long enough to see deliverance. In fact, Judah recieved destruction not deliverance. Isaiah did not say the Immanuel prophecy had anything to do with the deliverance of Judah. James D Price: Isaiah did not associate that deliverance with the Immanuel prophecy, but with Hezekiah's faith, obedience, and prayer. Finally, the deliverance of Judah did not come in the days of the child born in Isaiah 8, therefore he is not "Immanuel." The verse which says ".....the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria" does not mean Judah will be delivered. And it is a well known fact that Judah was not delivered during that time.

Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah , where a child called "Immanuel" is born. As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same. Both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel. The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".

No born child was called "Immanuel" in Isaiah. This prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. Isaiah 8:8 does not refer to the child who was born before. The Messiah was to be born in Judeah (another fulfilled prophecy) and that's what that verse is saying.

New John Gill Exposition>shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel
Judea, called Immanuel's land, because he was to be born there, and converse and die there; and this is particularly mentioned, to show that, though this land should be overrun by the Assyrians, yet not destroyed, until Immanuel, the son of the virgin, was born here.

[oneGOD]

New John Gill Exposition>shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel
Judea, called Immanuel's land, because he was to be born there, and converse and die there; and this is particularly mentioned, to show that, though this land should be overrun by the Assyrians, yet not destroyed, until Immanuel, the son of the virgin, was born here.

Funny, because the land was actually destroyed when the babylonians took it.
And now so that he can run from the answer why Immanuel was mentioned, he calls it the land of Immanuel.

I call this denial and distortion.

[Believer]

Isaiah 9:1
Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-

Distressed and humbled land! Galilee of the Gentiles! Walking along the Jordan!
This is the Immanuel, the Messiah, who is unmistakablely Jesus Christ!

[Alpha]

New John Gill Exposition>shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel
Judea, called Immanuel's land, because he was to be born there, and converse and die there; and this is particularly mentioned, to show that, though this land should be overrun by the Assyrians, yet not destroyed, until Immanuel, the son of the virgin, was born here.

Funny, because the land was actually destroyed when the babylonians took it.
And now so that he can run from the answer why Immanuel was mentioned, he calls it the land of Immanuel.

I call this denial and distortion.

There are many different opinions on this. Some believe the dominance of Judah among the other tribes of Israel came to an end in 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed. Though Assyria and Babylon overtook Judah (Babylon conquered the southern kingdom of Judah), its demise happened after the time of the Messiah. You have to remember, when Babylon was on its way to destruction, people returned to the land of Judah.

When you read that verse in Isaiah 8:8, it is not referring to the child who was born in Isaiah 8:4. Because in the verses between those two verses the conversation changes from the child to the King of Assyria. And in verse 8 it mentions Judah and then refers to Judah by saying "O Immanuel." There is no denial or distortion going on here. "Immanuel" was not referring to the child in verse 4 as you claim and there is no reason to believe that from reading the context (Messiah to come from Judah: Genesis 49:9-10, Micah 5:2). Also, the child who was to be born called "Immanuel" is the same child mentioned in Isaiah 9:6. And we all know the child in Isaiah 8 is not the child in Isaiah 9. there is no record of anyone born during Isaiah's time being called Immanuel and fulfilling the prophecies of Immanuel.

[Alpha]

The point I want to stress is this: There are different interpretations of the Immanuel prophecy. But no matter which you use, the worst thing to say is the verse in Matthew is wrong and corrupted. This is something which might be debated until the end of time. But there is no way you can prove the Bible is corrupted. The same means you use to show the Bible is corrupted, I can do that with the Qu'ran--by taking debated passages and ripping apart the Qu'ran to support my claim. The only time I will do this is for defensive purposes (if a Muslim first takes the Bible out of context). We can argue back and forth on deep topics, but no Muslim has yet to answer the fundamental question, does a revelation of God come secondary and contrary to a previous revelation? Obviously no. Why would someone beat God to the punch by first spreading something which is false? God first reveals the truth, then man corrupts it. And you cannot say the Bible was corrupted because you have to realize that Muhammed himself (according to the Qu'ran) realized that Christianity and the claims of Christ being the only begotten Son of God was already established before his supposed revelation. Muhammed himself proves the authenticity of Christian teaching--that it is the same today as it was during his time and before. Also, let's not forget the thousands of mauscripts for the Holy Bible which agree with each other 99%. The Holy Bible has more manuscript evidence than any book in HISTORY and it's more accurate than any book (with mauscript evidence) in HISTORY.