Now that Monotheism is with us, perhaps we can get some help with this question.

I've seen sources which claim that the New Testament invocation of a "prophecy" from Isaiah, is actually based on a mis-translation from the original Hebrew.

Specifically, Mathew 1:22-23 says that Isaiah prophesied that a virgin would give birth to a baby boy...

Isaiah 7:14 says (from the King James Version) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "

However, the Revised standard version, which is translated from the original languages of the oldest known texts, says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Apparently the original hebrew word was almah, meaning young woman. But the Greek translations probably available to the writer of the Book of Matthew may have used the word parthenos which means virgin.

This seems to lead to the conclusion that the Judaic texts did NOT prophesy a virgin birth which would identify the Messiah, and that the early Christian writers MADE UP A MIRACULOUS CLAIM based on a mis-translation and misunderstanding!

It's an important point, since the whole of the Christian claims (and indirectly, Muslim, since the Quran has similar stories) to validity turn on the miraculous birth of Christ...

does anyone have further information?

http://outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html

So there are no prophecies regarding a virgin birth of the Messiah? And Christian's claims to Jesus' divinity seems to be based on a deliberate mis-representation of the scriptures by those trying to found a religion... oh dear, that must be awkward for them. I know there are some Catholics on this board, any rebuttal from you guys?


What are the Jews waiting for, how will they recognize the Messiah?

Originally posted by MoonChild
What are the Jews waiting for, how will they recognize the Messiah?


Following a long-standing Jewish tradition, they will write down the specifics after He has arrived.

:D

I have responded to this challenge in the "Moshiach: The Jewish Messiah" (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284477#post284477) thread.

Yeah, I saw that after I already posted, sorry :)

I'm still waiting for our catholic friends to explain why this doesn't just puncture the christian bubble completely...

I think there was a thread about this earlier but I forget if the Quran says anything about virgin birth, all I remember is the part about a palm tree and Jesus talking at a few days old...

MoonChild, this is what the Quran says:


(Remember) when the angels said, "O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him (God), whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, revered in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God). He will speak to the people from his cradle and as a man, and he is of the righteous." She said, "My Lord, how can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?" He said, "So (it will be). God creates what He wills. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, 'Be!' and it is." (Quran, 3:45-47)



" The case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam. He created him from dust, and then He said to him, "Be!" and he came into being. (Quran, 3:59)


"I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you the shape of a bird out of clay, I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's permission. I heal the blind from birth and the leper. And I bring the dead to life by God's permission. And I tell you what you eat and what you store in your houses...." (Quran, 3:49)

so basically the Muslims believe that Mary was not the mother of Jesus in any genetic sense, but only the "host-mother", and Jesus was independently created by Allah?

The Catholic position can be read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

All religions require a logic transcending leap of faith. All I know is that the monkey from which I am descended was

i. good-looking

ii. intelligent

iii. quick:)

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir
All I know is that the monkey from which I am descended was

i. good-looking

ii. intelligent

iii. quick:)


iv. and at least once dabbled with hetrosexuality

:gap:

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir
The Catholic position can be read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

... which says that not only was Mary a virgin when she conceived Jesus (perpetuating the error of translation which has since been corrected), but that the body of Jesus was built from Mary (in contradiction to the Quran which says the body of Jesus was formed by Allah from clay and Mary had no contribution to it) ... it also says that Mary CONTINTUED TO BE A VIRGIN EVEN AFTER HER MARRIAGE TO JOSEPH AND BIRTH OF JESUS' BROTHER.

ok, Catholicism is officially loopier than Islam or even the Southern Baptists! How can people believe this stuff?


All religions require a logic transcending leap of faith.

Well I still say that a REAL religion does NOT require faith which demands belief in things contradicted by simple observation or 1st grade logic :rolleyes:

Unless we are really ruled by Larry, the God of Silliness and Absurdity. And the joke is on us :bang:

Originally posted by MoonChild
[BUnless we are really ruled by Larry, the God of Silliness and Absurdity. And the joke is on us :bang: [/B]


Oy vey, I wish you'd consulted with me before disclosing information about Larry. This revelation may leave them farmisht.

Sorry, didn't realize that Larry was not ready for his cotillion :D

I hope he doesn't salt my coffee! :yikes: :help:

Originally posted by MoonChild
ok, Catholicism is officially loopier than Islam or even the Southern Baptists! How can people believe this stuff?


When I worked on the Faroe Islands, I was surrounded by members of the majority sect: Plymouth Brethren. Now, there´s loopy and there´s...

Highly subjective info here: PB (http://www.plymouthbrethren.com/)

Originally posted by MoonChild
... which says that not only was Mary a virgin when she conceived Jesus (perpetuating the error of translation which has since been corrected), but that the body of Jesus was built from Mary (in contradiction to the Quran which says the body of Jesus was formed by Allah from clay and Mary had no contribution to it) ... it also says that Mary CONTINTUED TO BE A VIRGIN EVEN AFTER HER MARRIAGE TO JOSEPH AND BIRTH OF JESUS' BROTHER.

Actually, it's not hard to understand. The Catholic position has always been that Jesus didn't have any other siblings with Him; most agree that at best His brothers would be half-brothers, owing that Jesus' Father is different from theirs. The Orthodox position relates that Jesus did have half-brothers, but they were children of Joseph from a former marriage. The Protestant position is varied, ranging from acceptance of the Catholic position to almost complete denial of it. Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist, probably said it best: after having the Saviour with them, would Mary and Joseph even want to have any other children after Him?

As for the "error" in translation--first century Christians stood by the thought of Jesus as Saviour and Lord, even though several heresies tried to undermine this.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
The Catholic position has always been that Jesus didn't have any other siblings with Him; most agree that at best His brothers would be half-brothers, owing that Jesus' Father is different from theirs.

Having different fathers has no impact on the issue of whether Jesus' and siblings' MOTHER was a virgin throughout her rather normal experiece of sex-pregnancy-birth (at least for subsequent children).

To claim that Mary was a virgin throughout her married life is pretty silly - you can call her anything you like, but why make things up?

Any claims re: siblings being from a previous marriage of Joseph - again it is just making things up to justify the first story. Unless there is some evidence?

Originally posted by MoonChild
Having different fathers has no impact on the issue of whether Jesus' and siblings' MOTHER was a virgin throughout her rather normal experiece of sex-pregnancy-birth (at least for subsequent children).

It has a lot of impact, because there are some views that Mary had children after Jesus, especially those who want to deny anything about Mary (Protestant Evangelism).

To claim that Mary was a virgin throughout her married life is pretty silly - you can call her anything you like, but why make things up?

Now why would it be silly? It is possible not to have sex after marriage, isn't it?


Any claims re: siblings being from a previous marriage of Joseph - again it is just making things up to justify the first story. Unless there is some evidence?

Do you have evidence to the contrary yourself?

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
It has a lot of impact, because there are some views that Mary had children after Jesus, especially those who want to deny anything about Mary (Protestant Evangelism).

OK, now think this through.

Supposing Jesus was "fathered" by God, Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Him. Now, she gets married and has a baby fathered by Joseph. In order to get pregnant by Joseph, she had to have sex with him = not a virgin anymore.

What is so hard to understand?



Now why would it be silly? It is possible not to have sex after marriage, isn't it?

If she had more children, nope :D
Why on earth would Catholics think Mary and Joseph were somehow superior for being married and not having sex? And why SHOULD they? What evidence do you have that they weren't a healthy normal loving family?

Do you have evidence to the contrary yourself? [/B]

Now you know very well that is complete Bullsh$t. When you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to prove it with evidence, not expect your audience to prove you wrong.

You are starting to sound like Ice Tea and Silver_ring, now!

Originally posted by MoonChild
OK, now think this through.

Supposing Jesus was "fathered" by God, Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Him. Now, she gets married and has a baby fathered by Joseph. In order to get pregnant by Joseph, she had to have sex with him = not a virgin anymore.

That is if Joseph even had relations with her after Jesus. As David Currie stated, there is simply no evidence that she had relations with Joseph after Jesus. Even early Protestants like Luther and Calvin accepted the ever-virgin title without question, Luther saying (if I am correct) that under pain of heresy someone should refute that.

If she had more children, nope :D
Why on earth would Catholics think Mary and Joseph were somehow superior for being married and not having sex? And why SHOULD they? What evidence do you have that they weren't a healthy normal loving family?

Read again my earlier post explaining about this.

Now you know very well that is complete Bullsh$t. When you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to prove it with evidence, not expect your audience to prove you wrong.

Not really. Since you seem to be convinced that Mary and Joseph had relations, then you should back up your statement with evidence. I've already stated why they don't need to do so; now show me any proof to the contrary.

:bored:

If Mary had more children, it's obvious she wasn't a virgin.

If there is no documentation of children, then we really don't have any information from which to have a discussion.

I'm not convinced of anything, only pointing out that normal married people enjoy each other's company. You have presented no documentation to indicate they were any different, only the circular logic that "my church says Mary was a virgin her whole life, so she must not have had sex with her husband".

From my experience, when you've got evidence or documentation, you're good at presenting it. since you present none, I'm therefore comfortable that you HAVE none, and are just accepting on "faith" those claims that your Church apparently invented.

Originally posted by MoonChild
If Mary had more children, it's obvious she wasn't a virgin.

The operative word here is "if"--in short, there's no way of saying whether she had or she had not children after Jesus.

If there is no documentation of children, then we really don't have any information from which to have a discussion.

Then why are having this discussion then?

I'm not convinced of anything, only pointing out that normal married people enjoy each other's company.

In the scheme of things, how many couples do you know that have the Saviour as their Child? So in that regard, they're not even a normal family.

You have presented no documentation to indicate they were any different, only the circular logic that "my church says Mary was a virgin her whole life, so she must not have had sex with her husband".

Present to me your proof to refute it then, since you seem to have proof of it.

Originally posted by MoonChild
If Mary had more children, it's obvious she wasn't a virgin.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
The operative word here is "if"--in short, there's no way of saying whether she had or she had not children after Jesus.


Speaking from experience, I can add that bearing children isn't at all necessary to remove "virgin" as a status/attribute of a woman. I've done it myself and no children were involved - before or after.

Mary did not remain a virgin because Joseph married her and quite understandably would have removed any evidence of virginity from Mary himself.

Or is anyone suggesting that Joseph was gay and only married to please his mom ?

Matthew 1:25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son.

Not definitive, but suggestive that Joseph waited until Jesus was born, then had relations with Mary.

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him.

Again not definitive, as the terms "brothers and sisters" can be used with a spiritual meaning, but suggestive in context with "his mother".

James and Jude, however, are mentioned explicitily as being Jesus' brothers (Matt. 13:55, Acts 15:13-21, 1 Cor. 15:7, Gal. 1:19) . The Bible also mentions Jesus as Mary's first-born son, rather than her only son.

The most reasonable interpretation of these Biblical references is that Jesus did indeed have siblings, but it is still self-referential.

More interesting is a report that in the 1970's a limestone ossuary (bone box) was found that may have held the remains of James the “brother” of Jesus. The box dates to first century Palestine and is inscribed in Jesus’ native language, Aramaic, with the words “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Thus the available documentation and physical evidence suggests actual siblings.

Why is it that some people have a hard time imagining Mary gleefully boffing away with her husband in a perfectly natural desire to please her husband - and score a climax or two while she was at it ?

She was a MARRIED woman.


Who here is suggesting that Mary was frigid or a lesbian ??


Bring on the evidence, if you dare. I shall smite it.

I, for one, will not have the mother of the Christian's God-on- Earth and the Muslim's miracle-producing Prophet called frigid and a lesbian !!

On this, I must draw the line and join with the Christians and Muslims (Jews, of course, don't give a rip about Mary) of the Sabla and squash your ego and unbelievable assertions.

:shoot:

Originally posted by Wanderer

Who here is suggesting that Mary was frigid or a lesbian ??




Watch your mouth and respect our religion.!

Originally posted by Wanderer
Speaking from experience, I can add that bearing children isn't at all necessary to remove "virgin" as a status/attribute of a woman. I've done it myself and no children were involved - before or after.

Didn't quite get this one. You first say that bearing children isn't all that necessary to remove virgin as a status. All it takes then is to be married? But to be not a virgin would imply not having relations with the woman. Which leads us then to the next...

Mary did not remain a virgin because Joseph married her and quite understandably would have removed any evidence of virginity from Mary himself.

Quite understandably as well that Joseph knew Mary didn't just bear any ordinary child, but the Saviour Himself. This would then make Mary more than just an ordinary woman in the eyes of Joseph--as such, based on human experience, such an experience would lead one to awe and reverence on the part of Joseph, so much so that having any relation with her would be almost unthinkable.

To illustrate this further then, we can make a distinction between a (note to admins: this is just for comparison. No malice is intended) prostitute and a nun--one would think almost anything dirty in the case of the former, but would not even dare think of such things on a nun (unless you have such a twisted mind). The same can then be applied with Joseph's situation.

Matthew 1:25--as you yourself noted, Moonie, not definitive. The Bible's point here is that Jesus could not have been Joseph's son. Psalm 10 is a Messianic Psalm, stating in part: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (Psalm 110:1). It is not implied that Jesus will not be welcome once His enemies are vanquished. Simlarly in 2 Samuel 6:23 Michal is said to have no children until her death. Of course it does not necessarily mean she had children after her death.

As for brothers, the relationship is again quite vague. The closest Jesus would have would have been half-brothers, as Jesus' Father is not Joseph or anyone else. As well, there is no word in Aramaic for cousins. Referring to His relations as brothers would then be natural. Again, the example here is in Genesis 13:8, when Abram said to Lot that they were brothers. But they were not--in fact they were cousins. So again, it's not simple to take the language of the Bible at face value.

Nor does first born mean anything, which was used in Luke 2:7. First born would not necessarily mean another followed, as is the usage in the term first born lamb.[/font]

No comments on the burial urn?

Originally posted by IceTea
Watch your mouth and respect our religion.!

I'm watching your mouth and I see that your foot is in it.

IceTea, did any of your parent's children get educated ?

I'm defending Mary from being called frigid or a lesbian, or both. I'm not calling her frigid or a lesbian.


Now go clean something.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Didn't quite get this one. You first say that bearing children isn't all that necessary to remove virgin as a status. All it takes then is to be married? But to be not a virgin would imply not having relations with the woman. Which leads us then to the next...

Oops, I seem to have made an erroneous assumption. Of course you don't understand all this busines about women and about virginity.

Virginity is about sexual intercourse and not dependant on bearing children. So the story goes that Mary had a child before intercourse - OK, that possiblity was mentioned in the Human Sexuality classes I took.

Whether Mary had children after Jesus or not has no real bearing on whether she was a perpetual virgin so lack of subsequent children in no way demonstrates that she remained a virgin (though proof of subsequent children would prove she lost it - unless the Christian Church was going to rewrite everything and allow multiple virgin births).




Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
[font=comic sans ms]Quite understandably as well that Joseph knew Mary didn't just bear any ordinary child, but the Saviour Himself. This would then make Mary more than just an ordinary woman in the eyes of Joseph--as such, based on human experience, such an experience would lead one to awe and reverence on the part of Joseph, so much so that having any relation with her would be almost unthinkable.

What "human experience" would we be talking about - are you claiming that there were other virgin births with which to formulate an opinion on how people would react in general to their fiancees having "virgin births" ?

Milliardo, I get grumpy after 3 days without sex. Even if still fighting about something, after 3 days you just wake up in the middle of the night making "the beast with 2 backs".

I counter with this observation, based on far more than one, singular, event, - Human nature being what it is, husbands and wives eventually have sex. Unless, and here's where I'll jump in with the Christians and Muslims, you are suggesting that Joseph was a gay weakling, or that Mary was frigid and/or lesbian and could beat up Joseph.

Otherwise, odds are, they had sex - and there goes the virginity.


Do you have any Biblical evidence that Joseph held Mary is such high regard that he wouldn't countenance making love with her after Jesus moved out and started his carpentry career ?

Or, on another (dangerous) tack, do we find Mary more often in the company of another woman ?

Originally posted by Wanderer


I'm defending Mary from being called frigid or a lesbian, or both. I'm not calling her frigid or a lesbian.



Mary is a mother of a prophet, so let us have some respect and avoide those kind of useless questions.


Back to the topic.

Originally posted by Wanderer
Virginity is about sexual intercourse and not dependant on bearing children. So the story goes that Mary had a child before intercourse - OK, that possiblity was mentioned in the Human Sexuality classes I took.



When Allah wants anything he say be and it be.

And why do you think prophet Jesus PBUH did talk when his people saw his mother holding him and he was a baby?

Originally posted by Wanderer
Virginity is about sexual intercourse and not dependant on bearing children.

Rightly so. Now then, can it be proven that Mary had or had not relations with Joseph? Hard to tell, isn't it?

Whether Mary had children after Jesus or not has no real bearing on whether she was a perpetual virgin so lack of subsequent children in no way demonstrates that she remained a virgin

Like I said above, it's really hard to tell. There is alwayus a possibility either way, but then again even the most liberal Protestant admits that there is simply no way that the Bible disproves that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

What "human experience" would we be talking about - are you claiming that there were other virgin births with which to formulate an opinion on how people would react in general to their fiancees having "virgin births" ?

Simply put, you seem to have hit it squarely: since there's no other births that is like Jesus', then how would Joseph would have taken it? I would think he would have been awed about it, and would have been just as awed that his wife held the Saviour in her womb. It's almost akin to having a sacred vessel in your hands--would you dare to despoil it? Of course not.

Milliardo, I get grumpy after 3 days without sex. Even if still fighting about something, after 3 days you just wake up in the middle of the night making "the beast with 2 backs".

That's you. Perhaps the thinking of Joseph and Mary were different. In light of having Jesus with them, I would think that having or not having sex would have been the last thing they have in their minds.

Do you have any Biblical evidence that Joseph held Mary is such high regard that he wouldn't countenance making love with her after Jesus moved out and started his carpentry career ?

References about Joseph in the Bible are quite few, so again nothing conclusive can be taken there.

No comments on the burial urn?

By inference, my dear. Go look on my previous post.

So two things are clear:

1. speculation about Mary's perpetual virginity are exactly that - SPECULATION - on either side. No information exists, so no conclusions can be drawn. Arguments are based on wishful thinking only.

2. the "inference" from your previous post is that you have no refutation on the physical evidence that exists re: brothers of Jesus - but, since it contradicts your beliefs, you hope it will quietly go away ;)

:wave:

Originally posted by IceTea
Mary is a mother of a prophet, so let us have some respect and avoide those kind of useless questions.


So are you taking the side that has Mary (the wife) never having sex with her husband or the side where Mary (the wife) has sex with her husband ?


BTW - which is it in your house ?

Originally posted by IceTea
And why do you think prophet Jesus PBUH did talk when his people saw his mother holding him and he was a baby?

Our sacred oral tradition has the baby Jesus jumping from his crib and dancing with his hands on his hips and singing ...

"I'm a lumberjack, but I'm OK"

But I think that whole silliness can be traced to my Oregonian roots and the lumber industry there - and is as likely to have occurred as your myth.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
References about Joseph in the Bible are quite few, so again nothing conclusive can be taken there.

[/font]


So why don't you claim that he was a perpetual virgin too ?

It would appear that the same evidence exists for him as for Mary.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
That's you. Perhaps the thinking of Joseph and Mary were different. In light of having Jesus with them, I would think that having or not having sex would have been the last thing they have in their minds.


You must have a lot of Virgo in your chart.

That Joseph and Mary didn't have sex for 30 odd years is a better story than the resurrection.

I have never met a virgin for very long

moonchild - try this (scroll down to Virgin prohecy and click)

Who is Jesus (http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/preview.htm)

Pinot,

Scusi. But I must smite this from your referenced site.

"Some have attempted to account for the virgin birth by tracing it to Greek or Babylonian mythology. They argue that the Gospel writers borrowed this story from the mythology of their day. This view does not fit the facts, for there is not any hero in pagan mythology for which a virgin birth is claimed, and moreover it would be unthinkable to the Jewish mind to construct such a story from mythology."

To which I post:

"Mithraism was quite often noted by many historians for its many astonishing similarities to Christianity. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm


Something old, something new
Something borrowed, something ... familiar

Pino, with all due respect, what a crap website! It starts from the false premise that the prophecy of Isaiah said "virgin" when the proper translation is "young woman" ... and gets worse from there.

Besides that it tries to claim Psalm 41, the "Psalm of David" as a prophecy of the Betrayal :rolleyes:

Please tell me you're not using this site for spiritual guidance! :haha:

Originally posted by MoonChild
So two things are clear:

1. speculation about Mary's perpetual virginity are exactly that - SPECULATION - on either side. No information exists, so no conclusions can be drawn. Arguments are based on wishful thinking only.

More or less, though the thing is that this belief on Mary's virginity has been with Christianity from the beginning, while its denial is just fairly recently.

2. the "inference" from your previous post is that you have no refutation on the physical evidence that exists re: brothers of Jesus - but, since it contradicts your beliefs, you hope it will quietly go away ;)

What physical evidence? That ossuary? Even liberal Bible scholars admit it's not much of an evidence--the name of Jesus (Joshua) was fairly common then, and I would think based on their answer, James as well. How many people have the names of Joshua and James, then? Most Bible scholars admit that at best, the evidence is merely circumstantial--not concrete proof at all.

That Joseph and Mary didn't have sex for 30 odd years is a better story than the resurrection.

Again, it might not even be that Joseph lived 30 or so years long after Jesus' birth. The Bible is largely silent on Joseph being present in most of Jesus' life, unlike Mary.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Again, it might not even be that Joseph lived 30 or so years long after Jesus' birth. The Bible is largely silent on Joseph being present in most of Jesus' life, unlike Mary.

Poor, Jesus. He appears to have had two absent fathers while growing up.

Moonchild,

No, I don't get spiritual (or any) guidance from that site

Now, with the utmost respect

In what way was I supposed to treat your original post with considered seriousness?

You wrote "I've seen sources which claim that the New Testament invocation of a "prophecy" from Isaiah, is actually based on a mis-translation from the original Hebrew".

Surely you can't expect a serious response to your point if you don't show any of these 'sources'?

You wrote "It starts from the false premise that the prophecy of Isaiah said "virgin" when the proper translation is "young woman" ...

In what way have you established that it is a false premise?

Lets look at one of your next paragraphs (my capitals)

You wrote "APPARENTLY the original hebrew word was almah, meaning young woman. But the Greek translations PROBABLY available to the writer of the Book of Matthew may have used the word parthenos which means virgin. This SEEMS to lead to the conclusion that the Judaic texts did not prophesy a virgin birth........

and I am meant to read from this that the use of the word 'virgin' is false?

Here is a URL for you:

Almah etc (http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/virginProphecyQuestion.htm)

Incidentally, let me play your point for a moment. You wrote “It's an important point, since the whole of the Christian claims (and indirectly, Muslim, since the Quran has similar stories) to validity turn on the miraculous birth of Christ...”

Without coming into contact with the sperm of a human male, in what way can a woman give birth to a son without it being miraculous?

My point in raising the question, was that it was, indeed, a QUESTION. The debate seems well-known, and is widely discussed. The facts of how words are translated seem fairly straightforward, but since you insist on a particular source of my information before taking it seriously, here's one:

http://www.carm.org/diff/Isaiah7_14.htm (Christian)

and a Jewish source:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

OK, this should prove that I didn't make up the salient points that I originally presented, so you can treat my "original post with considered seriousness"

My point stands. Christians base the divinity of Jesus on Virgin Birth and claim that it was the "prophecied" birth. Isaiah as the source of this prophecy seems to be unsupported.


I appreciate the additional information from the website you provide, but am having trouble following it's logic, ie, where it says things like "Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23). "

Inspired interpretation? Circular logic!!!!!

The endless argument about what the actual interpretation of "almah" should be seems to depend on the ulterior motives of the various authors ... thus the answer will only be found from an independent source.

now, if I could only find where I put my copy of that 1st century Greek dictionary....

Another discussion:

http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.pdf

Considering that this debate has apparently been raging for centuries, with no firm conclusion even today, makes your arrogant tone in dismissing the topic more than a little laughable.

Moonchild,

I apologise if you felt I was being arrogant

Although, I must confess that I was a little bit stunned with your comment:

" It starts from the false premise that the prophecy of Isaiah said "virgin" when the proper translation is "young woman" ... and gets worse from there".

I felt a tad surprised that you had reached this conclusion without establishing in your posts that it was a false premise - infact, I felt dismissed and patronised.

I am completely aware that there has been a debate on this subject for a few years. As you said, in your opinion, there is no "firm conclusion even today".

With no 'firm conclusion', I guess I found your dismissive statement about 'false premise' a bit arrogant.

I agree with your 1st century Greek point. Hence the views of some of the experts in paragraph 3 onwards in the URL I posted.

Without recourse to Isaiah, no one will ever be satisfied.

Again, I apologise if I offend. You know I would never seek to do that.

OK, maybe "false premise" was a bit much :blush:

I found all the websites that supported that conclusion first ... only finding ones that support the "current debate" position after I wrote that .... I opened the thread because it was a new idea to ME, I had no idea folks have been fighting over it for hundreds of years!

but my opinion of the first website you posted stands ;) The second one is better :)