Grailhunter's Classroom

[Grailhunter]

When he died at Jericho in March or April of the year 4 BC, Herod's kingdom was divided among three of his sons—Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip. Although himself a practicing Jew??, and despite his attempts to win their favor, Herod was hated by the Jews as a foreigner and a friend of the Romans. According to Matthew 2:16 he tried to kill the infant Yeshua by massacring all the male babies in Bethlehem. A true atrocity but Yeshua’s family had been forewarned of the event by the Magi and they were in Egypt.

After King Herod dies there is a Jewish revolt which some historians call a Messianic Revolt 4 BC. Which caught the attention of the Romans and a Roman General named Varus is called upon to put down the rebellion. His fierce disposition and his atrocities in Jerusalem made him infamous. With no attempt to communicate with the Jewish leaders or negotiate a truce he arbitrary grabbed two thousand Jews from their homes and raped and tortured and crucified them along the walls of the City. Some men, some women, some children. Wood was scarce so some where nailed to the walls and doors of Jerusalem. The Jews had seen this before and did not want to live through it again and the revolt was stopped.

Arranging the stage…..
At the time of Yeshua’s ministry Herod Antipas the son of Herod the Great, was the procurator of Jerusalem. Procurator and some historians call him a Tetrarch, because Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus would not allow him the title of King. And during this time Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judea, serving under Emperor Tiberius from around 26 to 37 AD.

Christ and the Messianic Prophecies….
The sticky wickets here are the two perspectives of the Jewish messianic prophecies.
The reason for the two perspectives of the two Jewish messianic prophecies.
And the affects of the two perspectives of the Jewish messianic prophecies on Yeshua’s ministry and early Christianity.

According to Jewish beliefs the most important person in the OT was Elijah, well above Moses and Abraham and the rest. Second to Elijah was King David. King David was so important that the Messiah had to be from his bloodline. And Yeshua was of that bloodline through His mother Miriam. Elijah was even seen as senior to the coming Messiah. Then God took Elijah by a fiery Chariot.

The story of Elijah’s ascension to Heaven and Elisha succession to Elijah is in 2nd Kings 2:9-14
9 When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask me what I should do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” 10 He (Elijah) said, “You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.” 11 And as they were walking along and talking, behold, a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and they separated the two of them. Then Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 12 And Elisha was watching it and he was crying out, “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen!” And he did not see Elijah again. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces. 13 He also took up the coat of Elijah that had fallen from him, and he went back and stood by the bank of the Jordan. 14 Then he took the coat of Elijah that had fallen from him and struck the waters, and said, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” And when he also had struck the waters, they were divided here and there; and Elisha crossed over.

The Jewish interpretation of the Messianic Prophecies was that the Messiah would be a human warlord king that would take out their oppressors in what was called “the terrible day of the Lord.” He would establish his kingdom and place the Jews in a position of power over all the world and all the inhabitances of the world would learn and obey the Mosaic Law and the Temple and

sacrifices would continue for eternity. Eternity, with few exceptions the Jews did not believe in humans going to Heaven and did not believe that the Messiah would serve as a sacrifice to replace all further sacrifices. This belief is proven because the Jews were looking at various Jewish military leaders during the revolts as possibly being the Messiah. The Jews still believe all this to this day. If you are skeptical that what I am saying is true, you can check out these sites….

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-messiah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism#:~:text=Judaism has never accepted any,unity and singularity of God

https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/why-do-most-jews-not-believe-in-jesus

The Jews were expecting for Elijah to return and introduce the Messiah, that is why Elijah is mentioned in the NT. For the Jews something like this has to be like Mt. Sinai….a public event before Israel. As far as the birth of Messiah it was thought to happen the normal way as any other human. Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible. We could get into the whole Virgin Mary thing but that is a long topic. The discussion on the biblical words for virgin has been going on for centuries. If a woman had not had a baby she was called a virgin. If they wanted to verify that, they would check for suckling. No one is checking for hymens. Miriam’s statement makes her status clear…I have not known a man….

Since these prophecies did not occur Christians reassessed the Messianic Prophecies thinking the Jews did not understand the prophets and their prophecies. Some call it hind sight prophetic interpretation. And the Apostles started this reassessment during the Gospel period and the Christianization of the interpretations of the OT prophecies continued on, even to this day.

But really, if the prophecies were meaning that the Son of God was going to be the Messiah….there were plenty of pages in the OT to make that clear in volume. If the prophets understood that the Messiah would be the Son of God as thereby a God, there would have been an obvious reaction. Wouldn’t they have nearly professed that on every page, what could be more important? A God is coming to walk among us! This would pretty much trump anything in the Bible. Wouldn’t they be dancing in the streets and shouting it from the mountain tops? The whole concept that, “My dad is coming to kick your dad’s butt” would be something the Jews would get into. The Jews wrote a lot of this stuff on their pottery. But no mention of a God coming.

And I am of the opinion that something changed not revealed in the scriptures, or it happened in between the Testaments. I do not believe that God would not have thoroughly explained something as important as that. I do believe that God wanted to save His people ….the Holy Seed….that He would not trick them into thinking the Messiah was going to be just a man, something that would cause them to reject the Messiah and be lost. I don’t believe the Jews were too stupid to understand their own scriptures. Isn’t opinion a wonderful thing?

 

[Grailhunter]

But if the Jews were wrong or right about their interpretations of the Messianic Prophecies…..that did not help Yeshua during His ministry, so consequently Yeshua started out behind the eight ball so to speak in His attempt to convert the Jews to the Way as it was called at the time. Because the Jews still believed that the Messiah would be a human warlord king, Yeshua not did not fit that description, and the truth would be sacrilegious to the Jews. So as a whole Yeshua could not tell the Jews that He was the Messiah …the Son of God…and as such was a God and that the belief in Him would save them from Hell and the gates of Heaven would be opened to them. Because in their beliefs such a proclamation would be the worst of sacrilege against Yahweh Himself. This is why the High Priest tore his cloths when Yeshua was brought before him.

Matthew 26:62-66
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.
So their understanding and beliefs in the prophecies was the Coup de grâce for the Jews.

Matthew 27:22-25 Christ before Pilate.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

And so it was a self inflicted curse that truly manifested because for centuries the Jews were despised by the world….the Romans persecuted them and when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome the Christians had the power to persecute and kill them by the power of Rome. During the witch hunts and inquisitions they were treated as witches, tortured, killed and burnt. They where unwelcome in most Christian countries, kicked out of a few and where they were allowed they lived in ghettos. And there are some Christians to this day that despise Israel and the Jews.

This was their curse until the Americans befriended them and supported them during the 6 day war and after winning it, 45 minutes later the United States made a public statement that they recognized Israel as a sovereign country. And they have remained an ally to Israel ever since and have protected Israel from the Muslims and still protect them from a people that appear by character and intent and actions to be in league with Satan because they hate and are the enemies of anything that God loves.

So one of questions that arise from this is; Did the Jews misinterpret the prophesies or did something change and a human Messiah would not due…..could not combat Satan?

Some interpret the scriptures to suggest and there is also traditions that suggest that Yeshua went from the cross to the paradise level of Sheol to preach the gospels to those there and also confronted Satan with a lion’s claw around his neck. Ya got to love the visuals!

This goes a long with the scriptures and tradition that there are several levels of Heaven, Sheol, and Hell.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Christ and the Messianic Prophecies….
Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet........ If a woman had not had a baby she was called a virgin. I

" Virgin" being a decidedly negative term in the specific meaning of failure to conceive after relations .

Pro 30:16
The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.


"virgin" must have been a heartbreaking if not a terrifying term for any married Jewish woman to hear herself called
The last way any married Jewish woman of the era would want to be referred to, being by a term identifying her as woman who after having relations was unable to conceive.
Being cursed by God in her inability to conceive after relations .

 

[GodsGrace]

" Virgin" being a decidedly negative term in the specific meaning of failure to conceive after relations .

Pro 30:16
The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.


"virgin" must have been a heartbreaking if not a terrifying term for any married Jewish woman to hear herself called
The last way any married Jewish woman of the era would want to be referred to, being by a term identifying her as woman who after having relations was unable to conceive.
Being cursed by God in her inability to conceive after relations .

I think you're getting virgin conflated with barren.
Barren is the word Jewish women were afraid of.
As you said, it was considered a curse from God.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I think you're getting virgin conflated with barren.
Barren is the word Jewish women were afraid of.
As you said, it was considered a curse from God.

Teacher says a "virgin" is a common term for a married woman who has relations with her husband but fails to conceive .

Grailhunter said:
Christ and the Messianic Prophecies….
" Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet........ If a woman had not had a baby she was called a virgin."

Do you agree with the teacher ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Teacher says a "virgin" is a common term for a married woman who has relations with her husband but fails to conceive .

Grailhunter said:
Christ and the Messianic Prophecies….
" Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet........ If a woman had not had a baby she was called a virgin."

Do you agree with the teacher ?

I believe he's saying a YOUNG woman that had not yet borne a baby. Or been married yet.

I think Grailhunter should confirm.
I don't want to speak for him.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I believe he's saying a YOUNG woman that had not yet borne a baby. Or been married yet.

I think Grailhunter should confirm.
I don't want to speak for him.

The scriptural reference that he is referencing in connection to the meaning of "virgin" is Isaiah 7:14:

" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible." (Grailhunter}

Do you see what he is saying with regard to Isaiah's wife being a virgin?
Taking into account he has already stated ,ad nauseum ,that Jewish people were not married until they had sex ?

Is any of what he says your understanding of Isaiah 7:14 ?

Isa 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.

 

[Grailhunter]

You might be surprised how complicated this topic is….centuries of discussions and I will try to condense it here…

Virgin….the meaning….the ramifications and perceptions and cogitations are all deep topics in relation to cultures and time periods. Here are some of the talking points….

The meaning of virgin in language verses the use of the word virgin as it is applied.
In modern times we have a tendency to perceive virginity as clinical virginity…. Hymen intact. Or the physical status of a female’s genitalia in relation to her involvement with a man or men.

In ancient times….LOL….everything was from the male perspective. And in ancient times virgin was a loose term….put it was a term that only applied to females because it all hinged on access to the womb. If it had been accessed or if access was proper. Marriages were formed by joining so that was proper access….proper access was limited to one man. So this meaning can be as God and Miriam phrased it “have not known a man” or it could mean a married or unmarried young lady that had not had a baby.

Why the focus on the status of the womb?

1.In a strictly patriarchal society it had to do with legitimate bloodlines.

2. Disease….In ancient times biological diseases were not that well understood…. thinking more along the lines of curses or divine punishment or at the other end demonic. They thought of it as…..involvement with female genitalia that had been improperly accessed could kill you!….LOL…pretty crude but not entirely wrong, it just that it includes males and females. Typically a couple that only had sex with each other would not/will not encounter disease. They might not have understood correctly but in practice it worked out that way.

From all this came the concepts of clean and pure….purity, which tracked off into off the wall beliefs that were harmful. Because the genitalia is clean does not mean it is not diseased. Not having known a man does not make a woman pure and having sex does not make a person impure….pure women can have babies….I will put my money on mothers most of the time.

 

[Consecrated Life]

You might be surprised how complicated this topic is….centuries of discussions and I will try to condense it here…

Virgin….the meaning….the ramifications and perceptions and cogitations are all deep topics in relation to cultures and time periods.

You have already given a specific time period and culture that you made application to.
That of Isaiah and his wife.
His wife understood to be a virgin, so you say.

" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible." (Grailhunter}

 

[Grailhunter]

You have already given a specific time period and culture that you made application to.
That of Isaiah and his wife.
His wife understood to be a virgin, so you say.

" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. Jewish marriages were not platonic because they had to have relations to be married further more there is no Jewish process for platonic marriages. Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible." (Grailhunter}

Right. I am not backing away from that.

"Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible. Grailhunter."....this is true and it does not matter if they are married or not. I did not say anything about barren. Texts are like that….things get lost in the translation so to speak.

Of course it is a short statement and as my post explained there is more to the story. And even my post to explain the short statement falls short of the long of the story. If you don't write a book you are invariably going to miss some of the details. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Consecrated Life]

"Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet. Which is a common definition in the Bible.

So as in the case of Isaiah's young wife , having not conceived despite having had sexual relations with her husband, remaining a virgin would be a decidedly tragic circumstance for her and virgin would be a horrific word for her to hear.

 

[Grailhunter]

So as in the case of Isaiah's young wife , having not conceived despite having had sexual relations with her husband, remaining a virgin would be a decidedly tragic circumstance for her and virgin would be a horrific word for her to hear.

Well I am sure over time people would notice.

Here is the deal....If you notice there seems to be an urgency in the OT with the wives to have children, particularly male children.

Besides the expectation to provide their husband with a bloodline it was part of inclusion with the Covenant with God.

Males entered the Covenant with God through circumcision. Well women could not do that. They entered the Covenant by bearing male children.

 

[Consecrated Life]

So as in the case of Isaiah's young wife , having not conceived despite having had sexual relations with her husband, remaining a virgin would be a decidedly tragic circumstance for her and virgin would be a horrific word for her to hear.

Well I am sure over time people would notice.

So then by scripture labeling Isaiah's wife a "virgin" the indication is her failure to conceive was over a period of time long enough to cause "notice" ?

 

[Grailhunter]

So then by scripture labeling Isaiah's wife a "virgin" the indication is her failure to conceive was over a period of time long enough to cause "notice" ?

I don't see the term virgin being used as a negative.
We don't how long they were married.
But she did not have to wait long.

 

[Consecrated Life]

So then by scripture labeling Isaiah's wife a "virgin" the indication is her failure to conceive was over a period of time long enough to cause "notice" ?

I don't see the term virgin being used as a negative.
We don't how long they were married.
But she did not have to wait long.

You cannot reconcile the fact that by your definition a time period of failure to conceive sufficient enough to be of public notice had passed, and the term for such failure had been applied "virgin", would be anything but a negative .
From the point a married women had been publicly recognized as having failed to conceive by passage of time, being tagged with the moniker of virgin would be at the least a stigma and more likely a curse.
This is would been a terrible state to be in for the woman .
Nothing positive about any moniker being attached to identify a married woman suffering a publicly recognized protracted period of infertility in biblical times.
This is basic biblical knowledge .

 

[Grailhunter]

You cannot reconcile the fact that by your definition a time period of failure to conceive sufficient enough to be of public notice had passed, and the term for such failure had been applied "virgin", would be anything but a negative .
From the point a married women had been publicly recognized as having failed to conceive by passage of time, being tagged with the moniker of virgin would be at the least a stigma and more likely a curse.
This is would been a terrible state to be in for the woman .
Nothing positive about any moniker being attached to identify a married woman suffering a publicly recognized protracted period of infertility in biblical times.
This is basic biblical knowledge .

I disagree because they are all called virgins until they have a baby. It is a loose term because they don't stop the watch at conception.....They were called virgins when they were children they were called virgins when they were young adults, and they were called virgins after they are married....until they have a baby.

In classifications you only had three categories….virgin….mother….or whore.

In most cases there is no stop watch in the scriptures.....and if you find a scripture that labels a woman a failure because she could not have a baby let me know.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I disagree because they are all called virgins until they have a baby.

By your previous statement we are not talking about ALL women.
The primary focus being Isaiah's wife:
" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. (Grailhunter}
"Wife" designating her a married woman having sexual relations with Isaiah.
No comparison to an unmarried woman who has never had relations.
A distinction of significant difference.
Your assertion the term virgin can be applied to two completely different situations makes no more sense than saying the word Day can be used equally to describe Night.
Why would a term be invented with an intended duel meaning in mind, (one negative, one positive) requiring additional clarification depending on marital status, rather than a term for each distinctly different status.
There is no logic behind what your are alleging in the economy of words.

 

[Grailhunter]

By your previous statement we are not talking about ALL women.
The primary focus being Isaiah's wife:
" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. (Grailhunter}
"Wife" designating her a married woman having sexual relations with Isaiah.
No comparison to an unmarried woman who has never had relations.
A distinction of significant difference.
Your assertion the term virgin can be applied to two completely different situations makes no more sense than saying the word Day can be used equally to describe Night.
Why would a term be invented with an intended duel meaning in mind, (one negative, one positive) requiring additional clarification depending on marital status, rather than a term for each distinctly different status.
There is no logic behind what your are alleging in the economy of words.

The only thing that has been invented about the word virgin in the scriptures are the modern misconceptions and false beliefs.
Still four biblical categories.....virgin as in not known a man..... wife without children.....mother as in married mother.....or whore.

After all that information you are keying on virgin….and that is OK I understand you are just messing around….but the topic is serious.

This is one of those topics I would rather do in person….the forum is like texting and so much can be missed and misunderstood as you saw.

So I am going to assume this is something that God wants me to explain. This topic is unique, its kinda like a can of worms, once you open it, it ties into other topics, cultures, time periods, perspectives, misinformation, false beliefs….which all caused a lot of harm and suffering in Christianity and revels a sore lack of basic comprehension of morals. Harm? One of the ways to keep the social status of women as second class humans because their important and self worth was defined by the status of their crotch.

Now I could tell you to go research this on your own….and that is not being a snob, its because I know what you would learn along the way.

Ok, let go….Virgin….Virginity….think about what it means to you, what it all means to you, write it down because I am about to take you on a journey and you might need a string to find your way back.

So we go back to the OT and the term virgin as we have discussed can mean different things and the concerns for it vary. It can mean young lady that has not had a baby, married our unmarried. It does not always mean someone that has never had sex. Then on the other hand it can mean, a lady that has never known a man. (And you probably know that the words know and known can mean sex.) And in other cultures you have consecrated virgins or vestal virgins which can mean they have not felt the touch of a male on their skin or be even in close proximity of a man.

At the highest cultural level it is about domination….male domination. It is about what men want….what men want to possess. To own a womb through which they could be confident of their bloodline. If not, virgin would be as insignificant as saying….she has brown or she has red hair. Then today we have romance and love that is thrown into the mix. What they did not love back then!!! Yea they did have love back then but, for a lot of men it was the kind of love that they could share with 5 wives or 10 wives and when they grew older and non productive they could be divorced to take on younger wives. This is actually the topic that Christ was talking about in the Gospels….the cruelty of divorce. Keep in mind He was talking to Jews that could have multiple wives….and recall how the Jewish Apostles reacted to it. This relationship concept is fully embedded in their minds and culture. And one of Christ’s concerns was the cruelty of it because divorcing an older woman was more or less a death sentence because most Jewish men would not want her. And she did not take children or property.

As I have explained the concern for virgin or virginity is about what men want and the womb. If the womb had been accessed or that they were the first to access it. In a male dominate society and culture where bloodlines define many things, the possession of, and excusive use of a womb(s) is the first priority.

Did the scriptures say that Joseph and Miriam loved each other…it is not that surprising that it does not.

The cultural interest in women was about the womb and the womb did not have to be Jewish…..an unaccessed womb of any religion or nationality was considered as neutral and acceptable.
To illustrate this…. In one of the battles they were told to kill the non-virgins but they brought back a lot of them and Moses was mad that they had not killed enough of the women.... And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? Behold, they caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to be unfaithful to the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the plague took place among the congregation of the Lord! Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly adestroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1st Samuel 15:3

…..and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000. Numbers 31:35

In these societies usually the women that had known a man out numbered that ones that had not, 3 to 1 so even if you only double the number it is 60,000 and you have to check them all so that is 90 to 100 thousand…..don’t do the visual on that!

So how did they do that? No gynecologists?….Calling Dr. Kildare. No they were not inspecting for Hymens and I am not sure what they knew about them back then….Medical science did not know what the clitoris was for until the 1950s. Female genitalia was a mystery to men for a long time. Besides the rumor that some had teeth!

What they would do was check their breasts for signs of suckling. Now most of us old timers know that not all women show signs of sucking and some women look like they have but have not. So this was not an accurate way to determine virginity. And the other way was that women will usually bleed upon first penetration…..I said usually….not always. So in the end they killed around 90 to 100 thousand women at this one battle.

 

[Grailhunter]

Gives you an idea of the perceived importance of “virginity.” Another point of this is….What are they going to do with these women? The Hebrews are going to take some of them as wives and continue their bloodline through them. An unaccessed womb, it does not matter what nationality, is neutral and could bear legitimate children that would be included in the bloodline. That is unless they took some of them as concubines and that would bring up a whole new set of rules.

Yahweh had promised to make them like the sand at the shoreline, the stars in the heaven, the dust of the earth….polygamy was the plan for that. Husbandry…. the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. This was pretty much what a husband was back then….he owned his cattle and his wife(s).

So the “not known a man” meaning of virgin was driven by the wants and concerns of men. And at that time it defined what the female human was….what she was worth. Anything less and she was a worthless whore, ergo the term damaged goods.

Why is the definition of virgin, a young lady that had not had a baby?
George asks, What-cha think of the neighbor girl?
Phil replies, She is cute. Do you know if she is a virgin or a whore?
George replies, How should I know.

Who knew? When it comes to sex the scriptures are pretty soft core. Same thing goes for sexual topics. As I said in a earlier post… The meaning of virgin in language verses the use of the word virgin as it is applied….then vs today. Labeling LOL they did not usually hang signs on them. If they had children they were not a virgin….If they were having sex with more than one person….they were a whore.

But still the whole virgin thing still goes back to what men want and that carried on. Some of us are old enough to remember when men did not want to marry a lady unless he was the first.

In a male dominate religion virgin can take on a whole new aspect, in that it can be a combination of things….clean + pure + righteous. As seen with the term “Virgin Mary?” Which again does not occur in the scriptures. And which has it own meaning and it own topic. And leads to another topic of the male physiological conundrum of the Madonna Syndrome. And the launch pad for that came around the 4th century. How it came to be that the leadership of Christianity came to think that sex was dirty, nasty, and sinful, and of the devil, again is another topic. But because of it they had to go back and redefine the sexual status of Miriam and the term Virgin Mary was born.

Now even though all the terms used in the Bible concerning her having a baby….like impregnation and conception and that Yahweh begot a Son, all suggests impregnation by more or less the normal process….but the normal process was completely unacceptable because by the 4th century the leadership of the Church considered sex as dirty, nasty, and sinful, and of the devil and women were tempters of men as they had tempt Adam to perdition.

So they had to define Miriam as uniquely saintly. And purity had become associated with “virginity” and not just virginity it had to be perpetual for it to matter. So it was not good enough that Miriam had not known a man….she had to remain a virgin after conception, and after the delivery of Yeshua and for the rest of her life.

Of course the Protestants do not buy into all of this malarkey…..just part of it. Still sexual relations between Yahweh and Miriam was not acceptable. Funny though, ever ask them to describe how they think it actually happened? They can come up with some pretty wild stuff that has nothing to do with what the scriptures say. And then this dirty nasty view of sex is incorporated into the doctrine of Original Sin where sin is passed on to every one by sex which of course Miriam avoided because she never had sex! Whoopee! So to be pure you cannot have sex! LOL If it was only that easy.

So now when a modern reader reads the scriptures and when they see the word virgin all these perceptions reroutes the meaning of the word to all these misconceptions and false beliefs.

So again it is good to dispose of the false beliefs and then know something about the culture and time period and the scriptures will make more sense. As far as the word virgin used in the scriptures, the linguistics will tell you what it means….young lady that has not had a baby unless further explained that she had not known a man. It could be no other way because these things do not come with a certificate and witnesses.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why would a term be invented with an intended duel meaning in mind, (one negative, one positive)

Again the term virgin in itself has no negative.....

The primary focus being Isaiah's wife:
" Isaiah 7:14 remained in the context of the storyline that was about testing the faith of King Ahaz. The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. (Grailhunter}

I think I have already explained this.
Isaiah is married to his wife.....they could not have been married without having sex. Why is this?
Marriages back then were consummated by sex....no sex? No marriage.
No Hebrew process for platonic marriages.