Grailhunter's Classroom

[Free]

You read it....his son....not hers....

Yes, that's generally how people and children were identified, by their paternity, particularly males it seems. Read the genealogies or any other number of passages:

Gen 25:19 These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham fathered Isaac, (ESV)

Mat 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Mat 1:3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,
Mat 1:4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Mat 1:5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
...
Mat 1:15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (ESV)

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (ESV)

Luk 5:10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” (ESV)

If you believe Isaiah had another wife then, please, provide the scriptural support.

Isa 7:3 And the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer's Field. (ESV)

Isa 8:3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
...
Isa 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (ESV)

Isaiah had a wife and two sons. The prophecy in Isa 7:14 cannot be referring to his wife.

 

[Grailhunter]

Isaiah had a wife and two sons. The prophecy in Isa 7:14 cannot be referring to his wife.

Referring to his wife????

 

[Free]

Referring to his wife????

Is there a question in there somewhere?

You stated: "The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. . . . Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet."

I have shown that virgin in Isa 7:14 cannot refer to Isaiah's wife because she had two sons, one at the time when the future prophecy was given.

 

[Grailhunter]

Is there a question in there somewhere?

You stated: "The virgin was Isaiah’s wife and virgin did not mean that Isaiah and his wife did not have relations. . . . Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet."

I have shown that virgin in Isa 7:14 cannot refer to Isaiah's wife because she had two sons, one at the time when the future prophecy was given.

I did not test Isaiah's wife for virginity. The storyline suggest she is virgin. Read the storyline.
If you have verses that provide a precise timeline with her delivering children that contradicts this. Kool lets discuss it.

 

[Free]

I did not test Isaiah's wife for virginity. The storyline suggest she is virgin. Read the storyline.
If you have verses that provide a precise timeline with her delivering children that contradicts this. Kool lets discuss it.

I've given it, twice. It's pretty clear. And, as was pointed out to you, if, as you claim, a marriage is only a marriage when there is sex, then by definition she isn't a virgin, biblical or otherwise. From what I can see, you have yet to provide anything to support your claims regarding the definition of "virgin" or that Isa 7:14 refers to Isaiah's wife. It seems to be resting entirely on unsupported assumptions.

If you have provided support, it would be great if you could link to it.

 

[Grailhunter]

Virgin in this era means a young lady that had not had a baby yet."

No. Virgin in this era can mean a young lady that had not had a baby.
I am not saying that there are no ladies that have not had sex.
And I have explained this in detail so you need go back a read it again.
I think you are just trying to make a mess of the tread.....one of the reasons I do not like talking to you.

 

[Grailhunter]

I've given it, twice. It's pretty clear. And, as was pointed out to you, if, as you claim, a marriage is only a marriage when there is sex, then by definition she isn't a virgin, biblical or otherwise. From what I can see, you have yet to provide anything to support your claims regarding the definition of "virgin" or that Isa 7:14 refers to Isaiah's wife. It seems to be resting entirely on unsupported assumptions.

If you have provided support, it would be great if you could link to it.

I am not claiming anything....just the facts.
If you can come up with a process that does not involve sex.....go for it.
As it is there is no requriement for a wedding ceremony and no examples of a wedding ceremony.

And the definition of virgin.....that has been debated for nearly 2000 years.
God defined how marriages were formed....
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Are you looking for a video?

 

[Free]

No. Virgin in this era can mean a young lady that had not had a baby.

Now you're adding some uncertainty which changes things slightly from what you originally said, but where is the biblical support? I can find no source to suggest that is a meaning. I can only find where it means either a woman who had not had sex or an unmarried woman (who, being unmarried, wouldn't have had sex).

I am not saying that there are no ladies that have not had sex.

And I'm not saying you are. My questions are specific.

And I have explained this in detail so you need go back a read it again.
I think you are just trying to make a mess of the tread.....one of the reasons I do not like talking to you.

No, I'm just trying to make sure that truth is being taught, especially by one who has claimed so strongly and loudly that he is here to correct false beliefs.

 

[Grailhunter]

I can find no source to suggest that is a meaning.

Then you need to read the scriptures some

 

[Free]

I am not claiming anything....just the facts.
If you can come up with a process that does not involve sex.....go for it.
As it is there is no requriement for a wedding ceremony and no examples of a wedding ceremony.

And the definition of virgin.....that has been debated for nearly 2000 years.
God defined how marriages were formed....
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Are you looking for a video?

Do you remember not too far back I posted an article which said things changed after Sinai, after the giving of the Law? You keep arguing pre-Law, as though nothing changed.


https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm

Notice before and after Sinai:

"Before the revelation (at Sinai), a man would meet a woman on the street and if both desired marriage, he would bring her into his home and have intercourse privately [without the testimony of witnesses] and she would become his wife. When the Torah was given, the Jews were instructed that in order to marry a woman, the man should "acquire her" in the presence of witnesses and then she would become his wife. As the Torah says, "when a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her." This taking is a positive commandment and is performed in one of three ways—with money, by contract, or by cohabitiation... and it is everywhere called kiddushin or erusin. And a woman who is "acquired" in one of these three ways is called mc'kudeshet or arusah [a betrothed woman]. And as soon as she is "acquired" and becomes betrothed, even though she has not cohabited and did not even enter the groom's home, she is a married woman."

Then you need to read the scriptures some

I'm asking you, who claims to be a Bible teacher here to correct false beliefs. If you've given proof, then please just point me to where. I'm not asking much; I just want to see the evidence of your claim.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, I'm just trying to make sure that truth is being taught, especially by one who has claimed so strongly and loudly that he is here to correct false beliefs.

The storyline in Isaiah is a good example of a woman that is married is still called a virgin because she has not had children. She is the only woman mentioned in this storyline and her child determines the meaning.

 

[Free]

The storyline in Isaiah is a good example of a woman that is married is still called a virgin because she has not had children. She is the only woman mentioned in this storyline and her child determines the meaning.

So, you're just begging the question then with your meaning, from what I can see. You haven't proven that the Isa 7:14 prophecy speaks of Isaiah's wife, but assume that it is and use that to define "virgin" as a married woman who hasn't had a child. And that, despite the very same passage stating that Isaiah had a son with him prior to the prophecy being given.

 

[Grailhunter]

"Before the revelation (at Sinai), a man would meet a woman on the street and if both desired marriage, he would bring her into his home and have intercourse privately [without the testimony of witnesses] and she would become his wife. When the Torah was given, the Jews were instructed that in order to marry a woman, the man should "acquire her" in the presence of witnesses and then she would become his wife. As the Torah says, "when a man takes a woman and has intercourse with her." This taking is a positive commandment and is performed in one of three ways—with money, by contract, or by cohabitiation... and it is everywhere called kiddushin or erusin. And a woman who is "acquired" in one of these three ways is called mc'kudeshet or arusah [a betrothed woman]. And as soon as she is "acquired" and becomes betrothed, even though she has not cohabited and did not even enter the groom's home, she is a married woman."

Looks like a right up of someone opinion....
How about a scripture....probably why I ignored it.
Then on the other hand I have addressed the fact that the Jews/Mosaic Law had a process.
But it did not include a wedding ceremony and sex consummated the marriage.
No process consummated the marriage.

 

[Grailhunter]

So, you're just begging the question then with your meaning, from what I can see. You haven't proven that the Isa 7:14 prophecy speaks of Isaiah's wife, but assume that it is and use that to define "virgin" as a married woman who hasn't had a child. And that, despite the very same passage stating that Isaiah had a son with him prior to the prophecy being given.

The storyline defines her as a virgin.
Wheather he had a son or not unless the scriptures say she was the mother really does not matter.

 

[Free]

Looks like a right up of someone opinion....
How about a scripture....probably why I ignored it.
Then on the other hand I have addressed the fact that the Jews/Mosaic Law had a process.
But it did not include a wedding ceremony and sex consummated the marriage.
No process consummated the marriage.

All you've given is opinion. chabad.org seems to me to be a legitimate site that can be trusted in what it says about ancient and modern Jewish beliefs and practice.

The storyline defines her as a virgin.
Wheather he had a son or not unless the scriptures say she was the mother really does not matter.

Again, this is begging the question. The storyline merely says that a virgin will give birth to a son. It's an unsupported assumption that that is referring to Isaiah's wife. And then you want to deny that Isaiah's son was not the son of his wife, without basis for doing so. Given that Isaiah didn't name his son Immanuel, there is another reason not to believe that 7:14 refers to his wife and son.

You have not given one piece of evidence to support either that Isa 7:14 refers to Isaiah's wife or that "virgin" can mean a married, childless woman. It's all been circular so far.

 

[Grailhunter]

All you've given is opinion. chabad.org seems to me to be a legitimate site that can be trusted in what it says about ancient and modern Jewish beliefs and practice.


Again, this is begging the question. The storyline merely says that a virgin will give birth to a son. It's an unsupported assumption that that is referring to Isaiah's wife. And then you want to deny that Isaiah's son was not the son of his wife, without basis for doing so. Given that Isaiah didn't name his son Immanuel, there is another reason not to believe that 7:14 refers to his wife and son.

You have not given one piece of evidence to support either that Isa 7:14 refers to Isaiah's wife or that "virgin" can mean a married, childless woman. It's all been circular so far.

Well if you can come up with another woman in the storyline we can discuss it, if not it is how it is written.

And I am not denying anything, I am going with what the scriptures say without coming up with my own story.

And as far as evidence, all we have is what the scriptures say and what they do not say.

 

[Free]

Well if you can come up with another woman in the storyline we can discuss it, if not it is how it is written.

That Isaiah’s wife is the only one mentioned in no way whatsoever means that she is the virgin spoken of. Again, that is fallaciously begging the question. This is all the more problematic because prior to the prophecy, Isaiah has a son. The prophecy regarding a future son born to a virgin, whose name will be Immanuel, is then made. Then Isaiah goes to his wife who bears a son whose name is certainly not Immanuel.

And I am not denying anything, I am going with what the scriptures say without coming up with my own story.

But it isn’t what the scriptures say. You first assume that the virgin is Isaiah’s wife because she is the only one mentioned, in the next chapter, but that assumption is without basis. Then, to fit that narrative, you assume that Isaiah’s first son is not the son of the same wife; again, this is without basis. Then, you use those assumptions to conclude that virgin can mean a woman who is married but doesn’t have a child; a definition I can find nowhere.

And as far as evidence, all we have is what the scriptures say and what they do not say.

Yes, exactly. So we would do well to stick with the plain meaning and not make even one assumption, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Grailhunter]

That Isaiah’s wife is the only one mentioned in no way whatsoever means that she is the virgin spoken of. Again, that is fallaciously begging the question. This is all the more problematic because prior to the prophecy, Isaiah has a son. The prophecy regarding a future son born to a virgin, whose name will be Immanuel, is then made. Then Isaiah goes to his wife who bears a son whose name is certainly not Immanuel.

1. If you do not what to believe what the scriptures say....I don't care.
2. Does the storyline say it is a prophecy?

But it isn’t what the scriptures say. You first assume that the virgin is Isaiah’s wife because she is the only one mentioned, in the next chapter, but that assumption is without basis. Then, to fit that narrative, you assume that Isaiah’s first son is not the son of the same wife; again, this is without basis. Then, you use those assumptions to conclude that virgin can mean a woman who is married but doesn’t have a child; a definition I can find nowhere.

I do not assume anything, it is what the scripture says. There is no other woman in the story.
So employing your method of scriptural interpretation are you going to say that Yahweh impregnated another women other than Miriam....insert another women in that story.
The story does not say who the son is by so I am not assuming anything.
But I am going to assume that you are back to harassing so no more talk to you.

 

[Free]

1. If you do not what to believe what the scriptures say....I don't care.

I don't believe your claims here because it seems very unlikely that that is what they scriptures say.

2. Does the storyline say it is a prophecy?

Yes--"the Lord himself will give you a sign;" it clearly is stating that a sign will be given in the future. That sign will be a virgin who gives birth. That is prophecy.

I do not assume anything, it is what the scripture says.

You are making it say something that goes against a plain reading of the text.

There is no other woman in the story.

Which is not relevant. Of course, to use such reasoning, the most natural and obvious implication is that Isaiah's first son is from the same wife, since, according to you, she is the only woman in the story. Not only that, she is the only wife in the story. Why do you use that argument to apply to a vague prophecy rather than to something that is plain? What justification can you to support your assertion?

So employing your method of scriptural interpretation are you going to say that Yahweh impregnated another women other than Miriam....insert another women in that story.

What story? Did God impregnate a Miriam in a story somewhere in the Bible?

The story does not say who the son is by so I am not assuming anything.

But you are. Your whole position rests on the assumption that it isn't Isaiah's wife's son, the wife with whom he has another son in chapter 8. Yet, there is no reason to warrant such an assumption. A natural reading of the text is that Isaiah had these two sons by the same wife. After all, she is the only woman in the story.

Then you use that assumption to assume that a legitimate definition of "virgin" is a childless, married woman.

And then there is the problem that Isaiah's second son wasn't named Immanuel...

But I am going to assume that you are back to harassing so no more talk to you.

I'm not harassing you and never have; I'm doing what the Bible says we should do, and comparing what you--a self-proclaimed Bible teacher--say with Scripture. You just don't seem to like being told or shown that your understanding is even possibly incorrect. I've proven you wrong before and you pulled the same card. However, any true Bible teacher worth his salt, will accept challenges to his doctrinal beliefs, because he wants to know if he is wrong, and has the humility to admit when he is.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't believe your claims here because it seems very unlikely that that is what they scriptures say.


Yes--"the Lord himself will give you a sign;" it clearly is stating that a sign will be given in the future. That sign will be a virgin who gives birth. That is prophecy.


You are making it say something that goes against a plain reading of the text.


Which is not relevant. Of course, to use such reasoning, the most natural and obvious implication is that Isaiah's first son is from the same wife, since, according to you, she is the only woman in the story. Not only that, she is the only wife in the story. Why do you use that argument to apply to a vague prophecy rather than to something that is plain? What justification can you to support your assertion?


What story? Did God impregnate a Miriam in a story somewhere in the Bible?


But you are. Your whole position rests on the assumption that it isn't Isaiah's wife's son, the wife with whom he has another son in chapter 8. Yet, there is no reason to warrant such an assumption. A natural reading of the text is that Isaiah had these two sons by the same wife. After all, she is the only woman in the story.

Then you use that assumption to assume that a legitimate definition of "virgin" is a childless, married woman.

And then there is the problem that Isaiah's second son wasn't named Immanuel...


I'm not harassing you and never have; I'm doing what the Bible says we should do, and comparing what you--a self-proclaimed Bible teacher--say with Scripture. You just don't seem to like being told or shown that your understanding is even possibly incorrect. I've proven you wrong before and you pulled the same card. However, any true Bible teacher worth his salt, will accept challenges to his doctrinal beliefs, because he wants to know if he is wrong, and has the humility to admit when he is.

I would say I disagree with you on all counts.
And I have explained the virgin thing several times and if you cannot grasp it, I don't want to explain it to you again.
And I am beginning to catch on to Free’s method of scriptural interpretation, so there is no telling what you believe. But I do have a sense of humor…..so you go ahead explain what you think….and I will keep laughing at you.