What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?

DavidDavid said:
I started the post and after months of this and thinking about, the more I see the more I believe Christainty is a fraud. The Jewish scriptures speak for themselves, all the twisted christian use of the tanch and mistranlations, the lies and the inabailty to prove that christiansy is real is convincing me more and more that christians are frauds. I still cant find a christian letter on the websites or anywhere that can actually make sense against Jewish theology, why do you think none of these christian apologetics sites dont have judiasm listed, they cant defend christainsy vs it, and they try to hide and are scared to look at the facts because it challenges there faith, and christians go around and bash every other religion out there, but are too afarid to investigate judaism.....
Click to expand...

Jews for Jesus

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/judaica
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/lifestories/more

... still struggling?

:) :)

Try these...

Christian Thinktank

For students of Judaism
  • (1) Did the messianic Jewish Believers use the Hebrew Bible deceitfully in the NT?
    (2) Were 1st-century Jews expecting a Messiah?
    (3) Was Jesus a failure as a Messiah?
    (4) Why believe Jesus was the Messiah when he did not fulfill all the prophecies?
    (5) Does the New Testament contradict the Hebrew bible by saying the 'eternal law' has been changed?
    (6) Was Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross a case of illegal human sacrifice?
    (7) Was John's Gospel anti-Semitic?
    (8) Was Paul's statement in 1 Thess 2 anti-Semitic?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/

... still struggling?

Then try these links:

Dr. Michael Brown

Dr. Michael Brown said:
Dr. Michael L. Brown is founder and president of ICN Ministries. As a Jewish believer in Jesus, he is active in Jewish evangelism, debating rabbis on radio, TV, and college campuses, as well as teaching the Church about God's eternal purposes for Israel and the Jewish people. He is also a published Old Testament and Semitic scholar, holding a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He has served as a Visiting Professor of Jewish Apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission and as a Visiting Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Click to expand...
http://www.icnministries.org/about/testimony.htm

Real Messiah

This website is devoted to all seekers of truth, especially Jewish men and women who have questions about the Messianic credentials of Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth.

So, if you’re a believer in Yeshua with honest questions, this is the place for you. And if you don’t believe in him at all – even to the point of hostility – this is the place for you too, as long as you’re willing to hear the evidence and consider the facts.
Click to expand...
http://www.realmessiah.com/

General Objections
http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJgeneral.htm

Historical Objections
http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJhistorical.htm

Theological Objections
http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJtheological.htm

Messianic Objections
http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJmessianic.htm

.... need more?

Who is Jesus?

A rabbi and a Messianic Jew debate the 2,000 year old question
Rabbi David Blumofe & Dr. Michael Brown

If you could travel 2,000 years back in time and be an eyewitness to a debate between Paul the Apostle and the most outstanding Pharisee over the Messiahship of Jesus, it could not be more exciting than this debate.

Orthodox rabbi David Blumofe wrote a doctoral thesis that gives more than 200 reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah.

Dr. Michael Brown, a Messianic Jew, has a doctorate in Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University.

How can two such brilliant Jews base their reputations and very lives on such opposite positions?

It's time for you to think for yourself as these two eminent scholars go toe-to-toe in a public debate: WHO IS JESUS?

whoisjesussm.gif

http://www.realmessiah.com/resources.htm

:D :) :D :)
 
messiah

I would like to continue my previous post wrt to the Christian position that Jesus is legitimized biologically through the genealogy in Luke which some Christians maintain is the line of Mary.

The first problem which stands out like a sore thumb is that Mary's genealogy does not contain the name of Mary :roll: Christians maintain that Heli is Mary's father and Joseph is his son-in-law so they substitue the name of Joseph into the list instead. Notwithstanding there is no basis for doing this in the Tanach, let's let this stand for the moment.

The next problem to consider is that even accepting this as Mary's genealogy, it is of no legal standing since according to the Tanach, by the word of God, tribal lineage is determined solely through the biological (natural) father. (Num 1:18).

Next problem. The moderator has stated in a previous post that both Joseph and Mary were of Davidic descent, ie through the tribe of Judah.
Why then, does it state in Luke that Elisabeth, MARY'S COUSIN, the mother of John the baptist was married to a priest, and that she herself was "of the daughters of Aaron"? This would make Elisabeth and her cousin Mary Levites, and exclude Mary from the Judah-David line.

Finally, why don't we look to the Tanch and really see what God states about the Davidic convenant and dynasty:

2 Samuel 7:12-16- (12)When your days are fulfilled, and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up your seed that shall issue from your body after you, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with afflictions of human beings. (15) And My mercy shall not depart from him; in the manner in which I withdrew it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. (16) And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you; your throne shall be established forever.

The covenant means the following:
1) an everlasting dynasty is established through King David
2)David's heir, through whom the dynasty shall pass, will be one of his natural sons.
3)The son who inherits the throne from David is the one who builds the Temple in Jerusalem (SOLOMON)
4)The dynasty propogates through David's seed (zera) and so on indicating every future king will be a mortal man
5)Even when future kings are upon the throne, if they commit iniquity God will punish them, but keep the dynasty intact.

So we see yet another problem with the Luke genealogy that bypasses Solomon and goes through NATHAN :oops: This contradicts the word of God through his judge Samuel and therefore is discredited.

Does anyone (except the moderator) on this forum BEGIN to understand why Jews have trouble with the Greek testament and the Christian doctrine of Jesus being the messiah??? I am arguing from the best translations of the original Hebrew texts. I am basing these arguments on relevant passages, not taking these out of context. In short I believe I am debating with honesty and integrity. YOU DECIDE!!!

Next: Isaish 9:56
5)
 
I understand where you're coming from. It has been fairly evident to me for a very long time that Jesus is not the Messiah in terms of the fulfilment of any kind of Biblical prophecy. But Christians have tried to legitimize their alleigance to him through the Hebrew Bible since the time of Paul. So I doubt it will change.

However, I still refer to Jesus as the Christ or the Messiah, because I don't believe that there ever will be a messiah. The notion of a messiah was the deep hope of a people under oppression. They desired liberation from Rome, and the idea that some great hero from the line of David would come and save them was certainly attractive.

I believe Jesus to have been a deeply insightful and spiritual person. We are enslaved by our own selfish tendenices and ignorance. Jesus was able to overcome that and pass his wisdom to others. He is a liberator in that sense, a savior...a Christ.
 
AHIMSA said:
Does anyone (except the moderator) on this forum BEGIN to understand why Jews have trouble with the Greek testament and the Christian doctrine of Jesus being the messiah???
Click to expand...

Have you even read (or listened) to any of the links I gave you? By your comments, obviously not.

:)
 
AHIMSA said:
.... However, I still refer to Jesus as the Christ or the Messiah, because I don't believe that there ever will be a messiah. The notion of a messiah was the deep hope of a people under oppression. They desired liberation from Rome, and the idea that some great hero from the line of David would come and save them was certainly attractive.

I believe Jesus to have been a deeply insightful and spiritual person. We are enslaved by our own selfish tendenices and ignorance. Jesus was able to overcome that and pass his wisdom to others. He is a liberator in that sense, a savior...a Christ.
Click to expand...
You diss the Bible, you think that homosexuality is OK, you pick-and-choose from the Bible......

Talk about being "enslaved by our own selfish tendenices(sic) and ignorance".... just more of your New Age rubbish and mumbo jumbo.

:)
 
As for the so-called "line of David problem", again it is only your own basic misunderstanding that is the problem!

I have explained and given this link to you before but you seem to have forgotten already!

So here it is again:

What the skeptics are arguing is:

(1) The genealogies show that JOSEPH is the descendent of David;
(2) Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth, is NOT a gene-carrying descendent of Joseph;
(3) Therefore, Jesus is NOT a gene-carrying descendent of David.

However, notice the main assumption in this argument:

Only gene-carrying descendants are considered as descendants.

This assumption is demonstrably false. Let's look at the situation and background closely.

(a) Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.

(b) It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)

(c) Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".

(d) So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage? Probably through the law of levirate marriage.
The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"
[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).
Click to expand...
So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

(e) Now, as a practical matter, I consider the gene-issue to be important, simply because there were NUMEROUS other indications that the Messiah WOULD BE from the 'stock of Jesse' etc--images and phrases that DO put more emphasis on the blood-line that does simply 'legal lineage'--but I am persuaded that these requirements were adequately satisfied from Mary's side.

Source: Glenn Miller -here-

:)
 
Even if you can managed to convinve people that the lineages lead back to Joseph, you still can't side step Matthew's mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin" in Isaiah.
 
AHIMSA said:
Even if you can managed(??) to convinve(sic) people that the lineages lead back to Joseph, you still can't side step Matthew's mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin" in Isaiah.
Click to expand...

Still clutching at straws?

P.S. Did you listen to ANY of the debates?
:wink:
 
Probably one of the strongest argument for almah meaning "virgin" is that when the 70 rabbis translated the Septuagint (around 2nd century BCE) they translated almah as parthenos ("virgin" in Greek). There were perfectly good Greek words for young woman, but note, the rabbis chose the word for "virgin. So if modern Judaism wants to debunk almah by saying it can't mean virgin, we see this is newer thinking (not even popularized yet in Rashi's day) and that previously almah was understood to mean "virgin" -- even in Isaiah 7:14.
Click to expand...

The "70 rabbi's" only translated the torah. The rest of the Tanach was translated into Greek over the next few hundred years - but by who? Jewish sources argue it is not known, but most probably by gentiles. Can you prove, then, that rabbi's "chose the word virgin"?
 
James D. Price, Ph. D.
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN 37404
(423) 493-4246
e-mail drjdprice@aol.com
Dec. 15, 1995



The meaning of the Hebrew word "almah."

The key to an understanding of the meaning of this passage is the Septuagint (LXX) translation which uses the Greek word "parthenos" (virgin) to translate the word "almah."

The LXX was translated by Jews before the time of Christ and so preserves the pristine Jewish Messianic tradition before it was affected by the debates with the early Christians. Further evidence that this passage was regarded by the early Jews as Messianic is indicated by the Talmudic reference of 7:21 (an integral part of the whole prophecy) to Messianic times[2].

...It is true that the Greek word "parthenos" may sometimes not mean virgin in the strict technical sense of the term, but the normal meaning of the word should be understood unless the context demands otherwise.

It is true that the Hebrew word "almah" is also translated in other places as "maid" or "maiden," but one must not forget that these words are synonyms for "virgin" as any English dictionary clearly indicates. Our present immoral culture has obscured the issue, but in earlier English culture (and Hebrew culture) an unmarried young woman was expected to be a virgin. So, whether one referred to an unmarried young woman as a virgin or as a maiden, the same thing was meant.

This was such a strong expectation in ancient Hebrew culture that a girl guilty of fornication was put to death, and a raped young woman was unsuited for marriage. Thus Joseph thought to set Mary aside when he learned she was with child, and was only prevented from doing so by angelic intervention (Matt 1:18-25). Thus Jewish culture expects the word to mean virgin in this context.

It is true that Hebrew has another word "bethulah" that means virgin. But this word is used to refer to any virgin, ranging from a little girl to a mature young woman; whereas the word "almah" refers only to a sexually mature young woman.[3]

In the Hebrew Bible the word refers only to young women that are virgins. So for example, Genesis 24 relates the story of the betrothal of Rebekah to Isaac. In verse 16 she is referred to as "a virgin ["bethulah"], neither had any man known her"; whereas in verse 43 she is referred to as a virgin ["almah"]. In such contexts the words are synonymous. No usage of the word "almah" in the Hebrew Bible can be shown to mean other than a sexually mature virgin, and this passage is no exception.
Click to expand...

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

Hebrew

hmle `almah al-maw'

feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin.

English definition

maiden

MA'IDEN, n.

1. An unmarried woman, or a young unmarried woman; a virgin.

2. A female servant.

3. It is used in composition, to express the feminine gender, as in maid-servant.

MA'IDEN, n. A maid; also, an instrument for beheading criminals, and another for washing linen.

MA'IDEN, a. Pertaining to a young woman or virgin; as maiden charms.

1. Consisting of young women or virgins.

Amid the maiden throng.

2. Fresh; new; unused.

He fleshed his maiden sword.

MA'IDEN, v.i. To speak and act demurely or modestly.

The Jews and skeptics ignore the fact that a young woman having a baby (a daily occurrence) is not a significant sign natural or supernatural.

A virgin having a baby is a very significant sign.

The argument that only Joseph and Mary both from the house of David saw the sign is irrelevant.

How many people saw Gideon's fleece?

Also, The fact that billions of people have believed that a virgin conceived is a very significant proof of the impact of the sign.
 
Have you even read (or listened) to any of the links I gave you? By your comments, obviously not.
Click to expand...

I listened to Singer/Brown for about 1/2 hour before succumbing to tedium. The most important point I feel was made when Singer claimed the historical Jesus is a myth because there is no evidence of his existence outside of the NT, and Brown countered that, by the same token, there is no evidence outside the OT that the Exodus ever really happened.

One wonders if the significance of this particular exchange occurred to either debater? :roll:

(P.S. - you really take advantage of the fact that only Christian links may be posted, don't you? :wink: )
 
BradtheImpaler said:
Have you even read (or listened) to any of the links I gave you? By your comments, obviously not.
Click to expand...

I listened to Singer/Brown for about 1/2 hour before succumbing to tedium. The most important point I feel was made was when Singer claimed the historical Jesus is a myth because there is no evidence of his existence outside of the NT, and Brown countered that, by the same token, there is no evidence outside the OT that the Exodus ever really happened.

One wonders if the significance of this particular exchange occurred to either debater? :roll:

(P.S. - you really take advantage of the fact that only Christian links may be posted, don't you? :wink: )
Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies. You don't believe either the OT or the NT.

What do you care any way?

Are you an atheist?
 
Just because a maiden is typcially a virgin does not mean that 'almah' is synonomous with virgin. In the book of Isaiah, when it says "A young woman will be with child" the reader would, of course, assume that this young woman in particular was not a vrigin, seeing as she was pregnant.

If the author of Isaiah wanted to make it known that a virgin was giving birth, which is of course much more spectacular, he would of have used the Hebrew word that is specfic for virgin, seeing as a "young woman giving birth" immediately implies that she has lost her virginity.

Secondly, this mistranslation is not something new. When early Christians tried to convert Jews through evidence of messianic prophecy the Rabbis would simply point this out.
 
BradtheImpala said:
Gary said:
Have you even read (or listened) to any of the links I gave you? By your comments, obviously not.
Click to expand...

I listened to Singer/Brown for about 1/2 hour before succumbing to tedium. The most important point I feel was made when Singer claimed the historical Jesus is a myth because there is no evidence of his existence outside of the NT, and Brown countered that, by the same token, there is no evidence outside the OT that the Exodus ever really happened.

One wonders if the significance of this particular exchange occurred to either debater? :roll:

(P.S. - you really take advantage of the fact that only Christian links may be posted, don't you? :wink: )
Click to expand...

.... pity that you missed the next 2 hours!! It was all on topic: i.e. How do we respond to Jews who believe the Messiah hasn't come?

Dr. Michael L. Brown & Rabbi Tovia Singer, moderated by Sid Roth:
You very obviously are NOT a seeker of truth... or you would not have been so scared to have stopped listening.

:-?
 
AHIMSA said:
Just because a maiden is typcially a virgin does not mean that 'almah' is synonomous with virgin. In the book of Isaiah, when it says "A young woman will be with child" the reader would, of course, assume that this young woman in particular was not a vrigin, seeing as she was pregnant.

If the author of Isaiah wanted to make it known that a virgin was giving birth, which is of course much more spectacular, he would of have used the Hebrew word that is specfic for virgin, seeing as a "young woman giving birth" immediately implies that she has lost her virginity.

Secondly, this mistranslation is not something new. When early Christians tried to convert Jews through evidence of messianic prophecy the Rabbis would simply point this out.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about. The writers of the New Testament were all Jews.

How is a young woman having a baby significant?

Also, the child growing into a man unfolds through the entire book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 9:6-7 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. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 53:1-5 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Second we have the New Testament which is the Old Testament revealed.

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.


Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Acts 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

This is about faith. You believe in neither the Old Testament nor the New.

We believe in both.

You only want to invent your own version of Jesus.

If you want to have eternal life you must accept God's word as true.

This is what God's word says...

Matthew 1:18 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.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:20 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.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

James D. Price, Ph. D.
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN 37404
(423) 493-4246
e-mail drjdprice@aol.com
Dec. 15, 1995

It is true that Hebrew has another word "bethulah" that means virgin. But this word is used to refer to any virgin, ranging from a little girl to a mature young woman; whereas the word "almah" refers only to a sexually mature young woman.[3]

In the Hebrew Bible the word refers only to young women that are virgins. So for example, Genesis 24 relates the story of the betrothal of Rebekah to Isaac. In verse 16 she is referred to as "a virgin ["bethulah"], neither had any man known her"; whereas in verse 43 she is referred to as a virgin ["almah"]. In such contexts the words are synonymous. No usage of the word "almah" in the Hebrew Bible can be shown to mean other than a sexually mature virgin, and this passage is no exception.
Click to expand...
 
In the Hebrew Bible the word refers only to young women that are virgins. So for example, Genesis 24 relates the story of the betrothal of Rebekah to Isaac. In verse 16 she is referred to as "a virgin ["bethulah"], neither had any man known her"; whereas in verse 43 she is referred to as a virgin ["almah"]. In such contexts the words are synonymous. No usage of the word "almah" in the Hebrew Bible can be shown to mean other than a sexually mature virgin, and this passage is no exception
Click to expand...
.

almah and bethulah are different things. It is often the case that young woman is a virgin, but not ALWAYS. If a writer wanted to make a point that a woman was in fact a virgin he would use the Hebrew word "Bethulah", which means virgin.

Lets look: Genesis 24:16

The Girl was very beautiful, a virgin (bethulah), no man had ever lain with her.

In verse 43: See, I am standing beside this spring, if a maiden (almah) comes...

The author uses bethulah when he specifically needs to point out her virgnity.

Likewise, if Isaiah had intened to write "A virgin will be with child", it is only logical that he would have used "bethulah", as this Hebrew word is in direct reference to virginity. But he didnt. He used "almah", which means "young woman", NOT VIRGIN. And though it is very likely that a young woman would not be a virgin, it is obvious in this case that she is not...as she is with child.
 
Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand <natsab> by the well <`ayin> of water <mayim>; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin <`almah> cometh forth <yatsa'> to draw <sha'ab> water, and I say <'amar> to her, Give me <shaqah>, I pray thee, a little <m@`at> water <mayim> of thy pitcher <kad> to drink <shaqah>;

Hebrew

hmle `almah al-maw'

feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin.

English definition

maiden

MA'IDEN, n.

1. An unmarried woman, or a young unmarried woman; a virgin.

2. A female servant.

3. It is used in composition, to express the feminine gender, as in maid-servant.

MA'IDEN, n. A maid; also, an instrument for beheading criminals, and another for washing linen.

MA'IDEN, a. Pertaining to a young woman or virgin; as maiden charms.

1. Consisting of young women or virgins.

Amid the maiden throng.

2. Fresh; new; unused.

He fleshed his maiden sword.

MA'IDEN, v.i. To speak and act demurely or modestly.

The Jews and skeptics ignore the fact that a young woman having a baby (a daily occurrence) is not a significant sign natural or supernatural.

A virgin having a baby is a very significant sign.

The argument that only Joseph and Mary both from the house of David saw the sign is irrelevant.

How many people saw Gideon's fleece?

Also, The fact that billions of people have believed that a virgin conceived is a very significant proof of the impact of the sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top