Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14[/quote]

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”[/quote]

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/[/quote]

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?[/quote]

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines[/quote]

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?[/quote]

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.[/quote]

Wrong. “Young woman” was only pretty much synonymous with “virgin” if the young woman was unmarried. A young married woman is still an “almah” and presumably not a virgin. Moreover, the United Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) which publishes the New American Bible is most definitely NOT a “hostile (Jewish) source” as you put it. It’s a Catholic source which has changed the translation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in the latest edition of the New American Bible because “almah” means “young woman,” not “virgin.”

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

[/quote]

DP here but fine... I don't think the Isaiah prophesy is important to the story or adds any credibility at all. The Christians belive Mary was a virgin, so that's clear enough. The story would continue on that basis without the Isaiah prophesy anyway.[/quote]

This. Jewish pp appears to be arguing that Mary couldn’t have been a virgin unless Isaiah predicted it. This isn’t logical given there was a long-standing Christian tradition before Matthew. This is a separate issue from the whole translation debate.[/quote]

Wrong. First, I’m not Jewish. Second, I’ve never said Mary wasn’t a virgin. I’m not taking any position on whether Mary was a virgin or not. I’m merely saying “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman,” not “virgin.”  Thirdly, I’m saying Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with any prophecy about Jesus at all. I’m saying Isaiah 7:14 is about exactly what it says it’s about: A sign to the King Ahaz to obey Isaiah’s warning not to engage in military alliances which Isaiah adamantly opposed. The prophecy is that the ungodly King Ahaz will have a son, King Hezekiah, who will be the first King of Judah to finally obey God’s commandments and will be the best King since Solomon and will bring the Kingdom of Judah into a state of “Immanuel (God with us).”[/quote]

Just wondering, do you have any idea how your repetition of “wrong, Wrong, Wrong!” comes off as a sad combination of arrogance, rigidness of thought, and proof of your pathological inability to either see other sides or simply stop pressing your point on people who won’t ever agree with you? Also, now we’re all thinking you’re a Jew turned atheist, because your arguing style is so slippery that it’s likely something like this. At this point you’ve repeated your points and links ad nauseum over many pages. None of us were around at the nativity, and even you just admitted it could have been a virgin birth—so what is this morbid and pathological compulsion you have to be right, and to prove everybody else wrong? [/quote]

I never denied that Mary was a virgin. I have no idea whether she was or not. I never addressed that issue. My point is that Isaiah 7:14 isn’t about Jesus, it’s about exactly what it says it’s about. Isaiah was adamantly opposed to military alliances. King Pekah of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and King Rezin of Aram tried to pressure King Ahaz of the Southern Kingdom of Judah into joining a military alliance against Assyria. On the other hand, King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria wanted Ahaz to ally Judah with Assyria against Israel and Aram. Isaiah told the ungodly King Ahaz to make no alliances at all and to ask for a sign from God. In an attempt to sound godly, Ahaz said “I will not test God.” Isaiah replied that God would send a sign whether Ahaz wanted it or not. The sign would be the birth of a child who would bring Judah into a state of “Immanuel (God with us).” The sign was most likely the birth of Ahaz’s own son, the future King Hezekiah, who became the most godly king Judah had ever had. Ahaz ignored the sign and allied himself with Tiglath-Pileser who destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Judah and Aram and deported their populations. The Kingdom of Judah became subservient to Assyria and Ahaz adopted certain Assyrian religious rituals into the Temple in Jerusalem. When Ahaz’s prophesied son Hezekiah ascended to the throne, he broke with Assyria, eliminated Assyrian worship from the Temple and became the first Israelite king to follow the commandment in Deuteronomy to remove all the sacrificial alters except the one in the Temple and allow sacrifices only in Jerusalem. [/quote]

You really do seem obsessive, and it’s not a good look.

It’s surprising, frankly, that it took you so long to get to Ahaz. But Christians read that too, obviously. They have a very simple answer. Some prophecies are both near and far term. The OT has lots of these dual-fulfillment prophecies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_fulfillment. As a former Jew, you wouldn’t know this about Christian theology. [/quote]

I’m trying to read what you wrote in the best light possible but your statement about dual-fulfillment prophecies sounds quite anti Semitic. Of course I understand dual fulfillment prophecies, and your statement “as a former Jew, you wouldn’t understand this about Christian theology” is extremely bigoted. I am not a “former Jew,” but there are many Jews who understand Christian theology. You say “It’s surprising, frankly, that it took you so long to get to Ahaz” even though I did bring up Ahaz and the sign Isaiah said he would receive earlier in this discussion. You say Christians see Isaiah’s prophecy to Ahaz that the birth of a child of an “almah” would be a sign to Ahaz not to join a military alliance was also a prophecy of Jesus’ birth. That makes sense if one agrees that “almah” means “young woman,” virgin or not. But you have been arguing, contrary to both Christian and Jewish sources, that “almah” and “betulah” are synonymous and both mean “virgin.”  If that’s true, then you must be saying that Ahaz’s son Hezekiah was born of a virgin. King Hezekiah was certainly the most godly king Judah ever had, at least until the ascension of King Josiah, but I have never heard anyone, Christian or Jewish, say that Ahaz’s wife was a virgin when she bore Hezekiah. If, however, I’m correct and “almah” means “young woman,” virgin or not, then it makes sense because Ahaz’s wife wasn’t a virgin but perhaps Mary was. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics