What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[RLT63]

The same gravitational force that kept it in place from the beginning.


Yes...a miracle of creation...not an act of magic. We know that it is earth's rotation that creates day and night. And did you notice something else that shows it wasn't a 24 hour day?
"There was evening and morning".....how long is it between evening and morning here on earth? That is only 12 earth hours. But Peter tells us that with God, 'a thousand years seems like just one day'. (2 Peter 3:8)


This was the result of God using his spirit to accomplish his will. So, of course it was a miracle. But the Mary was not without sin. The child in her womb was sinless because of how he was created. The Bible does not teach that Mary (a descendant of Adam) was sinless however....nor does it teach that Mary was ever virgin.....you will find many of the titles and attributes of Mary are borrowed from ancient mother goddess worship. They are certainly not biblical. And many pre-date Christianity by centuries.

Do you see the similarity?

Something else they have in common....the nimbus (halo)
which is not mentioned at all in scripture but evident in these ancient statues.

These are a relic of sun worship. Nothing whatever to do with Christianity.

The Bible declares the virgin birth. No Mary was not sinless but she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. The conception of Jesus was immaculate as the scriptures tell us. Your other information comes from Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons. Much of the book has been debunked. There was another book based on Hislop's called Babylon Mystery Religion but the author took it out of print and wrote another book refuting the first one because he said Hislop's sources were bogus. The Two Babylons - Wikipedia
There is some truth in all this and the virgin and child are sometimes depicted as Semiramis and Tamuz but these connections to the Catholic Church have been exaggerated.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

I think I have an advantage over you since you all study online, having said that, since when is Robertson an "uncredited" resource?


Word Pictures in the New Testament
Author(s): Robertson, Archibald Thomas (1863-1934)
Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Description: A. T. Robertson was a renowned Greek New Testament
scholar. His work on the Greek language is still consulted
today. Word Pictures in the New Testament is his insightful
treatment of that book. In the Greek New Testament, there
are a variety of meaningful pictorial nuances implicit in the
Greek constructions. These nuances are often lost in translation. Word Pictures in the New Testament explains them.
Robertson examines Greek constructions from many different
Testament passages. He provides background to many of
the Greek words and their connotations in the original Greek,
thereby shedding new light on the meaning of passages.
Many readers have gained a new, richer understanding of
the New Testament by studying Word Pictures in the New
Testament. And although no technical knowledge is required
to study this work, familiarity with the Greek language makes
this work much easier to digest. Consequently, it is ideal for
pastors, theologians, and students of the New Testament.
Tim Perrine
CCEL Staff Writer

Can you provide proof that Robertson, Archibald Thomas was a fraud, uneducated, such as yourself, and "uncredited?"

It's considered an uncredited, which is not the same as saying accredited source, when someone copies and pasted the intellectual material of someone else without adding a link to credit the source of said copy and paste.

 

[Johann]

It's considered an uncredited, which is not the same as saying accredited source, when someone copies and pasted the intellectual material of someone else without adding a link to credit the source of said copy and paste.

So, you are accusing me of plagiarism, and Robertson is now rightfully "accredited?"
You see, I don't use these two sources because I don't understand Koine Greek, I study first, and THEN see if Robertson and Vincent concur, as a confirmation, make any sense to you?
Now that you know my "secret" why don't you study?

 

[Johann]

It's considered an uncredited, which is not the same as saying accredited source, when someone copies and pasted the intellectual material of someone else without adding a link to credit the source of said copy and paste.

Why is Jesus called the Word?
Michael S. Heiser

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 is, by far, one of the most familiar verses in the Bible. We know “the Word” speaks of Jesus (John 1:14), but where did John get the idea that “the Word” could refer to God as a person?

Part of the answer concerns the translation John used. While John used the Greek word logos (λόγος) when referring to “the Word,” he himself was drawing on Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. In Jesus’ day, Aramaic was the native language of the Jewish people.

While the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek, the language of the wider Gentile world, it was also translated into Aramaic. These Aramaic translations are called Targums. One specific Targum of the Torah, Targum Onkelos, was sanctioned by Jewish religious authorities for use in the synagogue.

The Targums telegraph the idea of God as “Word” in many places—in vivid, sometimes startling ways. Many Jews of John’s day would have been familiar with the idea. The Aramaic term for “word,” memra, was often used as another way to refer to God. Consider Numbers 14:11, noting the underlined and bold portions:

And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?”

The Targum (Neofiti) renders part of this Old Testament verse as follows:

“How long will they not believe in the name of my Word in spite of all the signs of my miracles which I have performed?”

In the Targum rendering, the Lord refers to Himself as “my Word,” using the Aramaic term memra.

John calls Jesus “the Word made flesh” in John 1:14, referring to Numbers 14:11. He does this because the translations he had heard so many times in the synagogue had taught him that God was the Word—the memra—and he believed Jesus was God. John even echoes the Targum rendering of Numbers 1:14 later on:

When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him (John 12:36–37).

Memra is used more than 600 times in the Aramaic Targums to describe God, often in passages where the language presumes God is present in physical, human form:

And they heard the sound of the memra of the Lord God walking in the garden … (Gen 3:8).

Because of the Targums, Jews in the days of Jesus and John would have understood the notion that God could come to them in human form. John believed that was exactly what he and the disciples had witnessed in Jesus, so it was natural for him to refer to Jesus as the Word. John wrote his Gospel in Greek, but his theology was Jewish, conveyed to him through Aramaic. Therefore, both Jews and non-Jewish people got the point in unmistakable terms: The Word of the Old Testament had been made flesh (John 1:14) and walked among us.

You want to know the source?

 

[Johann]

It's considered an uncredited, which is not the same as saying accredited source, when someone copies and pasted the intellectual material of someone else without adding a link to credit the source of said copy and paste.

Jesus and the Angel of YHWH
The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Angel. Remember, an angel is one who is sent without reference to the nature of the one sent.
When 1 Corinthians 10:1 is compared with Exodus 13:21, and Exodus 14:19, 24 the Angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. It goes on to say that '...at the morning watch, YHWH looked down on the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud...'
Numbers 14:14 says that it was YHWH who was among the people. And Psalm 78:14 says that '...he led them with the cloud by day and all the night with a light of fire.'
It was the Angel who accompanied the nation and the New Testament says that it was the Messiah who accompanied them. He was their spiritual rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4) The association seems clear:
Deuteronomy 32:3-4 and Deuteronomy 32:15, 18

Jude 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus*, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
* The reading Ἰησοῦς/Jesus [enjoys] ...the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg)... The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).)

Exodus 12:51 says that YHWH brought the people out of Egypt and yet...

Judges 2:1 says that the Angel of YHWH brought Israel out of Egypt

And 1 Corinthians 10:4-5, 9 says 'all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Messiah. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.... We must not put *Messiah/Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents.'
* Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of MSS, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) textvtypes, and other MSS and versions (Ψ latt sy co). The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).


Numbers 26:65 For YHWH had said of them, “They shall die in the wilderness.” Not one of them was left, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

Back to the top
John 8:58
“εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.” (John 8:58)
הֵשִׁיב לָהֶם יֵשׁוּעַ׃ ״אָמֵן אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם, בְּטֶרֶם הֱיוֹת אַבְרָהָם, אֲנִי הוּא.

"So the Judeans said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple."

The lead up to his statement is this:

“So they were saying to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.”” (John 8:19)
“And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” (John 8:23)

““I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”” (John 8:38)

Jesus took their statement to another level. Not only had he seen Abraham but he was in existence not just before Abraham (which would read ἤμην - ‘I was’) but eternally ‘ἐγὼ εἰμί’. Notice that their response was to pick up stones to throw at him just as in John 10:31 where we are explicitly told their response was to his perceived blasphemy

“For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”
What does Torah say about blasphemy? “‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him...” (Leviticus 24:16).

So in John 8:59 their response to his claim was to try and stone him.

John 8:58 reads '...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι (was/existed) ἐγὼ εἰμί (I myself am/exist).'

The Greek version (LXX) of the Torah (circa 250 BC) translates "אני הוא" in Deuteronomy 32:39 as "‘See now that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι), And there is no god besides Me..."

Isaiah 41:4 "‘I, יהוה , am the first, and with the last. I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)’ "

And Isaiah 43:10 reads

““You are My witnesses,” declares יהוה, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He (ἐγώ εἰμι)...”

Compare this with the words of Jesus to John in Revelation 1:7:

"When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am (ἐγώ εἰμι) the first and the last..."

Revelation 22:13, 16

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end... I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Also Isaiah 43:13, 46:4, 48:12. Isaiah 52:6 is interesting because there יהוה says:

"Therefore my people will know my name in that day. For I am (ἐγώ εἰμι/אני הוא), behold I, the one speaking."

There appears to be a subtle pointer here to Exodus 3:14.

In John 10:28-30 we read:

“...I give eternal life to them... and no one will snatch them out of my hand... and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.”

Jesus claims to give eternal life and then puts himself on a par with the Father.

“The Judeans picked up stones again to stone him... “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”

Notice it says they picked up stones again. John is referring back to John 8:59 and so tying the charge for both occasions. What did they see as the blasphemy then as well as on this occasion? Claiming deity.

"Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

Many interpret Jesus’ words as directed towards human rulers but a reading of the source, Psalm 82 shows that he is referring to the divine council in heaven who were judged for injustice (to whom the word of God came). If that is the case then what Jesus is asserting is that Tanakh describes the divine council as ‘gods’ and so he too is God but not merely of the created heavenly class but as ontologically one with the uncreated, all powerful Most High Father.

“If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

He is not just elohim but, as stated in John 5, the unique Son of God.

“Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.” (John 10:28–39)

They knew what he was claiming and that’s why they continued to try and take him.

Here is Psalm 82

“Elohim takes His stand in the divine assembly (עדת-אל); He judges in the midst of the gods (אלהים). How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? ...I said, “You are gods (אלהים אתם), And all of you are sons of the Most High. “Nevertheless you will die like men (כאדם תמותון) And fall like any one of the princes.”

You want to know the source?

 

[Johann]

It's considered an uncredited, which is not the same as saying accredited source, when someone copies and pasted the intellectual material of someone else without adding a link to credit the source of said copy and paste.

Here, let me help you...the source..

Who is Malakh YHWH?

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Incorrect.
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.”
I am (egō eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genēthēnai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.

John 8:58 (AMP) - Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
Commentaries: Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) << John 8:57 John 8:59 >> John 8:58 Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesqai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." I am (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in John 1:1 and egeneto in John 1:14. See the contrast also in Psalms 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai). See the same use of eimi in John 6:20; John 9:9; John 8:24, John 8:28; John 18:6.

Why don't you tell the truth?
Changing a word in a copied article doesn't make the article your personal work. Rather it indicates wilfull intent to plagarize and mislead readers into thinking the stolen material is your original thought.

The lazy factor in a plagiarist is evident when they will change a word or two but they leave the Bible books abbreviated.

Incorrect.
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.”
I am (egō eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genēthēnai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.

Source:

So, you are accusing me of plagiarism, and Robertson is now rightfully "accredited?"
You see, I don't use these two sources because I don't understand Koine Greek, I study first, and THEN see if Robertson and Vincent concur, as a confirmation, make any sense to you?
Now that you know my "secret" why don't you study?

John 8:58 (AMP) - Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

Commentaries: Robertson's Word Pictures (NT) << John 8:57 John 8:59 >> John 8:58 Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesqai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." I am (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in John 1:1 and egeneto in John 1:14. See the contrast also in Psalms 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai). See the same use of eimi in John 6:20; John 9:9; John 8:24, John 8:28; John 18:6.

So, you are accusing me of plagiarism, and Robertson is now rightfully "accredited?"
You see, I don't use these two sources because I don't understand Koine Greek, I study first, and THEN see if Robertson and Vincent concur, as a confirmation, make any sense to you?
Now that you know my "secret" why don't you study?

You do use those sources. That's why the one source is near word for word matching your post. I'm not accusing plagiarism. I'm posting evidence of plagiarism.

You should study Exodus 20.
''Thou shalt not steal.''

 

[Johann]

The Bible declares the virgin birth.

Correct.


Isaiah 7:14 – Virgin
The Anti-Missionary’s Charge:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines: Since alma does indeed mean “literal virgin” in Isaiah 7, who was this sinless second Adam that was born during the reign of Ahaz? And further, what two kings or kingdoms were conquered during the childhood of Jesus?

HaDavar’s Response:
Since there is an admission that alma means virgin we have crossed the major barrier. The conception and birth that is predicted has to be a sign – something out-of-the-ordinary. A young woman conceiving and giving birth is hardly a sign – it happens every day. However, a virgin conception and subsequent birth is out-of-the-ordinary and serves as a genuine sign. That is why the word alma is important.

The word alma clearly means “virgin” in spite of the objections of the Rabbis. In contrast to the vast majority of rabbis today, who will not admit that alma means virgin. We have the opinion of Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology in Dropsie College, in his article Almah in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (The Journal of Bible & Religion, vol. 21 [April 1953], p.106):

The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean “virgin” here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as “virgin” for Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) rests on the older Jewish interpretation,…

In addition, the respected biblical commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yitzhaki) states that alma means virgin in his commentary on Song of Solomon 1:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Specifically, Rashi states that alma is synonymous with another Hebrew word that means virgin, the word betulah. The rabbis unequivocally state that betulah means virgin as well. Almah and betulah are nearly synonymous terms, meaning “virgin.” However, alma is the more restricted term and never needs explanatory information. In contrast the range of meaning of betulah includes virginity and marriage. The result is that betulah sometimes requires an explanatory phrase to indicate a virgin (see Gen. 24:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Finally, Encyclopedia Judaica states in its article entitled “Virgin, Virginity” (Encyclopaedia Judaica – CD ROM Edition © Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.

The biblical betulah usually rendered “virgin,” is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state.

The implication of this statement is that almah is the better term for virgin, as found in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).

The second point we need to realize is the fact that Isaiah chapter 7 contains two prophecies, a long-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies well into the future) and a short-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies within the lifetime of the prophet).

Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) is a long-term prophecy designed to encourage the Davidic dynasty over the next 700 turbulent years until the Messiah comes. The House of David needed to know this. Over those long and dreary years they would read this prophecy and be encouraged regarding the arrival of the Messiah/King. The reference is to the sinless second Adam but it is not a statement that he would be born during the reign of Ahaz. He will be born 700 years later. This is why Matthew directs us to the verse in Matthew 1:23Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).

In contrast, Isaiah 7:15-25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) is a short-term prophecy designed to encourage the house of Ahaz as well as chastise them for their lack of faith. Isaiah 7:15-25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) would encourage Ahaz because it tells him that the Davidic dynasty will survive the warfare planned against it. However, it also chastises Ahaz for his lack of faith exhibited in verse 12. Judgment will descend and bring hardship because of his unfaithfulness-but the House of David will survive. Ahaz needed to know that. Please remember that Isaiah’s son, Shaar YaShuv, is present in Isaiah’s arms.

In Isaiah 7:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) God commanded Isaiah to bring along his young son. There has to be a reason why God wanted him to do this. The reference to the boy eating curds and honey and refusing evil and choosing good in verses 15-16 is a reference to Shaar YaShuv. In other words, in just a few years the foes that Ahaz fears (Pekah and Rezin – verses 1-9) will be gone. Shaar YaShuv will function as a sign for Ahaz. That is the reason why he is present. The sign lies in the timing. The timing is the crucial element. Before that little boy reached the age of moral discrimination, the enemies will be gone. The speed and precise nature of the timing is the out-of-the-ordinary element.

This sign would also authenticate Isaiah as a genuine prophet and support the inclusion of his book in the canon of Scripture. You see, Shaar YaShuv is so young that he is still nursing. The earliest food to be given to him after his mother’s milk would have been honey, followed later by milk. This will all happen in 2-3 years and amaze Ahaz. The kingdoms that will be destroyed in such a short time are those of Pekah and Rezin.

Let us combine the two thoughts with first-century historical perspective. The first-century Jewish reader of Isaiah 7 would know from past history that the virgin-sign had not occurred in Ahaz’s day. Past history would tell them that Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) had not come to pass as yet. Past history would have also told them that verses 15-25 had come to pass exactly as stated. They would know from history that the timing-sign had occurred. Pekah and Rezin had fallen. Ahaz had survived and the land did suffer devastation by the Assyrians. However, the House of David and Judah had survived that as well. They would easily see what Matthew was driving at. Emmanuel had arrived after 700 years of waiting.

 

[Johann]

You do use those sources. That's why the one source is near word for word matching your post. I'm not accusing plagiarism. I'm posting evidence of plagiarism.

If I want to, I can make your head spin and run circles around you just for the sheer fun of it.

You do use those sources. That's why the one source is near word for word matching your post. I'm not accusing plagiarism. I'm posting evidence of plagiarism.

Ahh, you think you've "got" me?

 

[Johann]

Correct.


Isaiah 7:14 – Virgin
The Anti-Missionary’s Charge:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines: Since alma does indeed mean “literal virgin” in Isaiah 7, who was this sinless second Adam that was born during the reign of Ahaz? And further, what two kings or kingdoms were conquered during the childhood of Jesus?

HaDavar’s Response:
Since there is an admission that alma means virgin we have crossed the major barrier. The conception and birth that is predicted has to be a sign – something out-of-the-ordinary. A young woman conceiving and giving birth is hardly a sign – it happens every day. However, a virgin conception and subsequent birth is out-of-the-ordinary and serves as a genuine sign. That is why the word alma is important.

The word alma clearly means “virgin” in spite of the objections of the Rabbis. In contrast to the vast majority of rabbis today, who will not admit that alma means virgin. We have the opinion of Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology in Dropsie College, in his article Almah in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (The Journal of Bible & Religion, vol. 21 [April 1953], p.106):

The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean “virgin” here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as “virgin” for Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) rests on the older Jewish interpretation,…

In addition, the respected biblical commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yitzhaki) states that alma means virgin in his commentary on Song of Solomon 1:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). Specifically, Rashi states that alma is synonymous with another Hebrew word that means virgin, the word betulah. The rabbis unequivocally state that betulah means virgin as well. Almah and betulah are nearly synonymous terms, meaning “virgin.” However, alma is the more restricted term and never needs explanatory information. In contrast the range of meaning of betulah includes virginity and marriage. The result is that betulah sometimes requires an explanatory phrase to indicate a virgin (see Gen. 24:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Finally, Encyclopedia Judaica states in its article entitled “Virgin, Virginity” (Encyclopaedia Judaica – CD ROM Edition © Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.

The biblical betulah usually rendered “virgin,” is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state.

The implication of this statement is that almah is the better term for virgin, as found in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).

The second point we need to realize is the fact that Isaiah chapter 7 contains two prophecies, a long-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies well into the future) and a short-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies within the lifetime of the prophet).

Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) is a long-term prophecy designed to encourage the Davidic dynasty over the next 700 turbulent years until the Messiah comes. The House of David needed to know this. Over those long and dreary years they would read this prophecy and be encouraged regarding the arrival of the Messiah/King. The reference is to the sinless second Adam but it is not a statement that he would be born during the reign of Ahaz. He will be born 700 years later. This is why Matthew directs us to the verse in Matthew 1:23Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).

In contrast, Isaiah 7:15-25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) is a short-term prophecy designed to encourage the house of Ahaz as well as chastise them for their lack of faith. Isaiah 7:15-25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) would encourage Ahaz because it tells him that the Davidic dynasty will survive the warfare planned against it. However, it also chastises Ahaz for his lack of faith exhibited in verse 12. Judgment will descend and bring hardship because of his unfaithfulness-but the House of David will survive. Ahaz needed to know that. Please remember that Isaiah’s son, Shaar YaShuv, is present in Isaiah’s arms.

In Isaiah 7:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) God commanded Isaiah to bring along his young son. There has to be a reason why God wanted him to do this. The reference to the boy eating curds and honey and refusing evil and choosing good in verses 15-16 is a reference to Shaar YaShuv. In other words, in just a few years the foes that Ahaz fears (Pekah and Rezin – verses 1-9) will be gone. Shaar YaShuv will function as a sign for Ahaz. That is the reason why he is present. The sign lies in the timing. The timing is the crucial element. Before that little boy reached the age of moral discrimination, the enemies will be gone. The speed and precise nature of the timing is the out-of-the-ordinary element.

This sign would also authenticate Isaiah as a genuine prophet and support the inclusion of his book in the canon of Scripture. You see, Shaar YaShuv is so young that he is still nursing. The earliest food to be given to him after his mother’s milk would have been honey, followed later by milk. This will all happen in 2-3 years and amaze Ahaz. The kingdoms that will be destroyed in such a short time are those of Pekah and Rezin.

Let us combine the two thoughts with first-century historical perspective. The first-century Jewish reader of Isaiah 7 would know from past history that the virgin-sign had not occurred in Ahaz’s day. Past history would tell them that Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) had not come to pass as yet. Past history would have also told them that verses 15-25 had come to pass exactly as stated. They would know from history that the timing-sign had occurred. Pekah and Rezin had fallen. Ahaz had survived and the land did suffer devastation by the Assyrians. However, the House of David and Judah had survived that as well. They would easily see what Matthew was driving at. Emmanuel had arrived after 700 years of waiting.

Isaiah 7:14 – Virgin

 

[RLT63]

Isaiah 7:14 – Virgin

Why would it be a sign for a young girl to have a child? Nothing exceptional about that. But a virgin having a child would be exceptional.

 

[Wrangler]

The Bible declares the virgin birth. No Mary was not sinless but she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. The conception of Jesus was immaculate as the scriptures tell us.

I agree with you (althugh there is some evidence the OT simply referred to a young women).

Despite being raised a Catholic, I could not accept 'The Immaculate Conception' did not apply to Jesus but to Mary. This has no Biblical support but it is clear that Jesus' conception was immaculate.

 

[Johann]

Why would it be a sign for a young girl to have a child? Nothing exceptional about that. But a virgin having a child would be exceptional.

Since there is an admission that alma means virgin we have crossed the major barrier. The conception and birth that is predicted has to be a sign – something out-of-the-ordinary. A young woman conceiving and giving birth is hardly a sign – it happens every day. However, a virgin conception and subsequent birth is out-of-the-ordinary and serves as a genuine sign. That is why the word alma is important.

The word alma clearly means “virgin” in spite of the objections of the Rabbis. In contrast to the vast majority of rabbis today, who will not admit that alma means virgin. We have the opinion of Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology in Dropsie College, in his article Almah in Isaiah 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (The Journal of Bible & Religion, vol. 21 [April 1953], p.106):

Why would it be a sign for a young girl to have a child? Nothing exceptional about that. But a virgin having a child would be exceptional.

The Sign of Immanuel
Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
Isa 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
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.


Isa 7:11 Ask thee an ot (sign) of Hashem Eloheicha; ask it either in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.
Isa 7:12 But Achaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Hashem.
Isa 7:13 And he (Yeshayah) said, Hear ye now, O Bais Dovid; Is it a small thing for you to weary anashim, but will ye weary my G-d also?
Isa 7:14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us) [See extensive commentary in The Translator To The Reader, page vii].
OJB

Reason why I "inserted" that excerpt, brother, is because Modern Orthodox Judaism are denying the virgin birth, Jesus Christ, Atonement, and debunking all the core doctrines of Christianity.
Lookup Outreach for Judaism and...

Jesus is not for Jews

Hint, look at the topics, especially Isaiah 53, if you have time and ESPECIALLY the "non-existent virgin birth"

Our "Christian Bibles" is a copy and paste, the Quran is more infallible than our debunked Scriptures. And when I say "debunked"....

You will find this leading rabbi everywhere, on YouTube, Outreach for Judaism, the link I gave you, and there are NO apologists, Christian apologists, that can stand up against these rabbis and Imams.

I foresee a greater threat, and it is not here, not even the JW's or any heteros "-isms"

 

[Enoch111]

Without form means?

Just like a lump of clay before a sculptor gets to work. Not a smooth, round globe.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

A lump of clay's form is the lump, of clay.

Just like a lump of clay before a sculptor gets to work. Not a smooth, round globe.

 

[Johann]

Why would it be a sign for a young girl to have a child? Nothing exceptional about that. But a virgin having a child would be exceptional

Let's Get Biblical Audio Series | Outreach Judaism

Please, if you have time, listen to this and give me feedback.

 

[amigo de christo]

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.

Mark (skopeite). Keep an eye on so as to avoid. Skopos is the goal, skopeō means keeping your eye on the goal.
Divisions (dichostasias). Old word for “standings apart,” cleavages. In N.T. only here and Gal_5:20.
Those which are causing (touṡ̇poiountas). This articular participle clause has within it not only the objects of the participle but the relative clause hēn humeis emathete (which you learned), a thoroughly Greek idiom.


Php 3:17 Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them which so walk even as ye have us for an ensample.
Php 3:18 For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

I guess if we want to go by the Book, this is true then.


Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel;
Gal 1:7 which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.
Gal 1:10 For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

Why keep pointing to Jesus? They "know" Jesus, even the demons believe and they tremble, these are not trembling, but selling a heteros gospel.


Pearls before swine (μαργαρίτας ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων)
Another picture of a rich man wantonly throwing handfuls of small pearls to swine. Swine in Palestine were at best but half-tamed, the hog being an unclean animal. The wild boar haunts the Jordan valley to this day. Small pearls, called by jewellers seed-pearls, would resemble the pease or maize on which the swine feed. They would rush upon them when scattered, and, discovering the cheat, would trample upon them and turn their tusks upon the man who scattered them.

It is the simplicity of the good news that confounds the wise


Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and scorners delight them in scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Pro 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh in the day of your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
Pro 1:27 When your fear cometh as a storm, and your calamity cometh on as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish come upon you.


2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him.


A different gospel (euaggelion heteron). Similar use of heteron.
Ye do well to bear with him (kalōs anechesthe). Ironical turn again. “Well do you hold yourselves back from him” (the coming one, whoever he is). Some MSS. have the imperfect aneichesthe (did bear with).

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [How many "foundations" are being laid here?]

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.
Lev 10:2 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Bishop Hall says, "It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God, who is wise to prescribe his own worship—just to require what he has prescribed—and powerful to avenge what he has not prescribed."

When i say POINT TO JESUS i mean His every teaching as well as the teachings of the apostels .
Many folks can indeed holler the name of JESUS . But if they follow another jesus , I GOT REAL BAD NEWS
that one cannot save them . OH YES JESUS had many sayings and HE made it very clear that those who come to HIM
and yet are not doers , THEY DONT KNOW HIM . THEY GOT NO FOUNDATION and will perish indeed .
SO when i say POINT TO JESUS, as i often say , ITS the biblical JESUS . too many folks
are sitting under the jesus created by men and they AINT GONNA MAKE IT . As in they will hear
on that final day , I NEVER KNEW YOU , TIME FOR THE LAKE OF FIRE .
ON the road we are on , by best guess as the moment nearly EVERY SINGLE LEADER within THE CHURCH is gonna hear
it as well as those who sat under them . MOST NEARLY ALL . ITS GETTING REAL BAD .
TIME TO OPEN BIBLES and TIME to start learning THAT DOCTRINE , THAT JESUS . mark those words well . I DID what i could
and till my last and final breath may i by the grace of GOD continue to do so .

 

[Johann]

I DID what i could
and till my last and final breath may i by the grace of GOD continue to do so .

Not against you, with you.

 

[Johann]

Not against you, with you.

 

[amigo de christo]

Amen. Think that's the whole point of Christ being born of a virgin...that He was not begotten by man but by God. His Spirit overshadowed Mary, just the same as in the beginning the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep. That which was conceived in her is of the Holy SPIRIT.

We dont' have to logically understand these things, only BELIEVE by faith. Without FAITH it is impossible to please God. Like the subject of "trinity" these are mysteries we will probably never fully understand until we get to heaven, for now we only see in a glass darkly.

Yes indeed dear sister . JESUS never told us Lest ye become knowers of it all you shall not inherit the Kingdom of GOD
HE said lest ye become as little children . AND us little children simply believe what is written in that bible .
I challenge us all to look at something . DO you notice that those so called wise men who always try and use human reasoning
to assert their view points , DO SO in order to make void what is plainly written .
Folks act as though somehow we cannot understand the bible written in our own langauge by men who actually
did so for the good of the people and often did so at their own demise as often they were persecuted and even killed .
BUT TODAYS MEN think THEIR SCHOLARS somehow are right . WRONG .
ITS NOT LIKE GOD finally woke up in these last days and sent us world wise men to try and guide us through the scrips .
My advice is , IF ITS IN THE BIBLE , SIMPLY BELIEVE IT , EVEN IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT .
IN TIME the understanding to the degree we need to know will come .