Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
She was an ordinary woman and a virgin. The sign God talked about.
Whats so hard to believe about that?
BigMack
Becky
Isiah 7:14: (RSV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
The Old Testament does not foretell a Virgin Birth. Almost without exception modern scholars agree the Old Testament used the word "almah" = young woman. Christian apologists can only say "There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin."
It is a no no to put words into the Old Testament which were never there.
Whats so hard to believe about that?
BigMack
It's easy to believe that. It's also easy to believe differently.
This "Biblical Unitarian" thinks it makes no difference either way.
There are several unambiguous facts seen in the context of these verses.
First, Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz of Judah and tells HIM (Ahaz) that the sign of a birth will be for HIM. This fact alone makes application of Isaiah 7:14 to the birth of Yahshua impossible, since Ahaz was long dead by the time Yahshua was born; thus proving it is not a Messianic prophesy.
The ENTIRE context of these verses refer to the specific issue of the prophecy regarding what will happen to those that were plotting to destroy Judah, of which Ahaz was King. Even the term Immanuel, "god with us", was to assure Judah, as shown in Is. 8:8, that God would be "with them" during the time of trial that was to come when Syria and Israel strove against Judah and Assyria invaded. Only a few verses after Isaiah 7:14, in verse 8:3, we probably see the birth he was speaking of in Is. 7:14. It was a birth of a son to Isaiah and his young wife. Furthermore, even the term "virgin" would apply to the prophetess if the information shown earlier regarding the use of almah to mean "a young woman" (i.e., "sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may of may not be sexually active") is considered. I will comment more on this a little later.
Thus, the context is clear that the "virgin" (young woman) was probably Isaiah's wife, the "prophetess", mentioned in Is. 8:3. This is crystal clear when bias is removed and the Scripture is actually allowed to speak for itself. Some Judaic commentators believe it applies to Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who proved to be one of Judah's greatest Kings; however, I feel the context more correctly points to Isaiah's son as the fulfillment. Either way, the newborn child being prophesied was for THAT PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME as a sign to Ahaz. The prophecy was NOT for the timeframe 700 years after Ahaz was dead (Yahshua was born about 700 years after this prophecy)!
Additionally, Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 are almost identical, proving them to reference the same event, which was that while the newborn son of Isaiah was yet young, the prophecy would be accomplished, which was that God would eliminate the threat posed to Ahaz by the combined efforts of Ephraim and Damascus. This provides further evidence that the birth foretold as a sign TO AHAZ was fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's newborn son with the prophetess (Isaiah's wife) as the mother.
The common sense context is clear. The ONLY way Isaiah 7:14 can be a Messianic verse referring to Yahshua the Messiah is to completely rip it free of the clear context in which it resides. The ONLY evidence that this is a Messianic prophecy is the evidence supplied by Constantinian Christian tradition and probable scribal manipulation of the Gospels.
There is nothing at all that constitutes a "sigh" in "a young woman shall conceive and bear a son."
BigMack
Now you're not answering the question:)
What was the sign?
Signs were given for accreditation for the Jews. The Lord is telling of a sign in this passage, what sign, In context it was something so that Christ would be recongized. If just an ordinary women gave birth in the ordinary way, what kind of sign is that?
Becky
see my 545. It discusses the sign.
"Biblical Unitarian Apologist" is an oxymoron. We (few) aren't afraid to say "I know nothing".
This "Biblical Unitarian" believes it is unimportant in the realm of things.
The ONLY way this can be a Messianic verse referring to Yahshua the Messiah is to completely believe the New Teatament is from God, I do, you don't, we shall see who is right one day.
BigMack
Becky
You're proof texting one verse from the Old Testament to prove your case.
And to think you will criticize a RC for proof texting a single verse of Scripture to "prove" Peter was the Rock. ;-)
See the post from Invincibly Ignorant. Better yet, read the verses of Isaiah 7 which follow your "magic" verse.
The Catholic Church has long affirmed that the Jews are a part of God's plan of salvation. This is just fleshing that out a bit. We don't believe and never have that God abrogated his covenant with the Jewish people. We just believe that it is a whole lot more difficult to acheive salvation under its terms.
I don't like the idea of simply "giving up" on converting individual Jews. Neither do I affirm that any or all Jews are "saved." I would still maintain that being inside the Church is the only way to know for sure one is saved.
But it is not an error to say that God has obviously maintained the Jewish people for some purpose. That it is obviously not His will that they cease to exist.
SD
What is 7:17 saying...."days that have not come"?
Becky
You said "what's so hard to believe about that"? I gave you another context for the sign. Didn't think we were arguing about who's right or wrong. Just threw another perspective into the debate.
Never mind:)
Becky
Yeah the ones who have been trained not to accept the authority of the New Testament.
I must of missed where you stopped believing in Christ for your salvation and turned to the other side.
BigMack
I know, I'm just tired of being so damn nice all the time. :)
BigMack
The whole prophecy is about what would happen to those who were plotting Judah's destruction. Judah's destruction was a future event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.