[A_perfect_lady]

I'm sorry, but that blue letter thing is just like liberals trying to twist the 2nd Amendment to imply that it doesn't really say what it actually says.

Isiah 7:14 is clear. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Fact is, instead, a married woman had a baby and called him Jesus. Years later, people decided that she "must have been" a virgin (though there's no reason to think so, as she was married and traveling with her husband) and that Immanuel "must have meant" a nickname of some sort.

This is called "denial."

[Future Snake Eater]

Years later, people decided that she "must have been" a virgin (though there's no reason to think so, as she was married and traveling with her husband) and that Immanuel "must have meant" a nickname of some sort.

So now you're not only saying that there's a contradiction in Isaiah, but that the opening portions of the Gospels are made up. Wow.

The interesting thing about the Bible is that it's either all true, or it's all lies. You seem to believe the latter.

[savedbygrace]

Your reply is 100% wrong. Wrong on all points.

As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Do you even know the language the Jewish scriptures were written in? Here’s a clue: It wasn’t English.

Just one simple example of how wrong you are: If you can provide evidence that she ever, even one time, called him Jesus, then you might have some credibility for the content of your reply. Start there if you want to prove your case.