Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question on Isaiah 7:14 -- was the Messianic prophecy referring to a 'young woman' or 'virgin'?

Posted on 12/19/2009 3:26:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: kosciusko51
We live in an age where "virgin births" are technically possible, and probably common. There's also an incredibly vicious campaign being taken against the first-born children ~ who would have been first-born if they weren't murdered in the womb by Satan's own agents.

In our own country, the individual most responsible for public health policy is literally a fallen angel of death, former Governor Sebelius!

No doubt there are a dozen other prophetic entries of similar nature in the Holy Scriptures that would appear to be getting recycled.

21 posted on 12/19/2009 4:22:26 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kalee
It's not just a Catholic belief, it's Scriptural. Remember Mary is one of the people whose coming existence was prophesied. John the Baptist was also prophesied. Jesus was prophesied.

These people are exceedingly special ~ particularly to Christians.

22 posted on 12/19/2009 4:24:32 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

My great grandmother was named Parthenia, and I’ve understood the meaning that inspired the name to support what you’ve written.

Birth to a young woman would not have been noteworthy. Birth to a virgin, however, would definitely have been.


23 posted on 12/19/2009 4:29:36 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kalee

You are correct, my mistake. I did mean the Virgin Birth.


24 posted on 12/19/2009 4:31:45 PM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It's a "young woman" in Hebrew, not explicitly a virgin, but that may be understood by the text (or not). The Septuagint translated it as "virgin" some time before Christ's birth, and that reading was used by the evangelists. (Notably, by Matthew, who according to tradition wrote his first gospel in Aramaic. If this is true, there may have also been a Targumic tradition that also read virgin in Isa 7:14. If a witness could be found, it would have interesting textual and even theological implications.)
25 posted on 12/19/2009 4:34:11 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh
However, given the context, we Christians will go with the Immaculate Conception.

The context of Isa 7:14 has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception. And many Christians do not even believe in the Immaculate Conception.

26 posted on 12/19/2009 4:40:06 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The context is that Aram(Syria) and Israel invaded Judah and beseiged Jerusalem.

Isaiah says in v. 10 that Ahaz the king should ask for a sign that God would deliver the city from their trouble.

The king refuses to ask for a sign.

So Isaiah says here’s the sign: a young woman will give birth and call his name Immanuel. And v. 16 says that before the child is able to discern good and evil, the two kings that trouble Jerusalem will be gone.

So the context demands that it was a young woman who gave birth to a son as a sign in the 700’s bc. Matthew then borrowed the verse to refer to Jesus.


27 posted on 12/19/2009 4:40:31 PM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: element92

“Luke 1, 34
............................
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

Bears repeating!


28 posted on 12/19/2009 4:45:17 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

the KJV is the word of God! period! no virgin can have a baby except by God!


29 posted on 12/19/2009 4:47:53 PM PST by FreeperFlirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
If they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, then what else do they not believe in?

The Resurrection?

That Jesus is the Son of God?

That believing Jesus’ testimony about himself is the way to eternal life?

Hell?

These “Christians” you refer to are not.

They belong to "their" father Satan.

30 posted on 12/19/2009 4:56:56 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeperFlirt

Faith bump.


31 posted on 12/19/2009 5:00:37 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: right way right; Caesar Soze

I think all Christians believe in the Virgin Birth, but not necessarily in the Immaculate Conception I mistakenly referenced. The Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary’s status at her birth, not Jesus’.


32 posted on 12/19/2009 5:03:03 PM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
This is a two-fold prophesy.

Yes. In the same way, Isaiah 53 is about Israel.

Arguing against Jews when it comes to the Hebrew Scriptures is sheer folly. To "them" were given the oracles of HaShem (Rom 3:2). I shudder when I hear Christians explaining prophecies about Messiah, because invariably they end up looking like morons to people who LIVE the words of the Hebrew Scriptures. The nuances of Hebrew are lost on so many Christians as they act like bulls in a china shop.

The reality is: Isaiah 7:14 uses the word ALMA. It does NOT mean "virgin" - although it can imply it. Likewise, Isaiah 53 is about "My Servant Israel" - so when Christians blindly insist that Jews must see "Jesus" in Isaiah 53, such talk sounds silly.

Rather, Christians should defer to the experts (Jews), while not abandoning their own understanding. Isaiah 7:14 is about Isaiah's wife AND about the mother of Messiah. Isaiah 53 is about national Israel AND about Messiah, King of Israel.
33 posted on 12/19/2009 5:03:31 PM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: right way right
If they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, then what else do they not believe in? The Resurrection? That Jesus is the Son of God? That believing Jesus’ testimony about himself is the way to eternal life? Hell? These “Christians” you refer to are not. They belong to "their" father Satan.

I'm not going to get into a religion war. Let me just point out that the Resurrection, Jesus's sonship, and his testimony about himself are explicit in the canon that is accepted by all Christians. Hell is kind of a tricky subject, due to generations of lazy translators. But the Immaculate Conception is merely Roman Catholic tradition. It is an old tradition and the Church has advanced scriptural arguments for it, but I remain unconvinced of its validity, and I would not question anyone's profession of Christian faith if they disbelieved it.

If you are Catholic, I suppose you must measure other Christians by the yardsticks of your Church. All I ask is that you judge the motes in our eyes with a bit of tact.

34 posted on 12/19/2009 5:09:35 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Rather, Christians should defer to the experts (Jews), while not abandoning their own understanding.

As pointed out above, we are deferring to the experts. In this case, we are deferring to the Hellenistic Jews who are much closer temporally to the original text than any person living today, and also much closer than the Masoretes which fixed the modern Hebrew text. Don't blame us if there's a virgin in the Septuagint, we didn't put her there!

35 posted on 12/19/2009 5:12:11 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Your going to have to further explain what you said.

Status at “her” birth? Most humans are born virgins.
In fact, they all are.


36 posted on 12/19/2009 5:15:31 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: right way right

No, it means that Mary was born without sin, that is, the Original Sin. I has no bearing on her virginity.


37 posted on 12/19/2009 5:18:25 PM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

I’m not Catholic.

So, what I probably don’t understand is the definition of Immaculate Conception.

I know one thing, Christ was born from a virgin by the Spirit of God, by a supernatural event by God and that he is the Son of God. He is the CHRIST.


38 posted on 12/19/2009 5:20:23 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Enosh
Interesting, where is the scriptural support for this belief?

I did not want to get involved in one of those pointless Protestant verses Catholic threads which bear no good fruit for the cause of Christ.

It looks like I stumbled in due to my ignorance of Catholic traditional belief.

39 posted on 12/19/2009 5:24:43 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: right way right
So, what I probably don’t understand is the definition of Immaculate Conception.

If you see something you don't understand, it is better to try to understand it before you go off half-cocked and start condemning people to hell. Including yourself, ironically.

40 posted on 12/19/2009 5:26:14 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson