Posted on 12/19/2009 3:26:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I have a questions to all of you knowledgable Biblical Scholars out there and it relates to the so-called Messianic Prophecy in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. It is relevant as we celebrate the Christmas Season.
“Does Isaiah 7:14 contain a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
Some suggest that Isaiah’s statement should be correctly translated as a ‘young woman’ (not necessarily a ‘virgin’) of his day, who would conceive and give birth to a child, and that this event would be a sign to Hezekiah.
It is then further said that Matthew took that text and applied it to Jesus’ birth, though, allegedly, this was not the meaning of the passage originally. How do we respond to this assertion?”
Some also claimed that a real boy named Emmanuel was born.
How do you respond to this claim ?
Thanks.
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.
These people are exceedingly special ~ particularly to Christians.
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.
You are correct, my mistake. I did mean the Virgin Birth.
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.
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.
“Luke 1, 34
............................
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
Bears repeating!
the KJV is the word of God! period! no virgin can have a baby except by God!
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.
Faith bump.
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’.
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.
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!
Your going to have to further explain what you said.
Status at “her” birth? Most humans are born virgins.
In fact, they all are.
No, it means that Mary was born without sin, that is, the Original Sin. I has no bearing on her virginity.
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.
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.
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.
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.