Replies

You are correct. That prophecy was given to King Ahaz, pertaining to a specific situation happening within the time of his reign. The word frequently translated as "virgin" is almah, which means "young woman" (who may or may not be a virgin). Had Isaiah intended to refer specifically to a virgin, he would have used the word betulah. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.

Of course, in addition to making me an idolater for worshipping this man as God, it also means that Jesus is nothing more than the bastard of a prostitute who probably should have been stoned to death for her crimes.

But, since we are on the subject, what scriptures do you have that require that Messiah to be born from first son to first son in the line of David? Just curious again.

Of course, in addition to making me an idolater for worshipping this man as God, it also means that Jesus is nothing more than the bastard of a prostitute who probably should have been stoned to death for her crimes.

You oughta brush up on elementary logic. That angelo doubts that the Isaiah text is a prophecy of the Virgin Birth in no way means that the birth of Jesus is illegitimate. You keep trying to get him to condemn Christians for our beliefs, instead of letting him speak for himself.

I imagine angelo considers Jesus to be a legitimate child of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the tales of the Nativity to be later additions, hagiography.

Of course, in addition to making me an idolater for worshipping this man as God

I disagree. Unless you are Jewish, your Christian beliefs are not considered idolatrous. Your trinitarian understanding of the nature of God may be flawed, but it does not make you an idolator.

it also means that Jesus is nothing more than the bastard of a prostitute who probably should have been stoned to death for her crimes.

Why would you assume this? I would think that Jesus was Joseph's biological son. I wouldn't conclude that he was a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute.

But, since we are on the subject, what scriptures do you have that require that Messiah to be born from first son to first son in the line of David? Just curious again.

I haven't made that claim. I have stated that he will be of the line of David, through Solomon. I have read the interpretation that it must further go through Asa, but I think the scriptural case for that is somewhat weaker.