Does Hebrew Scripture say Jesus born of young woman (not virgin)?

[Valke2]

An interesting side note to this discussion (but relevant, I believe) is that nearly all current copies of the Jewish scriptures (printed by the JPS and others since ) have been stripped of any sort of Messianic prophesies in the translation.

As other posts have indicated in this thread, the Hebrew word for “virgin” or “young woman” is the same.

I’m not aware of that. We could look at the JPS translation of 1917 and compare it to the newer translation I suppose. I’d be interested to see some examples of this. There’s Stone Ed. Soncio, Artscroll and JPS. If you can find tranlations of current editions and compare them to older editions I’d be interested in seeing the results.

 

[jcrichton]

These events were not meant to be either signs or wonders for the people of Israel. I have heard it said that the virgin birth was meant to be a sign. But that is an odd thing to believe in light of what miracles had previously passed for signs (i.e, the plagues, parting of the see, Revelation at Sinai…, Mana from heaven…)

***Hi, Valke!

…you forget about that miracle the water from the rock, the column of fire and clouds, the glowing face of Moses, the earth swallowing the sinners, the serpents appearing out of nowhere and massive number of Isrealites dying and only kept alive by obeying Yahweh as they looked onto the brazen serpent, the battles fought and won, Moses arms being held upright in order to give victory to Israel, the Macabbees brothers putting aside the Sabbath in order to save Israel, the day the earth stood still (no not that corny SciFi movie), the various prophets that managed to do the various things as they did (appearing out of nowhere, multiplying oil,flower, etc, and the various healings and bringing back to life…), and don’t forget the chariots of fire, etc., are you saying that all of these occurrences happened without the direct intercession of Yahweh Sabbaot?

Are you saying that Yahweh is Omnipotent but only to a point?

Are you saying that the God of the Israelites that can send His Spirit to bring back to life an army of dried bones cannot Himself come into the world (a world He created out of nothing) in a flesh similar to that which He created for man?

Perhaps your God, El Shaddai, is not as Omnipotent as El Roi?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

I of course do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But I am merely saying that looking to Isaiah 7:14 to support a virgin birth is quite problematic. That is not to say there is not such support elsewhere in the Christian Bible.

***Hi, Valke!

…then what you are saying is that it is simply a matter of interpretation: yours nearly 2000 years after the fact and Matthew’s less than four decades (40 years) after the birth!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Valke2]

Not just my interpetation. But the interpetation of Jews before, during and after the death of Jesus.

 

[porthos11]

***Hi, porthos!

…so… Matthew, who was there at the post birth of Jesus, had it wrong (remember he too was Jewish and probably versed in the idosyncrasies of word-roots and other language accidents)? He simply decided to introduce nuance into the world by claiming that God-with-us is*** among us?

No, Matthew didn’t get it wrong. He saw in Jesus’ birth the ultimate fulfillment of the passage. I was just saying that in the immediate context of the Old Testament passage, there was nothing particularly Messianic or miraculous in the birth.

And to further his cause he translated the meaning of young woman to mean virgin… to win over the Jewish scholars?

 

[ryanoneil]

I agree. The sign was important because of the circumstances surrounding it. The king of Judah was Ahaz, who was succeeded by his son Hezekiah. Jerusalem was being besieged by Damascus (the Syrians) and Ephraem (the Israelites), or the ten northern tribes. To most of the people of God (Judah) at the time, the situation looked hopeless. Through the prophet Isaiah, God assured the king that their enemies would not be victorious over them. God would send the Assyrians against Damascus and Ephraem.

The sign is first realized in (Isaiah 8:3-4) *Then I went to the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son. The LORD said to me: Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, for before the child knows how to call his father or mother by name, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried off by the king of Assyria. *

Sure enough, when we look back at history, Jerusalem was spared from its enemies during those years. But the story does not stop there. In ferwer than seventy years, Ephraem (the ten northern tribes that had rejected the reign of David’s heir) was utterly conquered, dispersed, and left without a trace. Jerusalem did indeed experience God’s salvation, but not every descendant of Abraham benefited from that salvation. Those Israelites who had rejected the Davidic line if kings were destroyed and forgotten.

Then an interesting thing occured to this prophecy after it was initially fulfilled. The leaders of the people of God taught that the events centered on (Isaiah 7:14) still had another future fulfillment in mind. The birth of a son via a virgin would signal the coming salvation of God’s faithful remnant and the destruction of the faithless majority. It became a Messianic prophecy that was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus. (Matthew 1:23) These events include the salvation of the believing remnant and the destruction of the unbelieving majority that occuered much later than the actual birth of Jesus.

Jesus’ Church was being besieged by the Sanhedrin and the Romans. To the Church, at the time, the situation looked hopeless. In fewer than seventy years after the birth of Jesus, the Sanhedrin (who rejected David’s heir) was utterly conquered, dispersed, and left without a trace by the Romans. The remnant of Israel did indeed experience God’s salvation, but not every descendant of Abraham benefited from that salvation. Those Israelites who had rejected the Davidic line if kings were destroyed and forgotten. The Roman empire was also destroyed for their persecution of God’s people, by a barbarian army and the Church.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[jcrichton]

Not just my interpetation. But the interpetation of Jews before, during and after the death of Jesus.

***Hi, Valke!

…if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Yahweh had the prophets speak on non-consequential events about nobodies who did nothing to fulfill anything about His Will for Israel and the Gentiles?

…and, are you also saying that Moses was wrong, and that all of those who followed Jesus ceased to be Jews the second they began to interpret something other than what you and the Jews that you cite do/did?

…and are you saying that when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and told her that there would come a time when Yahweh would not be worshiped neither on the hills nor on the Temple that it was a whymsical coincidence that the Temple was razed in 70 AD–just a few decade after Jesus Prophecy?.. a Prophecy He explicitly told the Apostles about–not a stone upon a stone will be left of the Temple?

Please reconsider your error. There is only but one name given both on Heaven and earth by which we all (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved: Yeshua!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

No, Matthew didn’t get it wrong. He saw in Jesus’ birth the ultimate fulfillment of the passage. I was just saying that in the immediate context of the Old Testament passage, there was nothing particularly Messianic or miraculous in the birth.

***Hi, porthos!

So you are saying that if viewed by scholars prior to Jesus’ birth (consequently the Gospels’ birth) a scholar would not find much of significance in the passage since that fraction of Scriptures would be taken and viewed as a whole with the preceeding and proceeding verses–Matthew while writing his Gospel read a deeper meaning as he recognized the Immanuel… I am not a linguist, so plese bear with me… did Matthew still use the term almah (young woman) and was translated by others as parthenos (virgin)?

It’s taking 7:14 as a stand-alone passage that gives all sorts of trouble.

---

But does not Immanuel mean “God-with/among-us?”

If it does, would this connection to Isaiah 7:14 would not have been revealed to Matthew by the Holy Spirit, even excluding that which did not directly apply to Yeshua (please correct the spelling if you are aware of a more correct term–thanks!)?

i.e.: Genisis 3:15 speaks of that great battle which is later spoken about in Apocalypse 12–clearly Eve would not be around at the time of Christ’s birth nor was she there during the encounter with the huge red dragon and though Christ is not mentioned by name we can reason that the seed/offspring is Christ. So either prophecies are not always explicit in both signs and contextural account or they must be explicit in both signs and contextural account.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Valke2]

***Hi, Valke!

…if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Yahweh had the prophets speak on non-consequential events about nobodies who did nothing to fulfill anything about His Will for Israel and the Gentiles?

---

you are not understanding me correctly.

…and, are you also saying that Moses was wrong, and that all of those who followed Jesus ceased to be Jews the second they began to interpret something other than what you and the Jews that you cite do/did?

 

[porthos11]

***Hi, porthos!

So you are saying that if viewed by scholars prior to Jesus’ birth (consequently the Gospels’ birth) a scholar would not find much of significance in the passage since that fraction of Scriptures would be taken and viewed as a whole with the preceeding and proceeding

---

I’m not saying that. All I’m saying is that there is the immediate context and an immediate fulfillment. Clearly, scholars saw a deeper meaning later, as evidenced by the Septuagint. For Isaiah and Ahaz, the sign was an ordinary birth of an ordinary kid from an ordinary woman, signalling the downfall of Israel and Syria. That’s it.

All I’m saying, no more no less, is that there was nothing especially special about the birth of Immanuel, other than the timing, which is why “young woman” is acceptable in Old Testament translations from the Hebrew.

I’m NOT saying Matthew got it wrong or that there is no other meaning.

verses–Matthew while writing his Gospel read a deeper meaning as he recognized the Immanuel… I am not a linguist, so plese bear with me… did Matthew still use the term almah (young woman) and was translated by others as parthenos (virgin)?

Prophecies can have multiple fulfillments and that’s the whole point I’m trying to make.

 

[jcrichton]

you are not understanding me correctly.

***Hi, Valke!

My problem is the term “Immanuel;” I understand this to be Hebrew for God is with us. This is linked, in my mind, with the Scriptural text that foretells of Yahweh coming to the people of Israel and living/being among them. When you suggest that this passage does not refer to Jesus, the Messiah, Kristos, then why would Yahweh inspire a prophet to make such revelation?

Moses was wrong about what? As soon as Jews believe that any person is God, they are no longer practicing Judaism.

---

Did not Moses tell Israel that Yahweh would send to them a Prophet like himself in Whom the Gentiles would place their hope?

True, once the Mosaic Laws cease to be the religious Doctrine a person no longer practices Judaism… but this does not negate the fact that he/she is still of Jewish (a person of Jewish origins) or does it?

You tend to take something I say, such as my view of Isaiah 7:14, and for some reason use it as a spring board to voice your opinion on a wide range of topics that I have not touched on.

I was attempting to demonstrate that Jesus Prophesied about the destruction of the Temple as both the spiritual and physical House of Yahweh, which correlates with the ancient prophecy where Yahweh foretells that He will reject His people (paraphrased: those called my people I will no longer call my people and those called not my people I will now call my people–keeping in mind that Yahweh also promised that He would keep a Remnant onto Himself): Only the Immanuel could fulfill this Prophecy!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not saying that… Prophecies can have multiple fulfillments and that’s the whole point I’m trying to make.

***Hi, porthos!

Thank you for the clarification (please understand that I am not trying to upset or render a different meaning to your posts!

I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

As I said, Matthew lifted it directly from the Septuagint, which has “parthenos”: virgin. This is why in Matthew, only “virgin” is the acceptable translation.

---

Thanks, again. I wanted to make sure that it was Matthew who introduced the term “parthenos” and not that later translators rejected his term and employed “parthenos.”

Of course. Matthew lifted his quotation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What’s the problem here?

Already answered above (prophecy containing a direct and future component).

Thank you for your patience!

(…from time to time I am employing the term Yeshua, are you aware of a different, more precise, spelling?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[porthos11]

***Hi, porthos!

Thank you for the clarification (please understand that I am not trying to upset or render a different meaning to your posts!

I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

Thanks, again. I wanted to make sure that it was Matthew who introduced the term “parthenos” and not that later translators rejected his term and employed “parthenos.”

Already answered above (prophecy containing a direct and future component).

Thank you for your patience!

(…from time to time I am employing the term Yeshua, are you aware of a different, more precise, spelling?)

Maran atha!

Angel***

Yeshua is an accepted Hebrew-transliterated spelling.

 

[jcrichton]

Yeshua is an accepted Hebrew-transliterated spelling.

***Hi, porthos!

Thanks!

Maran atha!

Angel***