geegee said:

First off, one thing you do deny and the rest of us "xtians" do accept, is that Jesus was no ordinary man. He was no ordinary Jewish prophet. He was no ordinary Jewish teacher. What you deny is that the Jesus of the Gospels ever lived.

Yes. I deny all that.

There is no other name. Same point nojc4me. Who gave the name and why? There is authority and reason and meaning behind each change. With other words, there seems to be some significance behind what God was doing for others through a change of name! Enough for now.

"No other name...[by which we must be saved?]" This is one of the bones of contention I have with christianity: it's exclusionist. It claims only those who have elevated a sinning man's name above God's will find the favor of God. They claim only these people will get into heaven, as if they knew what they were talking about, or that they knew what God can and cannot do for His Own sake.
The Noachide Covenant, OTOH, is inclusive. All will be rewarded who keep God's commandments, whatever their religious affiliation.
And we do not need to be "saved" from our sins. That's not what "salvation" is.

sntjohnny said:

It does matter, because the LXX is a translation of the Jewish text in question by bi-lingual Jews. These folks seemed to think that 'parthenos' was an appropriate translation. Oh, and they rendered this this way long before the time of Jesus.

A) That all doesn't matter, because we have the Hebrew Masoretic, and no translation can supercede the original.
B) The point is moot, because there is no way to prove that jesus wass born of a virgin.

However, you are the one that brought up 'parthenos,' not me. If you want to argue that 'parthenos' doesn't necessarily mean 'virgin' by citing just one verse out of the thousands upon thousands of instances of its use throughout the LXX and the Greek textual traditions, then I feel perfectly fine viewing Isaiah 7 as the 'one' time when 'almah' can be viewed as referring specifically to a virgin.

You'd be foolish to do so. The assignment of "virgin" to "almah" is in error. The selection of "parthenos" for "almah" may have been what the translators thought fit the situation, however, that's not what Isaiah used. Therefore, you have chosen the meaning of a man who was not the speaker, and that's why you'd be foolish to continue to do so.
We know this because Isaiah taught the meaning of his prophecy to those who heard it, as well as Isaiah's own students.
But even more, there's no way to prove that the mother was "still" a virgin, so it's no sign at all.
And you have failed to provide any evidence that Mary was in fact a virgin, so there's no reason to trust in the idea that Mary fulfilled this verse.
You also have not explained why jesus was not named "Emmanuel" if he was the culmination of this prophecy, when the subject of the prophecy would bear that name.
So there are at least two reasons to reject your claim that jesus was the subject of Isaiah 7:14.

The point is that someone back then- not any Christian, mind you- looked at the passage and rendered it 'parthenos.'

The point is, that that was not the word Isaiah used, so there's no reason to assume it's what he meant. The context doesn't call for it, and it would be impossible to "see" as the word "ot" ["sign"] suggests. That, by the way, is another Hebrew word.
You remember Hebrew, right? That's the language Isaiah spoke.

This helps us form an opinion about the passage.

An incorrect one, apparently.

This same method is used throughout textual critical circles. It can be especially helpful when there is scarce data available about a word, but we do have a translation.

There is a much better way to understand the Hebrew Holy Scriptures: ask a Rabbi. That's what Moses said God told Israel to do.
What you will say is that "Rabbi" is not used there. Doesn't matter, the name "Levi" IS, and the Levites tell us that that's what Moses' words mean, and they have very good reasons for that.
You haven't offered a better interpretation, you only attack the accepted meaning.
(In that way, you're acting like liberals. [There are other ways that christains are like liberals, but that's neither here nor there.])

For a bigger and more expansive example of the same concept, see the Rosetta Stone. We were able to deciper some other languages by working backwards from a language that we DID know.

Egyptian heiroglyphs, I think. I think the other two languages were Latin and Greek, but I could be wrong. In any case, they were two languages that were known, and that's what prompted the scientists to decide that the heiroglyphs must mean the same thing.
Can you exactly translate "chutzpah"? Can you capture every flavor of the word and the concept it represents? And can you do that in one or two words? If not, then you might use less perfect words that are pretty close. But "pretty close" is not up to standard for a Dogma of this magnitude. I need certainty.
You want to claim that Virgin birth, a concept common to paganism, is Biblical. You have not one other passage on which to base this claim. The Torah forbids Israel to accept the idolatry of her neighbors.
And that The son of a virgin is necessarily the son of (a) god. But the Tanakh flatly denies that God has a son.

Your analogy to the Rosetta Stone doesn't seem to fit. There is no need in the context for the rendering of "virgin," and it's impossible to verify if the mother had retained virginity.
All you have is a pregnant girl. She tells us she's still a virgin. We don't believe her. It runs counter to reason and she's incapable of proving her status as a virgin.

"When we argue Isa 7:14, then, we're going to be using the source document. The Hebrew Masoretic Text."

Nice try, see above.

Nice try. See above. There's no reason to do otherwise.

That's not the way it works. But I would advise you that if you are going to limit yourself to the Masoretic text, then you should copy and paste the works of scholars that don't violate your own principle. It was THEY that invoked 'parthenos.' Not me.

Umm, no. I merely assume the Masoretic is the standard, because that's what they say, remember? The other versions are used but rarely. And I know of none that assert that the word "almah" means "virgin."
It would not have been a problem to merit discussion because nobody then believed that Isaiah meant that the young woman retained her virginity after giving birth. It's got nothing to do with the context and is unverifiable.
It only became an issue when christians singled that one word out of all the Hebrew Holy Scriptures to support their myth.

But Jews that speak Greek obviously aids in our understanding.

Not in this case. In this case, it's clouding your understanding. You hang on it because it's all you have. It's got serious problem.
Why risk all of Scripture on the meaning of one word?

"They were not Bible believing and Torah-true Jews, but Greeks. They had no line of succession."

Oh, so the LXX was translated by Greeks. That's what the Greeks always wanted to do- force themselves to learn Hebrew in order that they might translate for the Jews the sacred literature of the Jews. I bet you can't give me even 3 examples of Greeks learning Hebrew in ancient times. The only one that comes to my mind is Philo, but I'm pretty sure he knew Hebrew first, too.

Um, no. You misunderstood because I misspoke. I said they were "not Torah-true Jews" but I meant that they were "Helenized Jews," in that their inclination was to accept Greek culture, and to promote it. And I said "Greek" when I meant "Helenized," as well. I apologize for the error.

The LXX was obviously translated by Jews into Greek for the service of primarily Greek speaking Jews. You seem to admit as much:

"The LXX translations five books of Moses was accepted by the Rabbis for use by non-Hebrew speaking Jews"

Yes, that's what I said. But that does not include the rest of the Scriptures. Those documents were NOT sanctioned by the Rabbis  By that, I mean that they were not accepted as accurate translations. They likened the event to the fashioning of the Golden Calf. The intended purpose wasn't realized.

"The word Isaiah used "ha-almah" means "THE young woman"; whether or not the young woman is a virgin is not implied in the use of that word. When Scriptuure wanted to specify "virgin", it would use "b'thulah". It did so every time, so far as I know."

Not this time, though.

And why should I accept your word on that?

No. You seem to have deliberately ignored my point that if bethulah only meant 'young woman' than we have in hand a worthless and pointless prophecy. Young women have children all the time, or hadn't you noticed?

Yes. I noticed. That's exactly why we can know that the alleged virginity or lack thereof is NOT important to the prophecy at all. The point of the prophecy was that she would have a son, and name him "Emmanuel." That happened, so we know that's what he meant.
Meanwhile, if you were right, you would still have a problem. Doesn't the fact that she had a son even while a virgin in the days of Ahaz mean that jesus was the second such creature? If so, how is he unique?

"So, it's your contention that the Jews mistranslated the text? What evidence can you provide?"

Why do I need evidence? All I need to do is imagine a motive. That is your argument in regards to alleged interpolations in Josephus and Tacitus.

Ah, but I can provide evidence, so I will give it. I'll look around. You start looking for yours.
Bet I come up with some before you do.

[Cut short due to sleepy-by time.]

In reference to "Virgin Birth," the issue of "parthenos" has been done to death. Put it in the ground, please.
Move on to the the facts, that there is no evidence (or more properly, none has been provided) that:
Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to her brat.
Her brat, jesus. was called by the name, "Emmanuel."
Two kingdoms were laid low before jesus reached bar mitzvah.

Prove he fulfilled the prophecy in every respect, or accept that it is as yet NOT been proven to be fulfilled as the new testament asserts it has been.
This thread is to examine those claimes of the christians that Biblical prophecies were fulfilled by/in jesus. This one fails the test, so far.

So, please, provide the evidence or move on to the next "prophecy," Matt. 2.5, 6.
Since nobody has seen fit to do so yet, though I opened it for discussion several days ago, I'll assume (with your cosent) that you all agree it has NOT been fulfilled, and we'll move on to the next in our list:

Matt 2.16ff Matt 2.17-18 with Jer 31.15, 16 [For the record, "ff" means "and the verses following."]
Matt 2.16ff tells a story of the massacre of the innocents. Luke the only other gospel which relates the nativity of Jesus mentions no such incident.  According to Matthew, when king Herod heard about the birth of Jesus, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him (Matt 2.3).

                If Herod slew all the children in Bethlehem and in all the coasts

• [/b] round about from 2 years old and under and, the Christian legend says fourteen thousand perished, surely a crime of such enormity should have been mentioned in our own history books but Josephus, Philo and the Talmud itself remain silent about the whole affair. The fact that other gospel writers mention no such incident causes us to believe it was only the figment of Matthew's imagination. Josephus devotes nearly 40 chapters to the life of Herod yet he never mentions this massacre of infants.
  
                  Luke declares that when Jesus was 40 days old he was brought to Jerusalem and publicly exhibited in Herod's own temple without exciting anyone or provoking any danger. Yet Matthew has all the authorities searching for this child. Matthew's report of the massacre of infants was in order to fulfill a prophecy. Matt 2.17-18 with Jer 31.15, "A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be comforted because they were no more".
  
                  In context Jer 31.15 clearly does not refer to Jesus or to his generation:  
  a] The children whom Rachel was lamenting were only taken into exile. No mention is made of them being killed, on the contrary it is stated (Jer 31.16), "Keep thy voice from weeping, and thy eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, says the Lord; and they shall come back again from the land of the enemy.  And there is hope for thy future, says the Lord, and thy children shall come back again to their own border."  
  b] The children Herod is supposed to have butchered (Matt 2.16) were living in Judea and therefore as members of  the  tribe  of  Judah  they were Leah's children not Rachel's. It should be  Leah weeping for her children, not Rachel.  
  c] What is more, historians point out that Herod died four years prior to the birth of Jesus.
  
                  If the wise men who found Jesus were acting under divine guidance, and if this terrible slaughter did take place, then their visit should be regarded as a divine blunder.
  
  But for our purposes, the christian needs to prove this massacre took place in order for us to see objectively that it was thus fulfilled.
  
  _____
  
  
  • [/b] "coasts" will be ignored. Thought Bethlehem is land-locked and there are no "shores" nearby, that's not a problem to me. The word "coasts" in this context and instance, means "region".

Nobody seems to want to supply evidence that Mary was a virgin, so I guess it is unproven that jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.
Nobody has undertaken to prove Micah referred to jesus. A side issue in that prophecy is lineage from David. I completely ignored that, focusing instead on the fact that Micah doesn't say the messiah will come from Bethlehem, as it is claimed by christians. But let's look at it now, shall we?
The new testament provides us with the lineages of both Joesph, Mary's husband, and the other Joseph, her illicit lover.
The christians admit that the messiah must descend from David, yet neither lineage proves he was.
For christians to prove jesus was the messiah, the christian must prove his Davidic lineage.

And the next:

Matt. 3.3: "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah* saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." (*Isa. 40.3)

                The writer of Matthew claims that this verse refers to John the Baptist preparing the way of Jesus.

                REFUTATION

                When Isaiah 40 is read in context, it is obvious that it cannot be referring to John the Baptist because he never told Jerusalem that her wars were all ended and that her iniquity had been pardoned (Isa. 40.1) or if he did, he was greatly mistaken.

                The verse also states that when these events take place, "all flesh shall see it together" (v. 5); in other words, the whole world will know about it at the same time. The only people who thought they had witnessed the fulfillment of this prophecy were a few misguided fishermen and Judean hill billies.
_______my additions_______
The prophecy seems to suggest a Global Revelation, a step up from Israel's National Revelation. All the christians have is a step down to a "partial" revelation - which means it could be anything from a message intended for a few select fools, or a complete fraud.

nojc.  You certianly are moving very quickly through this thread.  I really do want to read and respond to all your posts (when I can) but find it hard to at this time due to much travelling.

Slow down mate.  I've read some of the posts you made but need some time to think and respond to your neat stuff.

sntjohnny,

I loaded this site this morning, and this particular thread was not listed in the "Variant Beliefs" folder. I had to search for it. Why was it missing?

"I merely assume the Masoretic is the standard, because that's what they say, remember?"

In case anyone missed it, this is a precise summary of nojc's position and exactly why it is pointless to argue with him.  Who is 'they'?  The rabbis?  Specifically, the rabbis who agree with him.  If they don't, they are 'hellenized rabbis.'  Is there any objective difference?  or is it the no true scotsman fallacy?

Nojc doesn't argue from evidence.  He argues from authority.  Other people's authority, that is.  We must submit to their judgment, and are not allowed to use our own judgement.  Dangerous....

How do we know that the LXX was a bad translation?  Does he give us any citations of ancient rabbis who made this case?  Nope.  Doesn't matter.  People he trusts say it is, and he believes them.

As for a concluding argument on the virgin birth and 'almah' consider this:

The question boils down to whether or not you agree with me that the context demands a narrower understanding of 'almah.'  I say that invoking a pregnant woman is not much of a sign, a view that is confirmed by nonChristian Jews (uh oh, hellenized ones!  ye gads!).  Nojc agrees that this is not much of a sign and shifts his emphasis somewhere else.  But if it is not much of a sign, why bother to mention it at all?  And may I ask, what is to stop 5,000 women from naming their sons 'Emmanuel'?  If the 'sign' is a child with that name, than we can quite easily fulfill the prophecy here without any help from God at all.

If only there was a way to distinguish the true 'Emmanuel' from the false.... hmmm.... like something special about the girl perhaps.... hmmmm.... I don't know, I can't think of anything.... hmmm, maybe... uh, I've got it, if the girl was and remains a virgin yet has a child, that would probably catch one's attention!  What a great idea!  I'm glad I thought of it.

So, let's look at the two positions.

1.  My position cites people who are NOT Christians and yet looked at almah and translated it as virgin (parthenos).
2.  Nojc offers no evidence derived from outside his trusted group of sources.

Ie, my view has at least some corroboration from sources that would not be friendly to my view.  His view is only corroborated by people he exclusively trusts.

You decide.

sntjohnny said:

In case anyone missed it, this is a precise summary of nojc's position and exactly why it is pointless to argue with him. Who is 'they'? The rabbis? Specifically, the rabbis who agree with him. If they don't, they are 'hellenized rabbis.' Is there any objective difference? or is it the no true scotsman fallacy?

Um, this is needlessly (and I believe, intentionally) misleading. "They" are the Orthodox Rabbis, actually. They are the ones who are recognized by all Judaism as experts on the Torah. It works like this:
The Reconstructionists, Conservatives and Reform Jews all recognize the Orthodox Rabbis as experts of the most ancient understandings of the Torah. They each deny the validity of one or more of the other groups. But all agree that the Orthodox keep to the "old ways," which is what God said the Jews are supposed to do.
In fact, even the Gentiles recognize the Orthodox as experts - unless or until they disagree with the preconceived notions of the Gentiles, that is. Sntjohnny is a case in point.
Also, please note that the good sir acts like a liberal in that he decries the understanding of the understanding ones, but offers no alternative. He doesn't know (or even suggest) how it (the passage in Deut. 17) should be understood, but he doesn't like what he hears from those who do.

Nojc doesn't argue from evidence.

Patently false. If he could read Hebrew, I'd like him to tell us exactly what Deut. 17:8 and 9 say, specifically, I'd like to know how sntjohnny understands the words, "hakohenim haleviim v'el-hashofet."
Then identify the people known by those nouns.
Go ahead, sntjohnny, teach us.

He argues from authority.

Um, and this is a problem for you, isn't it, sntjohnny?
You see, if the Torah lists the experts God wants us to follow, then we not only don't have to follow your musings (which will certainly lead to wanderings,) we are forbidden to! If we can't/won't listen to you, there goes your power over us! Therefore, you denounce the "authority" of the Rabbis as experts in the Word of God.

Other people's authority, that is. We must submit to their judgment, and are not allowed to use our own judgement. Dangerous....

Right. You want us to follow the opinions of "others," (such as yourself, mr. sntjohnny,) right? We should not follow God's experts, we "must" follow the decisions of "others," like yourself. Why should we do this, though? Why, because we might find out that you don't know what you're talking about if we ask those who might actually know, of course!
Oh, wait! You don't want us to follow the decisions of any ol' "others"! You want us to follow YOUR teachings!
Why, then, should I submit you your opinions? Why can't I simply decide for myself what the words mean, and determine that the Rabbis have it right? I mean, that is what the Hebrew Text says. I can read that much for myself. Why can't I make this decision for myself?
Why, that must not be allowed, because that disempowers sntjohnny, again! HE wants to be seen as the expert, not me and not anyone else. Especially not a Jew who was raised with the Torah from birth, and who was raised in a culture immersed in keeping the Laws of the Torah. THAT can't be allowed to go unopposed and unridiculed!
Oh, but wait. There's another problem with your belief that we should each make up our own renderings: the very fact that there will be as many "understandings" as there are "readers." There will be little or no agreement or continuity between them all.
Meanwhile, when we follow the decisions of God's Designated Experts, we DO have continuity and agreement. After all, Judaism has survived for 3,500 years, while christianity lasted for a mere 60 years or so and then degenerated into the many, many branches of paganism it is today. Why, there may well be evidence that Peter didn't agree with Paul on some of the most basic tenets of christianity. And most christians follow Paul - who never met the living jesus, except only in a mirage after it is admitted jesus had already died, rather than Peter - who actually ate with jesus before jesus had assumed room temperature (if you believe the Little Book of Fables). Why do christians do that?
And why should WE do it?

How do we know that the LXX was a bad translation? Does he give us any citations of ancient rabbis who made this case? Nope. Doesn't matter. People he trusts say it is, and he believes them.

Have you provided even ONE Rabbi who insisted back then (between Isaiah and Herod the Great) that Isaiah 7:14 demands the meaning of "virgin" because the context/circumstances demand it, as you claimed? I thought not. So, when you can support your claim, I'll do my best to support mine. Until you support your, there's no need for me to support mine. Why not? Because mine follows sense and reason and the natural order of things, while yours demands acceptance - without supporting evidence - in the absolutely absurd.

As for a concluding argument on the virgin birth and 'almah' consider this:

The question boils down to whether or not you agree with me that the context demands a narrower understanding of 'almah.' I say that invoking a pregnant woman is not much of a sign...

There's no reason to accept this view, because that's not what the sign was supposed to be, and it would be unverifyable anyway.
Answer this objection, please. Why should we accept your rendering if it's unverifyable? If there IS evidence that Mary retained virginity, then supply the medical documents.

Nojc agrees that this is not much of a sign and shifts his emphasis somewhere else. But if it is not much of a sign, why bother to mention it at all?

Exactly! That's one very good point, and shows that it was NOT the focus of the prophecy!
What WAS the focus was that the young woman would have a son, and name him "Emmanuel." And that before this son reached the age to know right from wrong, the two kings Ahaz was afraid of would no longer be a threat to him. This all happened in the days of Isaiah. Isaiah himself recorded the fulfillment.
Sntjohnny has still not provided us with any evidence of a fulfillment of the prophecy as according to his preferred understanding, even though he insists that his reading is the correct one.
So, he might just as well be insisting we believe that penguins can fly because there is some papyrus scroll from Zimbabwe that says so, and yet refuse to prove it to be true that penguins CAN fly, for all the good his argument will do him.
Penguins are birds. Birds can fly. So penguins can fly. There's no need to prove that penguins can fly after all, is there?
People have children. Medical science has produced pregnancies wothout the messy and icky bodily contact that is usually required. [The first test-tube baby's birthday was this week. If her mother had been impregnated before she had ever had sex, she would have retained virginity, and the baby girl would be "born of a virgin, right?] So, because it CAN happen, Mary gave birth while she retained virginity. There's no reason to prove Mary retained her virginity at all, now is there?

And may I ask, what is to stop 5,000 women from naming their sons 'Emmanuel'? If the 'sign' is a child with that name, than we can quite easily fulfill the prophecy here without any help from God at all.

Right. I personally knew a Manny. He was a roomate of mine in the Air Force. One Manny -, or dozens, or hundreds - that would prove nothing by itself. But the prophecy was not meant to be cut into pieces like this; it's got several conditions and a context for a good reason. An allegation of a fulfillment of one part of the prophecy (and that without any evidence to support the claim of fulfillment) can't be used to support the claim that another part (but still not the whole of the prophecy) "also" applies to jesus.
Why, in fact, that sounds like circular reasoning to me. Isaiah is cited as proof that jesus was born of a virgin - and that the coming if jesus was prophecied - but the verse in Isaiah has to be forced to mean or say a certain thing specifically because it was claimed that jesus was born of a virgin.
But if the two kings that were threatening Ahaz were to be dropped down a peg or two during the childhoods of one or more of those children, that might be more impressive than a baby name "jesus" who was not born of a virgin and was not named "Emmanuel."

If only there was a way to distinguish the true 'Emmanuel' from the false.... hmmm.... like something special about the girl perhaps.... hmmmm.... I don't know, I can't think of anything.... hmmm, maybe... uh, I've got it, if the girl was and remains a virgin yet has a child, that would probably catch one's attention! What a great idea! I'm glad I thought of it.

Nice little flight of fancy there. I suppose it's a complete coincidence that it happens to agree with your favorite myth. So that there would be absolutely no reason to suspect that you're interpreting the text so as to "prove" your myth. Why, certainly you don't need this one contested rendering of this one word to support this "virgin birth" story, right? There certainly is something else you can call upon, right? Because if this one verse it all you have, that might tend to indicate that you might be insisting on a forced rendering because you have nothing else and so the "specialness" of jesus goes out the window. [1]
If only the context supported your fine little myth. And if only, umm, I don't know, maybe if there were some way to prove any of your wild-eyed dreams were correct?
Oh, well. Maybe it'll have to remain a flight of fancy with no evidence to support it?
Is it your belief that we should trust in it, anyway, even without evidence? Maybe even against the plain reading of the passage? Even against sense and reason, and against the Laws of Nature!?
Why should we do that? Simply because it is claimed that jesus was born of a virgin? We should force the text of Isaiah simply to support belief in jesus? But that would hardly be fair or true to the text, now would it?

So, let's look at the two positions.

1. My [sntjohnny's] position cites people who are NOT Christians and yet looked at almah and translated it as virgin (parthenos).

Right. They were not christians when it was incorrectly translated, but that incorrect translation was chosen by christians because they liked that translation.

2. Nojc offers no evidence derived from outside his trusted group of sources.

Right. No evidence at all. Except for the original Hebrew, the context, the time-setting, the particulars of the prophecy, the person to whom the prophecy was addressed, the fulfillment as recorded in the next few chapters of Isaiah's Book of Prophecy and other Books of the Jewish Bible, and the fact that any fulfillment of sntjohnny's rendering of the prophecy is impossible to prove.
No evidence at all.
Sad day to be me, isn't it?

Ie, my view has at least some corroboration from sources that would not be friendly to my view. His view is only corroborated by people he exclusively trusts.

Umm, of what possible value would it be to accept the decisions of the French that the War in Iraq is unjustified (even when those people are unfriendly to you and your positions on several other issues), rather than accept the determination of the Iraqis that it WAS justified, simply because they like that view and benefitted from that action? We should obviously agree with the French, right? That's what you are trying to say, is it?
You decide.

______

[1] Of course, if the word really DOES mean "virgin" then the context clearly shows that there was a "son-of-a-virgin" born 700 years or so BEFORE jesus, and so the "specialness" of jesus is lost, anyway - even before he was ever born! Of course, sntjohnny has not commented on this little fact. I HAVE mentioned it before, right? I think I remember asking if jesus was part of the "Who's Yer Daddy?" Society, along with the Emmanuel Isaiah spoke of, as well as Krishna, and Mithra, and Heracles. etc. all of whom were claimed to have been born of a virgin.

I wonder why sntjohnny has not responded to this point?