aa5874

Chapter 7 of Isaiah deals with an impending war between Syria, Israel and Judah. This chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with any character in the NT named Jesus.

Chapter 7 of Isaiah, after having read the KJV, even stipulates a time frame of three score and five years, ( 65 years), for the demise of Syria. The offspring of the virgin or the woman, whichever you like, is linked to that 65 years and the imminent war.

Isaiah 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin, and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

From the first verse to the very last verse of Isaiah 7, nothing at all relates to any one who fits the character called Jesus in the NT.

Sauron

They are your sources; are you incapable of summarizing their arguments? I'm unwilling to go out and buy books or invest the time to read them, merely on your recommendation. Given your track record on accuracy, I could waste a lot of time and money that way.

Interesting claim. However, this has apparently not persuaded very many people. So let's see whatever you have that you think is so compelling.

This is not the definition of a heretic. Most christians would say that Mormons are heretics, and are *not* within the christian faith. Ditto for several other sects or people, especially those who deny the dual human/divine nature of Christ, reject the Trinity, or deny the resurrection.

Moreover, this citation you provided does zero to answer the questions in my original post. More on that in a few seconds...

Nope, it's neither one. It's an example of you trying to bait-and-switch. If you refer back to my post and read it - for the first time - you'll see that what I *asked* for was evidence that:

1. the Jews had a "strong interest" in refuting christianity;
2. the Jews cared enough that they would go to the trouble to directly confront christians whom they believed were twisting OT scripture to support their messianic beliefs;

And as a corollary:

3. that there was a huge amount of interest on the part of Jews in the 1st century on this topic, or about christians in general

Instead of 1, 2, or 3 all you responded with was a citation that incorrectly defined heretic and tried to show Nazarenes being excluded from synagogue. Maybe you should have another look at 1,2 and 3 above to get a grasp on what the actual requirement was.

If so, then you should have no problem offering the evidence requested, since you've been around "here" for quite a while. But as we all realize, if you had any supporting evidence , you would have presented it by now.

Chris Weimer

Are you joking? What do you think a peshar is?

Roger Pearse

Eusebius of Caesarea makes this point in antiquity. I do not recall precisely where, but it is in either the Demonstratio Evangelica or Praeparatio Evangelica.

What does the Septuagint read for this passage? I understand that the Jews altered their Greek translations in the direction of a more literal version, to exclude Christian interpretations based the septuagint. I don't recall offhand when people like Theodotion lived; but perhaps all this issue arises from that period?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clouseau

What a sensible question. :banghead: The LXX uses parthenos, which Luke uses of Mary. The ancients had no technical word equivalent to virgo intacta, but this is the nearest. Perhaps that answers the OP question.

Died around 200. Perhaps it does.

Pseudo-Deity

The Septuagint didn't originally contain a translation Isaiah, at least according to this website.

RED DAVE

Completely untrue. The ancient Hebrews had a perfectly good word for a virgin. It was "bethulah," as opposed to "almah," which actually is used in Isaiah.

Therefore, one whole basis of the xtian faith, the prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah, based on the prophecy of a virgin birth, is either a mistranslation or a lie.

RED DAVE

Jack the Bodiless

From the context, it's clear that the child was to be born in the time of Ahaz (and therefore a devout Jew would simply have assumed that the child WAS subsequently born at that time). There is no reason to assume that any pre-Christian Jew would have looked for a "Messianic prophecy" here, nor would the woman's "virginity" or lack thereof have been an issue (because there is no hint in the text that the young woman would have remained a virgin, even if she had been one when the prophecy was made).

The only issue that seems unclear to me is whether the prophesied child is Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz or Hezekiah. It looks like Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz to me. What's the basis for the Hezekiah interpretation? I wonder if Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz was intended, but later Jews subsequently applied it to Hezekiah rather like Christians tried to retrofit it to Jesus?

Clouseau

'Mourn like a bethula in sackcloth,
grieving for the husband of her youth.'
Joel 1:8

An Aramaic text speaks of an equivalent in labour (ISBE). Betula means 'teenage, nubile girl', one who has passed puberty, and may be married. It's not so very different from alma, and the uses for alma actually point more strongly in the direction of virginity. On no occasion is it used of a woman who is known to be married. Alma may have indeed meant 'virgin', and the Septuagint provides surely as firm evidence of that as one could wish for.

But this is all so much academic waffle, because the context indicates that 'virgin' must be the correct meaning.

Jack the Bodiless

This appears to describe a woman who is not sexually active. Our modern concept of "virginity" is that it's a state you cannot return to, but the author of this passage may have had a different perspective.
No, it does not. But this is so much apologetic waffle, because the context indicates that the woman's hypothetically virginal state at the time the prophecy is made is completely irrelevant to the story.

This isn't a story about a "virgin birth". And neither Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz nor Hezekiah were supposedly born of virgins anyhow.