Clouseau

As her husband has died, that's not surprising.

Read the thread.

Jack the Bodiless

I did.

...Have you?

No "virgin birth" is described, and neither of the two possible candidates was born of a virgin. Isaiah himself "goes in unto" the mother of Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz, and Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz... not YHWH.

Jesus doesn't fit the context of the story. It's not about him.

Clouseau

I was here from the start, as you will have noted.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I did. But why urge me to "read the thread" when it does not provide any support for your position, other than the notion that a "betulah" might not be a virgin?

You don't seem to have digested the criticisms of the apologetic position.

Clouseau

If that is the case, deal with the arguments in the thread. It is consummately easy for some lurker to come along just as a thread question has been solved, and loudly re-write its history, and it happens with very predictable regularity. I'm not saying that such is your deliberate intent, but there is no indication that it is not, and addressing the thread questions in detail can prove that it is not.

Jack the Bodiless

The arguments in the thread have already been dealt with, by previous participants. The thead question HAS been solved: "no virgin birth". The person seeking to "loudly re-write its history" appears to be yourself.

The only remaining question is whether the child is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz or Hezekiah. That's what my first post on this thread (#49) was about.

To recap: the prophecy is intended to be a sign to Ahaz that the defeat of his enemies is imminent. It establishes a timeframe: the time for a specific woman (the Hebrew says "the" woman, not "a" woman) to concieve and bear a child, and for that child to grow old enough to know right from wrong (presumably a few years).

No "virgin birth" is described, regardless of whether or not the woman was a virgin at the time of the prophecy. Though "betulah" appears to be closer to "virgin" than "almah" is (your counterexample still indicates a woman who is not sexually active).

...So what's this nonsense about "the context indicates that 'virgin' must be the correct meaning"? That's not where the discussion is at.

Clouseau

That's precisely the sort of re-writing that is the problem. It should be banned!

Jack the Bodiless

You're suggesting that you should be banned for making comments such as this?
Do you have some of the thread participants on "ignore"?

Toto, for instance?

Clouseau

Why did you not reply to that? Why have you not? :huh:

Jack the Bodiless

Because Toto has already replied to this in post #13. Why did you ignore him? :huh:

Indeed, various aspects of this misconception has now been addressed by the following posters: Toto, Boro Nut, Sauron, Pseudo-Deity, Godless Dave, aa5874, and Red Dave (my apologies if I've missed someone).

...And by myself:
So why are you still pretending that this issue has not been addressed? :huh:

The woman is significant because Ahaz needs to know WHICH woman Isaiah is talking about! It's either Isaiah's wife, or the wife of Ahaz himself.

...Now, will you please try to catch up with this discussion? We have already established that the child can't be Jesus, for the reasons clearly spelled out here:
And as for the "double prophecy" nonsense: please spare us the apologetic assertions. As far as I know, the notion of a "double prophecy" is entirely alien to Judaism. There are metaphors and parables, and some open-ended "prophecies" that can't be pinned to any one specific event, but the notion of a prophecy that was intended to be fulfilled on two specific occasions is an attempt to excuse the habit of NT authors (notably Matthew) who were fond of ripping OT verses out of context and recycling them (or later Christians making excuses for the failure of Jesus to return within "this generation").