Even if Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, that wouldn't preclude the stories to be based on apostolic testimony derived from Mary herself. Jesus' family was well-known within the early church (Galatians 1-2, 1 Cor. 9.5) Given this fact, it would be difficult for Matthew and Luke to come to change the commonly held belief- unless they were just giving the commonly held belief some details. Anyway, the argument doesn't entirely hang on Matthean authorship. Just wanted to make that clear. That said, here is a compelling case for Matthean authorship: kerussoapologetics.blogspot.com/2021/02/who-wrote-gospel-of-matthew.html
@Richard Fox that's just an argument from silence. Paul quotes Jesus and alludes to him several times. All I wrote was for the sake of argument. It would be hard to come in and change a later position if Jesus' family was known and people knew he had an ordinary birth.
@@TestifyApologetics the message of the first-century church was not “Jesus and the Virgin Birth.” Nor was it “Follow this Teacher and do your best.” It was “Jesus and the Resurrection.”
@@VeridicusMaximus That's just an argument from silence. We have 13 letters from the apostle Paul. (Or 7 if you're hyper skeptical. Galatians 4:4 says he was born of a woman, which seems a bit odd to point out. But why expect him to mention it when he's dealing with issues in the churches? Here, a little parody might help: www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=9546
@Richard Fox Actually there is a source that implicates two Matthews, one who actually was the author, presumably of Matthew and the other may have been the Q source. So it is possible that apostle Matthew is indirectly a source for Matthew. This has no bearing on the Virgin story since this was contrived after the fall of the Temple. From what I can gather the apostles testified Sayings and Parables of Jesus (Some of Tomas and all of Q) and the writers of the New Testament embellished these sayings with Pauline Christianity and Greek mythological overlays of names and places form the Jesus stories. An excellent example of this is the Dionysian story of water into wine, an the unattested account in John of very similar story about Jesus. But we know from the other sayings that Jesuscwas not a fan of ceremonies, he believed that people should give all their belongings and not marry. According to Dennis McDonald there are three overlays in John, the first being the Bacchae, the second being the Anti-Jewish overlay. Matthew also incorporates a lot of Grecian mythology, the Virgin birth is one of them, but also the ressurrection. In total, while Matthew may have been the source for Q sayings in Matthew, the majority of Matthew is the embellishment of those sayings and mythification of Jesus’s life. The author Matthew may have had an additional source of sayings, or they maybe sayings from other sources.
It seems to have been forgot that the creators of the Septuagint were Jewish scholars who knew the Hebrew and chose the Greek work virgin as an equivalent when they translated it.
The original Septuagint included only the Torah, not the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Sure there may be Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures before Jesus but they were not the Septuagint. The Septuagint were only of the first five books of Moses. This would not include the book of Isaiah. What you call the Septuagint now is a Christian addition unto the original Septuagint by early church fathers such as Origen.
@@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 It’s not enough to establish the textual accuracy by looking at minuscule fragments of the Greek Old Testament in the DSS. I’m a Christian, but even I have to side with the “young woman” translation of the Hebrew text. Both in context and terminology, Isaiah 7:14 cannot be a literal prediction of Jesus exclusively. The way Matthew creatively applies it to Jesus has other significance.
@@ManoverSuperman the dead sea scrolls have the hebrew of isiah 7:14 have you not heard of the great isiah scroll its a complete scroll in the dead sea scrolls its not just a fragment and its hebrew not greek and you have the latin and the aramaic peshitta tahnak and the septugint all confirming the original reading the meseretic text is not as good as these other sources for example the samaritian penteouch and all these other sources have a reading of genesis 2:2 that causes no contradictions with the book of exodus but the meseretic text and a dead sea scroll fragment have a reading that does cause contradiction but its a minority reading the youngest parts of the dead sea scrolls more aline with the meseretic text and the oldest aline more with the septugint and other textual families in the dead sea scrolls
@@ManoverSuperman Greatest Abomination Evil Ever Committed Against God YHWH the Virgin Birth Lie Deception. This wicked evil doctrine which was interpolated into the gospels of Mathew and Luke evidenced by the original Mathew Gospel of the Hebrews not having the virgin birth narrative story makes Holy Almighty YHWH look like an adulterer who takes another mans wife then gives her back to him pregnant. This is repulsive and sick. The evidence is clear they added the 2 chapters in Mathew and Luke testified by major scholars and ancient church historians to appease their pagan worshipping Greeks, Romans and others who loved the stories at the time of Gods having sex with young females and getting them pregnant. Holy Yeshua Jesus Christ was declared by His Father at the Baptism '' Today I have begotten thee '' meaning this day I declare you as my unique one and only Heavenly Son. All the Jewish followers at that time accepted Holy Yeshua as Messiah because of the witness of His words and deeds and Resurrection and Ascension. None of the Apostles ever wrote that He was born of the virgin birth not even Paul. On behalf of all those who love and follow our Messiah Yeshua Jesus Christ and fear Him and repent of their sins and have been Baptised and who live by His Commandments as given to Moses. The corruption to our Bibles commencing in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine created the Vulgate and Sinaiticus Bibles. May the Jews of Israel accept the Messiah as their lamb of God the final and last King of Israel. The prophecy of Isaiah 7.14 in Mathew is false and another lie. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the word was '' a young woman '' not a virgin and if people read the whole chapter they will see that the young woman was Isaiah's own wife who had the son as a sign to King Ahaz that before Isaiah's child would be old enough to know good and evil the war affecting Israel, Ephraim and Syria would come to an end in the 7th century BC
So, according to Paulogia, he is able to correct an alleged *error in translation* made by a Jew over 2000 years ago, who had access to far older Hebrew manuscripts than we do, and, being 2000 years closer to the events themselves, would have obviously had more insight into the *intended meaning* of the original Hebrew than Paulogia does today.
@@tomasrocha6139 There's no doubt that not all of the LXX is of the same age. However to claim that the LXX is "largely post-2nd century and Christian" is to greatly exceed the evidence. Obviously the LXX being used in the 1st century gave rise to our modern LXX. If you want to make the claim that the Christians deliberately changed the Hebrew OT to deceive people, then you'd need to show some evidence for that claim beyond saying it was "in Christian hands", whatever that's supposed to mean. The fact is, there is no single ancient Hebrew word that means virgin and *only* virgin. So in context, alma is a perfectly acceptable choice for the intended meaning. It's not as if the case is somehow resting on the LXX in the first place.
The argument is that the author of Matthew didn't read the Hebrew, and instead read only the very popular Greek Septuagint, which translates ʿalmah into parthénos in Isaiah 7. Its widely believed that those who spoke Hebrew and grew up with the tradition wouldn't have understood 'almah to specify the strict virginity, but to being a young marriageable woman. This might be in English like using "lady" and translating that into "noble girl". When we know that a mother scolding her child with "young lady" has nothing to do with nobility a foreign reader might see the "noble girl" and think that the girl must have been a noble. Its not a clear error in the translation for Isaiah, but the author of Matthew's naive reading of the prophecy could lead him to thinking that the prophecy required virginity. This doesn't mean that a virgin wouldn't have fulfilled that clause, but that it wasn't considered necessary by the Jews at the time. There are other parts that infer that the author was not native in Hebrew and interpretation of customs, rituals and prophecy are best explained as a foreigner's understanding.
@@work3753 It's a poor argument. There is no Hebrew word that means simply "virgin" and cannot possibly have any other expanded semantic range. Alma is a perfectly acceptable word to use there to mean "virgin", and indeed that is what happened according to the eyewitnesses we have in the Gospels.
@@uncensoredpilgrims If they wanted to specify that the woman was truly virgin rather than young unmarried woman, they could have used "betulah". Isaiah 7 just isn't trying to lay on that specific as the important part. Whats more likely is that someone was looking at what scriptures Jesus fulfilled and saw "partenos" and said his mom must have been a virgin if he fulfilled it. (especially because jesus was probably ascended at that point and it would have been rude to start questioning Mary). But the real important part here is that neither the authors of Matthew nor Luke claim to be written by eye-witnesses within their text. You can't get that just from the Gospels.
Who thinks that Luke and Matthew are textually independent? Luke and Matthew share Mark as a source per normal opinion, though it's also possible that Matthew was - as tradition held - the first synoptic Gospel, and IMO Mark and Luke responded to the problems with Matthew by trimming him down and reworking him, respectively. Where they differ from Mark is not "independent attestation" but completely different nativities and genealogies, Matthew's being unsalvageable.
I notice that Paulogia does not mention that Hebrew has no word specifically for virgin while the Greek does and that’s how the greatest Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint in 2nd-3rd century BC used.
The Hebrew word for virgin is betula. Here is even more proof that the translation was wrong and intentional. In the Hebrew bible it says the young woman IS with child, doesn't say the young woman SHALL concieve. FYI the Rabbi's that translated the Septuagint only translated the Torah, not the entire Tanakh. So the translator if Isaiah was not well versed in Hebrew.
So, back at RTS (seminary) I did a project on this question and came to many of the same conclusions and arguments as you (I got an A!) However, you did it better. Great video.
@JD Apologetics Yeah I'm not either, but they do have a lot of good classes on church history. And Michael J. Kruger's got quite a few courses of well, and that man has a wealth of knowledge.
I think it's important to note that the LXX was also published before Jesus came on the scene. So the fact that the Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew into Greek chose to use a word that means "virgin" most of the time seems to indicate that the proper understanding of "alma" in that instance was "virgin." You could at the very least conclude that Christians had no influence over the decision to use that particular Greek word in the LXX since they didn't yet exist. All the evidence leans heavily towards virgin being the proper translation, so to go a different direction is actually going against the evidence.
A major counter-argument to this is that the LXX was not a “Bible” in the modern understanding of the term. It merely refers to a family of translations, some of which were more competently done than others. Isaiah’s translation into Greek has been noticeably shown to be inferior to that done for the Torah, for instance, which was the original LXX. That mistranslations of the original texts occurred when translated in a language with an entirely separate lingual history is not surprising in the least. So I wouldn’t make too heavy use of early (hypothetical) LXX translations as a good place to argue for that reading. For myself, the virgin birth was a theological necessity, not a prophetic one. Matthew’s drawing on Isaiah 7:14 is brilliant-as are the other Scripture texts he uses throughout his gospel. But I do not believe that any originally understood predictive prophecy about the Messiah necessitated that he would be born of a literal virgin. Nevertheless I do believe Jesus “fulfilled” Isaiah 7:14, just not in a predictive sense.
Alma means young woman. There is a different word for virgin - betula. But the Greek word parthenos can mean both and the meaning virgin was becoming more common at that time. If you pair the mistranslations with the contradicting accounts of Jesus' birth story in Mathew and Luke and the fact that Isaiah was talking about the birth of his own son and the young woman was his wife, you will realize that the virgin birth story was invented for the purpose of prophecy. Again, the prophecy was not about the Messiah. Read that part of Isaiah carefully and in context of preceding and succeeding chapters and you'll realize that the prophecy was that his wife would bear him a child and the 2 kingdoms that attacked Judah during his time would be destroyed before the child had grown up. Even if you don't know Hebrew hermeneutics, a careful reading in context would reveal that the prophecy is not messianic. Also, while we are talking about Isaiah, read the whole book carefully and you'll see that the suffering servant in 53 is Israel rather than the Messiah. The Book of Isaiah has been corrupted and you, my friend, have been deceived.
@@Nexus-jg7ev "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5, ESV) Isaiah uses the word 'we' here. The 'we' obviously refers to Israel. The suffering servant healed Israel. As such, it is illogical to say that Israel suffered for Israel to heal Israel.
@@jaidengabriel1675 First, the author of the latter part of Isaiah is not even Isaiah himself. The latter half of the book is written during the Babylonian exile by authors who were likely disciples of Isaiah. This part recounts the suffering of God's servant - Israel - it's oppression under various nations who have gone astray, who despise the Lord and his servant whose task is to bring these other nations to the Lord of Israel. In 52 there is an account of exile and suffering inflicted by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. 53 talks about the Babylonian exile. 54-65 talks about the eventual redemption of Israel by her Lord and about how the transgressing nations shall be made righteous through the righteous servant's knowledge of God - the servant Israel will teach the nations about God and righteousness. 'The sons of those who afflicted you shall come bending low to you, and all who despised you shall bow down at your feet; they shall call you the City of the LORD, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Whereas you have been forsaken and hated, with no one passing through, I will make you magestic forever, a joy from age to age. Read the whole book carefully, my friend. Do you only read 53? Or do you only read 7 for the virgin birth? Do you only cherry pick the chapters that are made to look Christological? Also, you should use an NRSV. Or... learn a bit of Hebrew and study an authentic Tanakh.
@@Nexus-jg7ev 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7, ESV) This is why we know the suffering servant is not Israel. The child will be called 'Mighty God' Israel is not God. Furthermore, "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psalm 110:1, ESV) Which Lord is redeeming Israel?,
I get it ! 😍 Culture in the Old times are different than today. Of course parents are more protective and conservative in raising their daughters. This gives higher percentage of "Alma" is referring to a "virgin" young woman.
The term 'almah' is not exclusive to virgins since it doesn't convey the state of sexual purity in a woman. It only conveys two things: youth and gender.
@@Mikha2200 Isaiah claimed his children themselves were signs (Isaiah 8:16). This precludes every sign having to be outright supernatural in an immediate sense. Heck, even Isaiah being barefoot and slipshod for three years was a sign in Isaiah 20.
@@tomasveras2175 Yes, but Proverbs 30:19 uses Almah in a way that evidently shows it is not referring to a virgin. So there is a use in the OT that proves it wasn’t exclusively referring to a young woman who is an actual virgin.
The general gist: Paulogia looks at it through naturalism. A naturalist looking at the evidence as if no miracle occurred, then trying to explain the evidence available as if no miracles actually occurred and that everyone who believes that miracles *do* occur is foolish or lying. In other words: being closeminded against the evidence because of an a-priori conviction against the supernatural. If someone is open to the supernatural actually occurring, they can evaluate evidence in that light, and explore the possibility of 'Did something supernatural actually happen?' - but a naturalist 'cannot let a divine foot in the door,' and so stunts his progress of knowledge. In the 1960's, one Dr. Richard Lewontin, due to his commitment to materialism (related to naturalism, as you might guess!), believed that any theory which even supposes the possibility of the supernatural must be rejected. Why? Well, not because of the evidence, but rather I imagine it's because he understood things like the Kalam better than a lot of atheists I've seen do and he doesn't like the conclusions. Instead, he must draw different ones: not because of the truth, but... Quoth Dr. Lewontin: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Does the phrase 'Not that the methods and institutions of science, but.... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door' sound like the epistimology behind Paulogia's thinking: not a commitment to where the evidence leads, but a commitment to where it 'cannot' be allowed to lead if we follow any form of materialism? Not truth, but a worldview? Food for thought. Rejecting evidence due to an a-priori commitment to any form of materialism is quite simply placing ideology before truth, and that will lead you to falsely assuming materialism is true in any possible world where it is false (including, especially, the actual world!). Quite like how x-rays aren't very good at detecting ink on a page. X-ray reading goggles are the wrong tool for reading: set them aside if they're ill-suited for the evidence. Truth, however, will set you free. It can be uncomfortable at first, like getting a shot or exercising can be, but the end results are far better than the starting condition. "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32) www.str.org/w/who-really-is-closed-minded-
@Richard Fox One of the chief concepts moving me away from religion is the request I suspend rational thought and believe magic occurred even though we never see events similar today. Extraordinary claims and all that.
The first half of your sentence is reasonable and worth responding to. But the second half, "everyone who believes that miracles do occur is foolish or lying", is not only untrue. It's downright insulting and consequently makes it hard for me to write a response and not allow my feelings to interfere. "Naturalism" is a way to avoid saying "rational" or "science based". "Naturalism" is not a philosophical stance. When something happens 1000 times in a row, it is rational, reasonable, to expect the same thing to happen again. That is how science works, and yes, I'm simplifying. RUclips comments are not the places for writing essays. When that thing is a phenomenon observable in nature (lightning, birth...) and when, IN EVERY CASE, natural forces have been found responsible for this phenomenon, it is reasonable to look in the direction of those same natural forces the next time that event occurs. "being closeminded against the *evidence* because of an a-priori conviction against the supernatural." Present EVIDENCE of a miraculous event, strong evidence, strong enough to make natural alternatives the less likely cause, and no rational person will be able to resist your argument. Can you present such evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus? If so, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to see it. By the way, 2000 year old accounts, even if they were by people who actually witnessed the event, and not just people who believed in it, would still be problematic. On what basis were they able to rule out the natural causes for Jesus' birth? Were they relying on Mary's testimony? Were they medical doctors who did genetic tests and determined the baby was a clone of Mary? Do you see now the difficulty? Yes, a rational person would consider evidence of a supernatural cause, if such evidence existed and was strong enough to overcome evidence for other possible causes. "Closemindedness" is not the problem. Your lack of evidence is the problem. Of course, a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't a virgin birth. But given that the billions of other human births have not been virgin births, it is totally unreasonable, irrational, to *favor* the virgin birth hypothesis. That's okay. Have your belief, ON FAITH, but admit that it is on FAITH alone, and NOT supported by evidence, just a few possibly mistranslated statements by people who weren't present and even if they had been, wouldn't have had the specific expertise to make the determination whether the pregnancy was natural, like the billions of others, or not. I accept your decision (it's not for me to deny it) to formulate your beliefs and view of the universe on the basis of faith. That is your choice and not for me to object to it. But I choose to formulate my understanding of the universe based on physical evidence, analyzed rationally. And if you attempt to interfere with my life, for example, through political means, in ways that impose your faith-based view on my life, I will do everything legally within my power to prevent that. Rationality, science, is what moved us out of the caves, gave us agriculture, an understanding of natural laws, such as how the seasons work, how to cure diseases, the power to improve our lives through technology, all the things that make our lives today rich, secure and comfortable. They came about through a rational understanding of Nature. That matters. I will resist attempts to set us back by discounting and demeaning the value of a rational, objective study of nature.
Well if you were to suspend your disbelief and assume miracles why stop at Christianity? Why not accept every miraculous claim as plausible? How can you justify the place you draw the line?
The point the original poster is making is not that you must "assume miracles" or "accept every miraculous claim as plausible," but rather that you should not reject the possibility of a miracle out of hand.@@jonr9467
@@fepeerreview3150I disagree about your point of naturalism, naturalism is the belief that miracles aren’t possible, that there’s nothing immaterial and spiritual. It’s a belief, I’m a Idealist Christian and I came to this belief through logic and rationality. Rationality isn’t bound to certain beliefs like theism or atheism. Rationality can lead you anywhere.
What's most interesting to me here is that Parthenos doesn't necesarily mean virgin, and is an accurate translation of Alma. This means, the disciples did in fact have an accurate understanding of the prophecy at their time and were under no compulsion to fabricate the virgin birth as unbelievers claim they were. The virgin birth did fullfill the prophesy, but Isaiah didn't specify virginity as a requirement. The prophesy was of sign from God in a miraculous birth to a young woman. This was fullfilled in the virgin birth.
I think I get what you’re saying. Isaiah didn’t necessarily prophecy a virgin birth but a miraculous one, and the miraculous birth was fulfilled through the virgin birth
Parthenos means exclusively a virgin and in hebrew bible is mistranslated. Ha'alma means young woman and is throw out the hebrew bible the same in a different passages too. In Hebrew bible ha'alma is " the young woman" which means someone particularly, that who is Isaiah wife.
@@Pumpkin_Lich it doesn't need multiple mentions to be considered important. And it is important by virtue of being another witness of the deity of Christ. Since it has to do with the nature of Jesus, it is very important.
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 The annunciation is not poetry or allegory it is literal. We are sure Mary was a virgin because she SAID SO. One translation is "How can this be because I have not lain with a man?"
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 The Bible is inspired by God. Written down by many men Once in the Bible, which is, complete, nothing is changed. Those versions which contain changes such as the Jehovah's Witness and Joseph Smith versions are false. Other varients are copy errors or mistranslations. It is our duty to be able to recognize the errors. The word used for virgin in Hebrew is literally maiden in the sense of a young unmarried woman. But there were severe consequences for not being either married or a virgin. In context the messianic prophecies especially Isaiah do refer to a virgin not a disgraced adolescent living in her father's household. A virgin giving birth would be remarkable, an unmarried slut doing so would be scandalous but not remarkable. The prophecy is of a singular remarkable event In the Greek of the New Testament the word translated virgin also means young unmarried woman. In the parable of the ten virgins they were supposed to literally be virgins but were not necessarily so. Mary was literally a virgin because she said so. Mathew also specifically says that Joseph was not Jesus's biological father and that the pregnancy was through the Holy Spirit.
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 I have read the Bible many times in two languages and many translations. I have also found explanations of cultural context on the internet. Also a lot of lies. I know what the Bible says and what it means. Unfortunately part of what I must get from others is the original languages. I am confessional Lutheran, our Pastors teach the whole Bible. What deliberate secrets? That God put up with Canaanite defiance for 400 years (they sacrificed their own children to an idol by cooking them alive) then ordered His people, the Israelites, to destroy them as a people and forbade intermarriage with the survivors? I know that. That God loves you so much that if you reject being in His presence in heaven for eternity He will allow you to go to Hell where He isn't? I know that too.
I have read that the specific definition of Alma meant 12 years old (pubescent) to 20. In the ancient Middle East, women typically got married and started having children before the age of 20. What do you think?
Let me open up your eyes. First of all, I thank you both for being in the trenches defending the faith. The Holy Spirit runs really strong through me, and I can show you a mystery that will further open your eyes. When you read Isaiah chapter 9 in its entirety what you'll find is as you said, the child mentioned in chapter 7 is indeed the same child who is now born to us in chapter 9. What begins in chapter 7 is very ambiguous and little is known about what Isaiah is talking about unless you understand certain keyword phrases. Isaiah brings his son to the scene when prophecy was given to Ahaz. In Chapter 7v14 we don't know who this woman is, if any was present, and who is the child who will eat curds and honey. Is it the child in the woman's womb, is it Isaiahs's son? We simply do not know, yet the word BEHOLD in chapter 7v14 is a word that does not point to someone present but rather this is the typical language used by prophets when giving prophecy. Hence, we can conclude that the woman spoken off is not present and it's a future prophecy all the while he points to his son as the one eating curds and honey because the word child in that passage does not refer to a newborn but rather a child between the ages of 6 to 18. chapter 8 Isaiah makes love to the prophetess and another child is born but this child is given a different name by Isaiah himself, so this child is not from the previous chapter. Hezekiah is not the child in chapter 7 because he was already born, and the prophecy was during Ahaz 4th year of his reign when Hezekiah was 9 years old. So, it begs the question, what is going on here? The theme Isaiah was building was that a Child was going to be conceived after the exile during a time the regathering happened. That's why in chapter 9 we see that conflict has ended and Israel is being gathered again, and after war was over THEN THE PROPHET EXCLAIMS, "FOR A CHILD IS BORN TO US'' denoting that the child will be born after the exile. But the question is which exile? This is where the mystery will be unraveled, and it will open your eyes that it was not after the Assyrian exile, but it is indeed after both exiles including the Babylonian one and all this is secretly contained in Isaiah 9. When you look at Isaiah 9v1 Isaiah takes a jab at 2 kings, and we don't know who, but as the passage goes further and you understand the keyword phrases, you'll see that he is actually taking a jab to Hezekiah, indirectly saying that he is not the King that will bring glory. It might seem like he's taking a jab at Ahaz in contrast to Hezekiah, but since he leaves it open by not mentioning names it's a jab at Hezekiah as not being the fulfiller of these prophecies. When you read when the child will be born a keyword phrase is used to denote the timeline of the appearance of this future king who will make the way of the sea glorious. In Isaiah 9v3-5 he says the ROD of his oppressor (Symbol of Assyria) The yoke of his shoulder (symbol for Babylon) is only then that after both are broken the child has been born and the nation of Israel increased in size. In Isaiah 10:27 the yoke will break off Israel's neck because of "FATNESS". Pay attention to the keyword phrase, no one can break something unless it is skinny first in order for it to fit. So, Hosea 10:11 the yoke fits due to a skinny neck (small nation) then it breaks because of a fat neck (enlarged nation) Isaiah 10:27. Also pay attention to the keyword phrase "Divide the spoil'' Isaiah 53:12. The theme is always the same, The Rod and the Yoke will be broken then the prophets and prophecy will end and be cut off, a theme that is further expanded by Daniel chapter 9. Deuteronomy 28:48. Assyria is the Rod Isaiah 10:5 Babylon is the Yoke Zachariah chapter 27, 28, 29 In Hosea chapter 10:11 The yoke goes on skinny necks. In Isaiah 10:27 the yoke breaks because of Fatness. Now we can go to Matthew chapter 2:13-14 and Matthew chapter 2:18 and now we can fully understand why he used this seemingly out of context these two narratives that portrays both the Assyrian exile (Matthew chapter 2:13-1) and Babylonian exile (Matthew chapter 2:18) but it's not out of context once you understand Isaiah 9:4-5. He was saying that the events of both the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles had to happen first before the messiah's advent and in Matthew chapter 1:17 he further triangulates the precise timing of the messiah's advent. So, in summary the Messiah had to come after both exiles during the 490-year Daniels chapter 9 prophecy. Simple. Now we can see that Isaiah 9 contains further prophecy that sandwiches the birth of this child between 3 events. The first 2 events are the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, then the child is born, then in Isaiah 9:8-21 God expresses further anger against Israel, culminating in a siege where cannibalism will take place. Event that was only recorded during the 70 AD Roman siege and never before or after such a horrendous event has been recorded only during this 70 AD event. It's all clear as day.
If Almah in proverbs 20:19 means maiden (unmarried woman) instead of virgin, the meaning is still the same. She would still not be an Almah very quickly if she married instead of losing her virginity
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense. Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War. This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago. Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved? The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment. ((I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular “you” and the plural “you.” (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language “you” can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.) If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
Isa 8:8 KJV And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
Awesome video. I would add that papias writing at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century said that Matthew was a written originally in Hebrew.
Yeah and there is a lot of dispute about that for multiple reasons. I think there might have been a proto Matthew similar to what scholars refer to Q as.
@@TestifyApologetics I would agree with that. Either way we see Levi's familiarity with the Jewish culture. Also his having been a tax collector he would have been at least conversant in multiple languages including Hebrew (which he would have heard in his youth.)
Let me clear this up real quick. In 1 Samuel 20:22 David is described as a Alm, the masculine equivalent to Alma. This is after he’s married in chapter 18. Therefore it cannot mean virgin.
@J.M Ben That verse isn’t referring to David at all. It’s clearly referring to Johnathan’s young servant. Please at least actually read the passage before you make claims like this.
@@xAvagantamos You are right it is. But even still I don’t think there is any Christian translation that translates him as a virgin. This is because his sexuality isn’t important. He’s a lad, who could be a virgin but doesn’t have to be. The same is for an Alma. Secondly when you put that onto Isiah 7. It’s clearly the same logic. Emmanuel’s conception is not important but his age is. That’s why before he knows the difference between good and evil and when he’s eating curds(poetically meaning when he’s roughly a toddler) the enemies of Judea in the Syro-Ephraim war will be desolated. That doesn’t apply to Jesus, because one, how could Jesus, an eternal being, have a time before he knew the difference between good and evil? And we get no information about him eating curds.
Makes sense. Jewish man used the Septuagint to pull his prophecies and then wrote his books in Greek. Almah means young woman, it can be a young woman with children, or a young woman without children. If Isaiah wanted to let his readers know the sexuality of the woman he would have used betula.
As noted, the problem is that many do not understand typology. The child that is born when the land is forsaken of both her kings is Manasseh. Manasseh becomes a type of Christ. This child would be born in that time line. WE need to recognise that the 65 year prophecy is connected to Daniel's prophecies and begins the starting point for the chastisements in Leviticus 26.
Therefore *the Lord himself shall give you a sign* ; Behold, a virgin (or young maiden) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Very simple, *a sign from God* is a miracle.
Not all signs are miracles i.e. the rainbow was called a sign in the Hebrew in Genesis 9:13. A sign is something that can be seen. Something that cannot be said about a virgin conceiving. You'd just have to take her word for it that she didn't conceive through fornication.
@Tipple Bear actually, nothing about the context says that the sign is a supernatural one. If you continue reading from verse 14-16 it explicitly stated that the sign is that before the child grows up to know good or bad, the land of the two enemy kings will be desolate.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 Obviously you have no clue what’s going on in the verse, and failed to read the verse before. God tells Ahaz to ask him for a great sign, not something that happens everyday, there nothing out of the ordinary about a woman having a child. That is why we know that this sign is a miracle. A young maiden during that time would have been a virgin, so when God tells Ahaz to ask for a miracle that only God can do, we know this isn’t something to sneer at.
This is due to Mary’s vow to perpetual chastity; Thus the daughter of Jephthah goes to the mountains to bewail her virginity because 'She had never known a man' (Judges 11:39). Similarly, Judges 12:12 speaks of four hundred virgins 'who never slept with a man' as though they were unfulfilled.
@@JengaJayAh yes. The Christian child sacrifice passage reference. The one Christians prefer to pretend isn't in the Bible. I can already hear them whining "You're taking it out of context, man!" What part of "burnt offering" makes them think Jepthah's virgin daughter survived the ordeal? YHWH just loves the smell of burnt flesh. That's his omni-loving side!😂😂
@@wesbaumguardner8829 I have no problem with people being critical of the scriptures. But what I will not tolerate is someone who willingly reads the Bible *out of context* to support their agenda. Then refuses to listen to the context when explained. In the margin of the KJV, verse 40 of that scripture says that the women “talked with” Jephthah’s daughter year after year. Other translations of the Hebrew word “Tanah” can also be rendered “commend”. Besides Jehovah said *explicitly* that he hated human sacrifices. Please feel free to reject the scriptures, but don’t use blatant mistranslations to justify doing so.
@@menoswater1032 " I have no problem with people being critical of the scriptures. But what I will not tolerate is someone who willingly reads the Bible out of context to support their agenda." LOL, my prophesy has come true! A Christian is whining about context. Per the Bible, Jepthah promised god that in exchange for victory in battle, he would provide as a burnt offering whatever first came through the door of his house to greet him upon his return from victory. Then the bible says that his virgin daughter was the first thing to come through the door of his home to greet him and he lamented that it was her. Now, if this was not a human sacrifice, why would he be lamenting for his daughter? Go on and explain that. Then the Bible says that he did has he promised god and fulfilled his vow. That means he offered her as a burnt offering to Yahweh. Go on and provide the context where a sacrifice survives being a burnt offering. "In the margin of the KJV, verse 40 of that scripture says that the women “talked with” Jephthah’s daughter year after year." So what? You Christians talk to your dead all the time. You pray to Jesus and he is dead, too. "Besides Jehovah said explicitly that he hated human sacrifices." This is just an example of many contradictory things in the bible. Why didn't Yahweh stay Jepthah's hand as he did Abraham's if he hated human sacrifice so much? Or better yet, why wouldn't Yahweh send a goat through the door first to spare Jepthah's daughter? Neither of those happened in the story. Yahweh must have wanted Jepthah's daughter as sacrifice to send her through the door first. Or are you claiming that Yahweh is not all powerful and could not have changed the events for a different outcome? Funny how your god of peace and love just loves burnt offerings. You know, that is not the only location in the bible where human sacrifice occurs. That is just an example of one that people today would consider extremely distasteful, which is why people like you have to pretend the words in the bible do not mean what the words in the bible mean.
I believe Inspiring Philosophy may be working on one that has a rather interesting and satisfying solution. I have my own view as well, and will do videos on alleged historical errors at some point.
Salt Lake Tribune had a story around Christmas making this exact same claim. It seems to follow the "the 'right' meaning of a word with a range of meanings is the one I find most helpful for my views" line of thinking.
5:01 6:41, 6:56, 7:47 And as said by EditsOfAwesomeness in the comments section, Isaiah 7:13 is directing the message to the House of David, not Ahaz, so Isaiah 7:14 should be understood in this light.
Well we have to admit that no Hebrew scholar would have thought the Messiah would be born of a Virgin. So Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 the problem is the fact that the Hebrew word is almah which always translates as young woman, maiden, or damsel. If you look at Isaiah the prophet utilizes the word virgin in passages in Isaiah 37:22, Isaiah 62:5 just to name a few as the Hebrew word betula. Emmanuel was the child in Isaiah 7:14. Go to Isaiah 8:3 the prophet Isaiah has relations with his wife the prophetess and end up naming the other child Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The birth of the child was not the sign. The sign was the child growing up and eating curbs and honey. Some would say well Matthew was quoting the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 which uses the Greek word parthenos (παρθένος). But parthenos (παρθένος) in Greek can also mean young woman, maiden, or damsel. If you look at Genesis 34:4 in reference to Dinah you'll find in the previous verses she was violated by Shechem. But in Genesis 34:4 it uses parthenos (παρθένος) when she was not a virgin after being violated. So it’stranslated as young woman. Hebrew Scholars would have to look at the context of the passage. There's a reason why Matthew is sometimes refered to as the Gospel that failed to reach the Jews. Yes we find in scripture the Virgin story accounts in Matthew and Luke
My question then becomes in consideration to the prophecy within the specific context of Isaiah 7. It seems to me that the idea of a virgin birth within the OT either contradicts or underwhelmes the exclusivity of Christ. At face value, the text seems to be directed toward Isaiah and his wife, which would then disqualify the idea of it being a virgin birth since ya brethren Shear-jashub existed. This seems to leave us with the idea of the Hebrew meaning "young women." Why does Matthew make this jump between the two concepts ("virgin" and "young women") when quoting from a specific passage which contradicts this new meaning? I'm really struggling with this.
Does it? I mean, were anot exactly told the biography of Isaiah except in relation to the events described in the book. Isaiah could have been a widower who remarried or he could have divorced his wife and taken another. It's not that these things did not happen, and given that his eldest son was more likely a grown man by this point, either possibilities could be plausible. Not mentioning the fact that at least I have never encountered an instance where almah is used in the OT which could not refer to a virgin. Besides, it would make it easier for Ahaz to identify the child, since the mother is not specifically mentioned there and he would have to look for a woman he knew. Well, if the woman was to be newly wed (and untill consumation a virgin), he would probably have a much easier way of identifying her. Now with respect to the birth itself, the text doen't specifically say that the conception would be miraculous (that is that the girl would maintain virginity), but it doesn't exclude it either. What I am trying to say is that you have both. In the case of Ahaz, he is told that "the" almah (that is this specific woman that you know) is going to have a child and so on, but one can literally interpret the text as describing a virgin birth (that is retaining virginity at conception, and during and after childbirth), which through typology would point to Christ. It all hangs upon the text allowing for multiple interpretations at the same time in a way that they don't cancel each other out.
The context of Isaiah 7 is future, despite what Paulogia or others may claim. If you read the text closely you see that Isaiah rebukes Ahaz and speaks to the house of David. The prophecy about the virgin birth is not given to Ahaz, but the house of David. Further, he doesn't say a virgin but the virgin, as a definite noun. This indicates a specific woman is in view. And the child will be named "God with us" thus indicating who he will be. Taken in light of biblical expectations, Isaiah is tying together multiple biblical promises and setting those as a sign: 1) God promised David that his house would continue forever, 2) the promise that "the seed of the woman" would come, going back to Genesis, 3) that this messiah would restore the relationship of man and God, and 4) that this messiah would be divine. After setting this expectation, he then switches back to speaking to Ahaz, going from the plural "you" in verse 14 to the singular in verse 16. Further, as we read in chapter 8, the child born to Isaiah was from his wife. It would be very odd for the Isaiah to call her "almah" in chapter 7 as she was already his wife. The idea that the "maiden" of chapter 7 would be an already married woman at the time of the prophecy seems stretched. Also, God refers to the land as "your land, O Immanuel" in chapter 8 verse 8. The broader context indicates that there are two prophecies at play, one for the people of the time but another that is fulfilled in a future messiah.
Someone asked what Isaiah 9:6 was about... here is the verse - with explanation below. Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Explaination: INSIDE of a person is a 'woman' - the 'one flesh' that God 'created' (NOT the 'man' that LORD GOD 'formed', then separated, and advised should be joined BACK together again, as what GOD has 'joined together' let man not separate). As GOD created man as MALE AND FEMALE, created them 'he' - and called their name... 'Adam'. God's creation of man was 'androgynous' or 'male AND female'. And thus... it is what COMES OUT of a MAN that defiles him. Thus... one should be able to see 'the WOMAN' of Revelation 12. IF this 'woman' inside of you does what is GOOD in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT of that choice is then 'male' - and acceptable to GOD and taken into HEAVEN. BUT... if the 'woman' inside of you does what is EVIL in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT is then a 'female', 'daughter of man', and another 'woman' or 'seed bearer'... which is then another 'opportunity' for something to come of it, but then it is NOT a 'first fruit' and NOT ACCEPTABLE to GOD. THIS is also (spiritually)... the 'VIRGIN BIRTH' as it DOES NOT require 'physical union' to produce FRUIT, or to say... THE WORD MADE (into) FLESH. This is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke with Nicodemus... or being BORN of WATER & SPIRIT, and also what is referred to with Mary (Jesus mother) AND ALSO, why Jesus is called - 'the Word', as it is the COMMAND of GOD through which everything that has been made or will ever BE MADE... is made. Note that the daughters of man, became 'evil' spirits upon the earth... and thus 'spirit give birth to spirt' is then true. Flesh gives birth to flesh is simple to understand - as this is an 'earthly thing' vs. and lacks the complexities of 'heavenly things'.
“Traditional scripturalization” some people just call that proof texting. It’s when you look for support for a preconceived concept that you aiming to confirm or verify. Translation, the writer of Matthew wanted a virgin birth and therefore sought out a text that could support that. That doesn’t prove or disprove that Isaiah 7:14 is connected to the NT Jesus figure or it is truth, or crafted fairy tales or just imaginative typology fit for its day. At the end of the day, people still get to choose if it’s all believable or not. I find that the ones who want to believe it will rest on the forgiving explanation and the ones who don’t want to believe it will fall on the most likely explanation.
Awesome stuff once again! Completely on point regarding the Hebrew word 'almah'. There's not a single instance in Scripture where you can show it refers to a woman that is _not_ a virgin. I had a conversation on reddit about this topic a time ago and would like to add something crucial that I didn't see you mention in the video, regarding the designation of this prophecy. Paulogia casually mentions that this prophecy was aimed at Ahaz, but is that what the text actually says? Let's read the passage, including the context: "10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, *O house of David!* Is it too little for *you* to weary men, that *you* weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give *you* a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah-the king of Assyria!”" - Isaiah 7:10-17 (ESV) Notice something? Who is Isaiah addressing in verse 13? Not Ahaz, but "house of David". The main designation of the prophecy is _not_ Ahaz, but the house of David. If anyone is not convinced by this careful reading, the original Hebrew makes it clear. The Hebrew for the "you"'s I put in bold (verses 13 and 14) is - in contrast to verses 11, 16 and 17 - plural. [Click on the little 'a' and 'b' to see the mention of singular and plural pronouns in the passage: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7%3A9-11&version=ESV] I hope that's helpful to some, God bless you all!
Only because 'almah' is not a frequently used word in the Hebrew Bible. It's used only 6 or 7 times in the entire Hebrew Bible so the chances are it would be used to refer to a unmarried young women, however it is not a term that is exclusive to virgins. It's synonym 'naarah' is much more widely used. The word 'almah' conveys only youth and gender, NOT the state of sexual purity. It's root word is 'elem' which means vigor or youth. Infact, it's noun derivatives i.e. 'alumah' means youth. None of the words relating to, 'elem' including 'almah, conveys sexual purity.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 So why was 'almah' translated into 'parthenos' in the entire Greek Old Testament, which evidently means 'virgin', in all cases in the Greek New Testament? And why did Matthew cite this verse as evidence for its miraculous fulfillment through Mary, if 'almah' just means 'woman'? And why is it that in all instances in the Old Testament, you can't show me a _single_ instance where 'almah' refers to a non-virgin woman?
@EditsOfAwesomeness that's a very good question. The answer is obvious. It was a mistranslation. The so called Septuagint of today also has mistranslated 'naarah' as virgin in Genesis 24:14, and not to mention it had no problem translating 'almah' in Exodus 2:8 as young woman. This translation is not only inaccurate but inconsistent at best.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 In Genesis 24:16, we read: "16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden [naarah] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up." The reason the Septuagint translators translated 'naarah' in Genesis 24:14 to 'virgin', therefore, is because the context implies this meaning. I prefer my translations more word for word, but there is no mistake here. The same goes for Exodus 2:8. A virgin, by definition, is also a young woman, or girl. That doesn't take away the fact that she was a virgin, nor does it do anything to refute the argument.
Hello brother! In case you've not found an answer yet, I think my comment may have dealt with your issue. You can find it somewhere in the comments. God bless you!
If the virgin birth even happened, Paul would have made mention of it in Romans. His writings are the oldest texts regarded as scripture, he says NOTHING about it. It was a later addition to the story about Jesus, and at the time would have been understood to be an allegory, painting Jesus as a true messenger of the Divine. The ancients knew better than to read this as literal truth, the fact that it is now taken as such simply speaks to the depth of ignorance of the entire collective of the church since Gentiles got a hold of these texts and mistaught them when the Jewish Christians who knew better died off. Paul writes in his letter to Timothy about believers accepting myths as truth, IMO this a perfect example of what he warned about.
How would people during the time of the Old Testament determine whether a young girl is a virgin? Would this method to be reliable? Can a woman become pregnant without coitus? Since we have today several women who became pregnant without coitus I assume we would see the same phenomenon in ANE.
yes, women today can get pregnant without coitus through amazing advances in technology was that technology available prior to 70AD where the temple was destroyed? the prophet daniel prophesized the messiah would come prior to its destruction
@@InitialPC you do not need advanced technology to bring sperm into close proximity of the entrance of a vagina. As long as the hymen is intact a woman was to be considered as a virgin. A virgin birth is rare but not imposible. Now and then.
Interesting is that the oldest NT scripture's like Mark and Paul's writings doesn't mention about the virgin birth, they could may know the Septuagint writings from the Hebrew bible, but didn't see the importance to mention at all about that. In fact, Paul mentioned about the Jesus that he is from a YOUNG WOMAN! And about the ha'alma, that means only the "young woman", of cource young woman can be virgin but can also have childrens. Betulah, as virgin can be young but also can be old. Thats not the case. Betulah does not refer to the age at all. And secondly, Isaiah passage tells that " THE( particular one)young woman IS pregnant" so after all when he IS pregnant, she can't be virgin anymore.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 If she was unbetrothed the man who was responsible for her not being a virgin had to marry her. With no possibility of divorce ever.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 That is reversing the emphasis. It says if a man seduces and has sex with a virgin ( could be literal could be still living in her father's house) he has to marry her and pay her father the customary bride price ( compensation for losing her free labor). If her father absolutely refuses to allow the marriage the seducer must still pay. ( probably because no one else will pay to marry a non virgin, or at least not as much ) Drastically different emphasis. Not the father must permit the marriage. The marriage is automatic but the father can stop it .
The word 'almah' conveys youth and gender, NOT virginity status. In a video in addressing this very issue, Dr. Michael Brown who has a PhD in near-eastern languages -and mind you the foremost Christian apologists to Jews- states that 'almah' doesn't convey the virginity status of the 'young woman'. The word 'almah' is NOT exclusive to virgins. It simply means a woman of child bearing age, regardless of her status of virginity. There is only one word in Biblical Hebrew that conveys sexual purity, 'bethulah'. If Isaiah was speaking of a miraculous 'virgin' birth, he would indeed use 'bethulah' to convey that. Otherwise, the 'almah' conceiving as stated in Isaiah 7:14 isn't miraculous at all, since it implies that the young woman has conceived through natural means.
Check his RUclips channel ASKDrBrown. Video titled: Episode 18 - "Objections based on Messianic Prophecies: Isaiah 7:14. 17:30 into the video he explicitly states that 'almah' is not an exclusive term for virgins.
Does he say something different in the book from the video I've just referenced? Because that would be a contradiction and that would be problematic. In any case, my point is that in the specific video I've referenced, he explicitly states that 'almah' is not a term that is exclusive to virgins, and I'm pretty sure the video is more recent than the book. P.S. just curious have you seen the video I've referenced above? It's 17 minutes and 30 seconds into the video mind you.
@@theophilussogoromo3000" Bethulah " doesnt mean only a young woman and that's why Alma was used for Mary: the word the Israelite translators used was for a young woman who was a virgin : maybe they knew more than U do 2,000 years later. Not getting Married and having children was looked on as a curse so there weren't many 20 year Olds that would still be virgins so Bethulah is not used because of these early marriages.
Nobody has the original Hebrew text. The Jewish translators who translated the Old Testament into Greek had access to Hebrew texts that we don't currently have today.
For me: Question is which works as a sign since the birth was meant to be a sign, A young woman, A unmarried young women or a virgin give birth depending on translation, Well two of these happen everyday or at least was not uncommon even then so as a sign the one that stands apart is the virgin giving birth.
If you read on from verse 14-16 you will see what the sign is. The sign to Ahaz is that before this child could speak, both lands of the two king's attacking Judah would be abandoned.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 See how the child is still the sign? Sign meaning: an object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else. End of Road that would be a pretty bad sign if i placed it after the road ended. Before or at an event is a sign after is a taunt. Look for this child (sign) and this event will follow or if your looking for the child look for this event he will be around at the same time. They can be signs to each other but only the child is the sign for what is coming enemies laid to waste. That's my answer without getting into how prophecy is normally threefold with shadows of the event not matching exactly what was said normally missing something until fulfilled. Example: You will get a million dollars when a blue dog does three backflips while you are crying then you see a bright blue dog do three backflips it was awesome but you were not crying then it was not fulfilled just a shadow of the prophecy. Sometimes the actual prophecy is not what you thought, You see your grey and black dog get hit by a car you cry on impact you sue someone and are awarded a million dollars you only then realise your dog did three flips in the air backwards from being hit your grey and black dog is commonly called a blue heeler all the elements are there it's fulfilled but happened in a way very different to how you thought it would.
@Hidden Rambo a sign to the wicked King Ahaz that God would keep his promise to king David and that the two Kings will not succeed in overthrowing the Davidic dynasty.
The virgin birth makes perfect sense, since if he didnt had one He wd have come from normal humans and cd not die for humankind sin since we all himans are by birth sinful this teaches the bible Roman 12 through one men -adam sin entered the world Etc Why bc all humans are mixed with serpen seed Jesus wasnt He was pure creation by god as intended for us ever since afam and eve before they messed up. Literally If you cancel virgin birth Hos sacrifice for men kind makes no sense. All of Christianity makes no sense without virgin birth Different genes than we all mortals since noah
What every single skeptic seems to miss in their desperate effort to not surrender to Christ, is that, when the Gospels or proto-gospels (we know John is a compilation of presumably John's earlier writings, because it admits to this itself) were penned, there were still PLENTY of people alive who knew Jesus, who knew the story about His birth, the flight to Egypt and so on. You simply cannot invent stories in an effort to tie them to prophecy and have them stand up when the people who can easily contradict them are standing right there. There is not enough time separating the manuscripts to allow games of telephone and narrative inventions to gestate and be accepted.
I'll also mention Paulogia gets the Septuagint history wrong too. Tradition holds that the Septuagint got it's name because it's a "translation of 70" although some say 72 instead of 70. Paulogia makes an empty claim "the translator" got it wrong. In truth it would have been several rabbis who translated that passage into Greek. I'll now point out: virgin is what the rabbis of the day beleived that word said. It wasnt Matthew that made that translation, it was the rabbis 200 years before Jesus that said that.
You are confusing when the LXX was first 'said' to be made with subsequent copies being done by a scribe/s. There is not one LXX but many different families and manuscripts of Greek translations of Hebrew OT. There is no extant LXX version of this passage prior to the 1 century CE.
Only 2.5 min in so I will see where you go from here. However, you ask who is Immanuel in the text. As far as I can tell there are 2 kingdoms, Israel and Judah. Each has a Prophet here. Judah has the Prophet Isaiah and Israel has the prophet Hosea. Isaiah is given a wife, a prophetess. Hosea is given a wife, a Prostitute. These are symbolic in nature as Hosea 12:10 says "I have spoken through the prophets in Similitudes". So Isaiah has children with the prophetess in Isaiah 7:3 we see he has a son Shear-Jashub and in Isaiah 8:3 he has another son Maher-Shall-Hash-Baz. While in the meantime Hosea has Children with the Prostitute in Hosea chapter 1:4 he has a son Jezreel and in verse 6 he has a daughter Lo-Ru-Hamah, and again he has a son in verse 9 Lo-Ammi. Each one of these names implies how God is NOT with Israel, he will not be on their side as it says "for you are not my people and I will not be your God". On the Contrary, each of the names of Isaiah's children implies how God is on the side of Judah. Their names each have specific meanings for the people as Isaiah 8:18 says "Behold I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells in mount Zion". The word "Children" here being Plural, hence there was a child before Mahershalalhasbaz as we see in Isaiah 7:3, hence she was not a VIRGIN and as such in the context of the story, we have an explicit example of this word being used where we can know the Almah was not a virgin. Either way, this is what is meant by Immanuel as I see it in the text. The name of the child is implying that God is with Judah (God with us) just as the names of Hosea's children imply that God is not with them.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The timeline is at least 700-years off. How is Ahaz to know that the prophecy was fulfilled (which was the point) when he died in 727BCE and the mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born somewhere between 4BCE and 6CE? Christians... professional liars for Jesus!
I have a good joke about assumed virginity, but unfortunately it can’t be told here. The juxt of the joke is the proof of virginity awaits the night of marriage.
I think this could be a much better video by cutting out the argument that, "Well, lots of times young women are virgins." It seems like that expert is refuting a claim that Isiah contradicts a virgin birth. But the real skeptical claim is that Isiah doesn't *predict* a virgin birth.
An almah can apply to a virgin, wife, a widow, or even a woman defiled, since the term only conveys youth and gender, not the state of sexual purity of a young woman. It is not an exclusive term for virgins.
Don't think there is for the curtain, but there is a lot of historical and archeological evidence for the sun being darkend, the earthquake and the other miracles at the crucifixion. Just search for "evidence for miracles at the ressurection genesis apologetics" and youll find it
All children are born of women. If it is referring to an ordinary conception, there's no need to even mention a woman at all, let alone a young one, because it goes without saying. Of course, if "young woman" is synonymous with "virgin" then of course it makes sense to use such a term. The term is used, so either the sign it is describing is either a very young woman conceiving - something which would not have been unusual at all at the time, OR, it's referring to a virgin. And as with much prophecy, it has its fulfilment in layers of types leading up to the ultimate fulfilment.
The Song of Songs reference also captures another important factor - "alma" is not *only* a reference to physical status as virginity, but of place in society, seemingly as one who was betrothed or with the prospective of soon being married. Similarly, Mary wasn't only a virgin physically, but she was also betrothed, as opposed to being say just a girl with no current prospect of marriage. It seems to me that "alma" carries meaning that extends beyond the physicality of virginity, which is what we modern English speakers think of exclusively when we hear the word "virigin". We live in a culture where sexual activity is acceptable outside of marriage, and a woman can be in any number of social states when she loses her virginity. This was not the case in Bible times, when virginity and maritall status were generally inextricably linked.
Not really willing to blow people's minds but the word alma being used is correct for Isaiah's prophecy and also where it's used concerning the time it was used for Rebekah and Miriam, Rebekah at the time she met Abraham's servants and Miriam at the time she followed the basket with Moses in it, other translators seeing this word alma used in other scriptures changed it to betulah because they believed the word alma was incorrect as also other words used to describe a young woman, the original word alma to the translator couldn't have been right in his mind because it would have been impossible for a alma to conceive a child, impossible because of the age related to the word, the young woman so to speak hadn't begun puberty, the reason Isaiah uses this word is because of what God said, He would give them a sign, a sign from God is a miracle, a miracle is not a act of nature nor can it be in order to call it a miracle, a young woman having begun puberty is a natural event, a young woman getting pregnant after beginning puberty is NOT a miracle, no matter what she say's, like what the translators added in Matthews text that has Mary saying, HOW is this possible for I know not a man, what this is, is actually a lie, I say a lie because it happens all the time when a young girl gets pregnant and tells her parents she don't know how it happened because she never had sex before, every human being alive will think the same thing, the girl is lying, especially in ancient times when betrothed people were permitted to have sex before they got married, not only that but any doctor alive will tell you it's impossible for a girl having no eggs to get pregnant, a betulah was also translated as a young woman and was used by certain translators because of the implications of any scripture that implied a marriageable age because of what most believed was that age, after the onset of puberty, there's no doubt the original word used was implying age, only alma was prepuberty and betulah after puberty, one instance in the old testament where I know they changed the word had to do with a man that married a virgin but later discovers or believes she wasn't a virgin and he sends her back to the parents, this requires some thinking because of certain stories going around concerning this but nevertheless the parents could prove she was a virgin by presenting some sort of cloth to the judges to examine, it's obvious the judges are looking for blood, here's where it gets tricky, if there was blood and the cloth is the bedsheet of the wedding night that the man supposedly gives to the parents to prove their daughters virginity, how stupid does that make the man to say their daughter was not a virgin, that's like video taping yourself going to steal something and giving the tape to the police then stealing the thing then saying it wasn't you, anyway, had there been blood, that would only prove one thing, she bled on him, how is it that it wasn't her period blood? it should be noted here also, not all women bleed their first time having sex, also, virginity is impossible to prove, virginity is only something that others can believe, however, being a virgin could be proven, what the judges seen was NO BLOOD, no blood on the cloth or cloths, probably some sort of undergarment that girls wore when approaching the time, anyway, the point, had Mary been 12 years or older, she would have more than likely began puberty, meaning she had eggs, every doctor knows a child born get's it's blood from both the father and the mother, that's a real problem with Jesus birth since sin to the Jew was associated with the blood, if Mary had a egg and that egg was used, Jesus blood wouldn't have been PURE, thereby making His blood sacrifice pointless or unacceptable to God, if Mary was even at the age of having a egg it would have been too debatable to anyone knowing how babies are born that would have proven Jesus was God's Son, meaning there couldn't have been a young woman after the onset of puberty used to bring Jesus into this world simply because it had to be a MIRACLE BIRTH, any person alive, any doctor alive, any wise man alive would have to admit the same thing, no egg? NOW THAT's a MIRACLE, the problem with people being able to accept this is because of the impossibility and the SHAME that it makes it appear, I don't really see why though since Jesus said if God wanted to, He could make the rocks cry out to Him, if you will study the age of Rebekah and Miriam at the time the word alma was used for them, you will come up with a age somewhere between 7-10 years old, I say 7-10 because of the task they do and the intelligence required to do so, younger than 7 is taking it to an extreme, just as making Miriam's age beyond 10 is an extreme since at the time Moses was born, Aaron was 3 years older than Moses, average age between siblings is 2-4 years which would have made Mariam at close guess between 7-10, I also read an article that said Rebekah was between 5-10 years old when she married Isaac, what's debatable here is whether Isaac had sex with Rebekah at that time, I prefer to think he waited, nevertheless, what you should be focusing on is a miracle and not a lie or something that could indicate a lie, I can just see the apostles going out into a world trying to prove Jesus was the Son of God and people asking them, HOW SO?, then laughing at them after they said He was born from a woman that had eggs but said she didn't know how she got pregnant, they didn't recognize Jesus for who He was when He came because they had already mistranslated much of the scriptures concerning Him, either by changing the word or adding to it or taking away from it, what you read today has not changed much in how it's translated but enough to HIDE the truth's in it, in my own mind it's hard to comprehend why God would use a child to bring a child into the world which is why I try to see Mary as a very mature 10 year old but hey, it does say God does things to confound the wise
Because language isn't rigid and is a fluid dynamic thing that is determined by overwhelming amounts of circumstances. We have a term for words like this, it's called a "synonym". Also, why have the word "fruit" and "vegetable" if they effectively mean the same thing etymologically and in colloquial (pre-modern scientific) use?
@@koderamerikaner5147 A virgin giving birth is technically an impossibility and would count as supernatural hence there would be strong theological significance to emphasize this. But who really cares whether you call an apple a fruit or a vegetable? The Jews at the Time of the Birth obviously did not believe in the virgin birth otherwise the entire Jewry would have turned to believers and no one would dare to plot and eventually execute Jesus.
I heard MLK Jr. had this position on the virgin birth. True? Not sure if this was before or after the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, which have the OT in Hebrew
So if truth be told, then there were two virgin birth miracles in the bible. One is in Isaiah's time to comfort the king of Judea that God was with him. The other virgin birth miracle happened some 700 years later at the birth of Jesus. And there you have it, christianity's two virgin birth narratives.
According to Hebrew commentaries, the young woman was Isaiah's wife. (See Rashi's commentary on the Chumash) The virgin birth creates a huge problem. Anyone born of a virgin would not have a patriarchal lineage. That means the child could be the son of David, and therefore could not be the Messiah.
@@VexalPhoenix The Messiah must trace his lineage only through King Solomon (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10). But according to Luke 3:31, Jesus was not a descendant of Solomon, but of Solomon’s half-brother Nathan. Therefore Jesus was not a descendant of King David through King Solomon, and fails this test. The Messiah may not be a descendant of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, or Shealtiel, because this royal line was cursed. (I Chronicles 3:15-17; Jeremiah 22:18,30). But according to Matthew 1:11-12 and Luke 3:27, Jesus was a descendant of Shealtiel.
@@douglasgorden3843 if a person is born of two humans, they have sinful nature. That’s why Jesus is a virgin birth. Jesus never sinned. And knowing that Joseph was a descendant of David and knowing that a Man can’t give birth. It was the man lineage that mattered. Read what the Angel said Below: Luke 1:32 King James Version 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
@@douglasgorden3843 The verses you quoted in Jeremiah doesn’t refer to David’s lineage, it refers to someone named Coniah. Read a few verses earlier in: Jeremiah 22:28.
@@bornagainalex2250 according to Matt and Luke, his father is not Joseph. Therefore he can't be a descendant of David. And where is it demonstrated that sin is only pass on through fathers? For that matter, where does the Tanakh show that sin can be inherited?
I suppose then that Noah wasn't copied from the epic of Gilgamesh, (and deucalion )the book of Esther a copy of the akkadian Ishtar. Genesis a copy of the enuma elish. Moses a copy of Sargon the great or countless others either?
If the Messiah was to be born of the SEED of David, which Joseph also was, having a virgin birth, excludes that very important part of prophecy? Real prophecy with no doubt or confusion in the language or wording?
@@TestifyApologetics Mary does not carry the SEED of David, only males carry SEED, NOT women. Check out The Virgin Birth Debate. By youtuber TheTribeOfJudahTeach, at the very least it will get you thinking? Let me know what you think. God Bless.
This whole alma thing is a red herring it does nothing to prove Mary wasn’t a virgin but merely at most indicates that Isaiah didn’t prophesy about it, which actually makes the NT more miraculous and believable, Isaiah still prophesies about Messiah. In Matthew, in the Greek Mary uses Greek phrases that exist outside the Bible since 400 BC ~ to mean you’ve never had sex, and it also exists as a Hebrew idiom, it’s possible it’s also an Aramaic idiom, since so many Jews in 1st century Rome were Hellenized so even if she’s originally speaking to the angel in Aramaic she’s probably saying exactly that or some similar idiom, that is ‘to know someone’ it’s inarguably indicating that’s she’s a virgin by use of a negative verb, no translation of alma or any other noun. I think alma does mean virgin but it’s a silly argument to bring up, it’s like people think the Bible was written in 1952 not 90 AD.
In Isaiah 7:8, we have a prophecy of 65 years, given by Isaiah to Ahaz, the new king of Judah, in 742 BC. The son to be born to the house of David cannot be Isaiah's son. It would be Manasseh, who becomes a type of Christ. While it is true that Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin birth of Manasseh, it must refer to a virgin in the typical sense. Here are some verses to consider. Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah. (2 Kings 21:1 KJV) Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. (Isaiah 62:4-5 KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:14-16 KJV) Clearly, the virgin is the land of Israel. This is typical language, pointing to the prophecy regarding Christ's birth. The land is forsaken of both her kings (Hosea's captivity in 723 and Manasseh's in 677 BC. This prophecy is part of a structure which contains the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 (which clearly points to the time of Jesus work as the Messiah). John in the Revelation further illustrates this with the vision of the woman giving birth to a man child. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. (Revelation 12:1-6 KJV) The period of 1260 days symbolises the second period of 1260 years from 538 to 1798 (Daniel 7:25) the first period of 1260 years begins in 723 BC (Daniel 12:7), being part of the 65 year prophecy. God declares the end from the beginning.
Unless I'm missing something, how great of a sign would it be to say a young woman of marriageable age will have a son? There was probably much more than one young woman having a child at that time in that region. Now if a virgin young woman had a child, that would be a definite sign. But they would basically be calling the child GOD "with us." Why would God tell someone to call their child God? I suppose you could say the parents in Isaiah's day could interpret the name as something like God is with us if he was a reminder of God's intervention. However, these probably just underscore the value of the dual meaning of the prophecy, being near (partial fulfillment?) and distant future. The name is even a prophecy since Mary was told to call His name Jesus but the prophecy cited says His "name" will be called Immanuel. But Ahaz was told to call Him "God with us." Immanuel was a name meant to give an even greater description of who He was. Insight of this was there even hundreds of years before His incarnation. Just pondering.
Once again - the sign is not the birth. The sign is that G-d will deliver the nation of Judah from the invasion before the child knows good from evil (aka within a few years)
You should also read this :" Like a virgin (mother): analysis of data from a longitudinal, US population representative sample survey" BMJ 2013;347:f7102 "Of 7870 eligible women, 5340 reported a pregnancy, of whom 45 (0.8% of pregnant women) reported a virgin pregnancy (table 1⇓). Perceived importance of religion was associated with virginity but not with virgin pregnancy. The prevalence of abstinence pledges was 15.5%. The virgins who reported pregnancies were more likely to have pledged chastity (30.5%) than the non-virgins who reported pregnancies (15.0%, P=0.01) or the other virgins (21.2%, P=0.007)........." Yahweh blessed American Virgins and most probably more worldwide! I would assume in ANE similar numbers of percentage were present.
Greatest Abomination Evil Ever Committed Against God YHWH the Virgin Birth Lie Deception. This wicked evil doctrine which was interpolated into the gospels of Mathew and Luke evidenced by the original Mathew Gospel of the Hebrews not having the virgin birth narrative story makes Holy Almighty YHWH look like an adulterer who takes another mans wife then gives her back to him pregnant. This is repulsive and sick. The evidence is clear they added the 2 chapters in Mathew and Luke testified by major scholars and ancient church historians to appease their pagan worshipping Greeks, Romans and others who loved the stories at the time of Gods having sex with young females and getting them pregnant. Holy Yeshua Jesus Christ was declared by His Father at the Baptism '' Today I have begotten thee '' meaning this day I declare you as my unique one and only Heavenly Son. All the Jewish followers at that time accepted Holy Yeshua as Messiah because of the witness of His words and deeds and Resurrection and Ascension. None of the Apostles ever wrote that He was born of the virgin birth not even Paul. On behalf of all those who love and follow our Messiah Yeshua Jesus Christ and fear Him and repent of their sins and have been Baptised and who live by His Commandments as given to Moses. The corruption to our Bibles commencing in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine created the Vulgate and Sinaiticus Bibles. May the Jews of Israel accept the Messiah as their lamb of God the final and last King of Israel. The prophecy of Isaiah 7.14 in Mathew is false and another lie. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the word was '' a young woman '' not a virgin and if people read the whole chapter they will see that the young woman was Isaiah's own wife who had the son as a sign to King Ahaz that before Isaiah's child would be old enough to know good and evil the war affecting Israel, Ephraim and Syria would come to an end in the 7th century BC
Not quite sure about the details of how Mathew the book was tied to Mathew the Apostle (though you could source that yourself just from reading early Christian writings), but ties to Mary as a source should be VERY obvious just from reading the book. Matthew relates a number of events that have Mary as one of if not the only participant. That’s a pretty good hint of where that information could have been sourced from.
Isaiah 7:14 should is a young women, but specifically a young women who is a virgin and never layed with a man so it would be translated "the young virigin".When the word almah appears in tanack it is only used contextually for a young women who is yet to be married,examples are Miriam and rebecca,as for betualah while modern Hebrew it is the only word for virgin in scripture it only means virign when used in a legal context. The prophecy shows a virgin birth of a child named Immanuel who would've shown up at this time but ahaz and Judah rejected the waters of Shiloh in chapter 8 this is clearly shown,in genesis 49 its clear shiloah is a prophecy of the future messiah, so they rejected messiah at the time which is why they got maharshlal hashbaz instead as a punishment sign.Chapeter 7 in hebrew is not just just addressing ahaz but the house of david which is shown when you is said and in the plural,chapter 9 the same child is spoken of and is called the mighty God which is only a name for hashem yet given to this child.Instresting enough even rambam the greatest rabbi to jews in his epistle to Yemen applies this passage in chapter 9 to messiah and Calls him el gibor which in chapter 10 is used only for God as well as another time in jeremiah. When you study to show yourself approval you will clearly find the proper answer an messiah Godbless everyone.
Im not sure this is quite a refutation on paulogias main point. Your first speaker doesnt really argue that virgin is the appropriate interpretation but rather the idea a young woman wouldnt exclude the idea that it was a virgin as well, which wasnt quite the argument. Your second speaker even seems to agree with the notion matthew was taking stories in circulation and trying to find ways to fit them in with the old testament. That aside, well put together video, it certainly wasnt as aggressive as the thumbnail had me worrying it might be, just a reasonable response style, even if i ultimately dont agree with the conclusion.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense. Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War. This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago. Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved? The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment. ((I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular “you” and the plural “you.” (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language “you” can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.) If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
It's to refute the possibility that the virgin birth is based upon a mis translation which is Paul's main point. There's no reason to assume it cannot refer to a virgin, and testify himself gives the reason to think that Matthew's interpretation is a justified one
Isaiah 7 in context does not speak anything about a prophecy that would be fulfilled 700 years later. Reading the whole passage of Isaiah 7 and 8 clearly does not point to a 700 years fulfillment. 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. note 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Verse 16 clearly does not point to jesus .... Verse 14-16 speak of the same child that would be born from the young woman ....and verse 16 answer it 17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. 18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. note 20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
Hello sir, what do you think about the time frames noted in the Isaiah 7 prophecy regarding the Northern Kingdom and Syria? If Immanuel was born shortly after this prophecy was given, wouldn't that contradict Isaiah's statement in verse 8? That is, "within 65 years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people." That is, 65 years vs a few short years for a child to be born and weaned. Regarding Immanuel, "He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted." Isaiah 7:15-16 Deserted is presumably equal or more than being shattered from being a people, which is given a 65 year duration. How long did it take for these lands to be deserted? I think the 65 years marks the early end of the possible time period for the child to come. Because, by the time the prophecy is fulfilled everything is said to have become overgrown with thorns and briers, and sheep and cattle begin to inhabit where there were vineyards. Quite likely this is much longer than 65 years. The prophecy states that these kings and nations(Syria and Israel) will disappear BEFORE Immanuel comes, or AT LEAST before he has come of age. If you take Isaiah 9 as an extension of this prophecy, even assyria is no longer a presence in the Northern parts of israel because the northern lands are free of oppression. That is, "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." Isaiah 9:1 This statement gives the context of the arrival of the Messiah, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 So by the time the Messiah would come, his kingdom definitely extended into the region of Galilee. This includes the time frame of dealing with Assyria. Regarding Assyria, in chapter 10 the prophet tells the people of Judah not to be afraid of them, "For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their(in the context this is Assyria) destruction." Isaiah 10:25 And still the prophecy is not done, but extends even further into the future, saying that of the people of Israel, "only a remnant of them will return." Isaiah 10:22 After Assyria swept through, the remnant would return some time in the future, and then, "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit." Isaiah 11:1 Because of all this, Immanuel can't possibly be one of Isaiah's sons. Nor could it have been Hezekiah, because he never ruled the region of Galilee or Samaria. The timeframe of prophecy of Immanuel(Isaiah 7) must include assyria having already come and removed much of the inhabitants of Israel. He will "eat curds and honey" because all the vineyards would already be gone by then. This could have happened anywhere from 65 years to centuries in the future. I think from the prophecies in chapters 9 and 10, and the description of what would happen to the landscape in chapter 7, it leads me in the direction of centuries. I think in Isaiah 8 this other child was to give proof that the rest of his predictions would come to pass. And then the fact that the predictions about the northern kingdom of Israel and about Syria and Assyria came to pass, that would be proof that one day the virgin would conceive, the Messiah would come, a light would shine in the Northern lands, and all of the above prophecies would be fulfilled. So it could be that the child wasn't the sign about the defeat of those kingdoms, but rather the defeat of those kingdoms was a sign that the child would come. It should be noted that God gave the sign to the house of David, not to king Ahaz himself. Meaning, it could stretch far into the future without needing to have Ahaz witness its fulfillment.
The fact that almah can refer to young women or girls who are usually virgins does not mean almah points to the person's virginity. Talking about logic (wink wink).
Alma is virgin in every context. Even proverbs. It contrasts the WAY OF the man with a virgin ( who will not submit) withe the WAY OF the adulterous woman who shall . Adulterous woman n wild man are meant for each other. Notice 3 things are to wonderful for him and the 4rth he knew not ( never even heard of such a thing).?
If you’ve ever read Luke, you would know that Mary literally consented. “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Oh really? is that what the men wrote down decades later, that she said while she was sleeping in the middle of the night when she was like 13yo. She's a servant that wants to be ful"filled" so gross
@@js-sp9bz she was not 13. Scholars point out that Jewish women at the time were betrothed in their late teens or easily twenties. Mary was very likely 18 at the time.
Consider David... he laments he was born in sin. Some scholars think this is David admitting he had an inauspicious origin... he was a bastard. And David is an image of a king who LOVES God, but is very flawed. God prophesied a "son of David" would rule, and if his throne there would be no end (which inspires a divine son-of-david messianic type and shadow). Jesus was also conceived OUT OF WEDLOCK, but he's not merely passionate for God, he's "God with Us", and as such he's perfect... thus despite being born out of wedlock, he's NOT born in sin. How is that possible under the law? Virgin Birth. Didn't Jesus say he came not to abolish the law but fulfill it? Precisely.
Where does it say that David was a bastard? He was Jesse's youngest son and like many boys (and girls) served his father as shepherd. His older brothers may have before he was old enough.
@@markhorton3994 I didn't say it says it, I said many scholars think that when David said that he was born in iniquity that he's saying his birth was in sin, not merely that he was saying all man is fallen, but that he was being particularly specific about his own inauspicious background. Note: sexual sin is the context of the Psalm where he says this... traditions around the psalms have it that this psalm is where David is in deep repentance about his own sin with Bathsheba. I'm not even saying it's confirmed, only it's one angle to consider. But it would explain why he was so looked down upon by his brothers and his own father. His father didnt eveb include him in the assembly of his brothers. Just because he was a teen and was busy? Simply being younger isn't necessarily a perfect fit for that in light of the previous histories in scripture of younger siblings.
@@ravissary79 If you mean Psalm 51 a lot of scholars are grasping at straws. Psalm 51 is David admitting his adultery and begging for forgiveness. Being a bastard is not the sin of the bastard. Having an illegitimate child is the sin of the parents. In Psalm 51 David is talking about his own sin. As far as I can see the only Biblical punishment for being a bastard, which term it never uses, is lack of inheritance. Ishmael did ok. Solomon is the son of Bathsheba but after the child who died as punishment to David. David's words at that time imply that the dead child went to be with God.
@@markhorton3994 yes, obviously it's about his own sin... that drama in any sense defeat the point being made. It's a tally contextually native to the point I'm making.
Hello. I like your videos about apologetics. I have a question if you happen to make a video about refuting objections to the New testament. So the objection that the story of Jesus was created by inspiration from the Old Testament ... or that some stories were created after Easter Christians, such as Jesus walking on water, is an allegedly fictional Easter story that is supposed to discourage Jesus' victory over resurrection death ...
A lot of my videos are defending the reliability of the gospels. If they're written by witnesses who were consistently honest and close up to the facts, then it takes a lot of that stuff away.
What will Christianity lose if Mary does not remain a virgin when she becomes pregnant, gives birth to Jesus, or has other children after that? Will it change the message of Christianity if Mary loses her virginity due to her first pregnancy? The text says that a young woman who is a virgin (almah means both) becomes pregnant, but neither Matthew nor Luke says that this young woman who becomes pregnant remains in her virgin state. And especially Luke formulates that that her pregnancy and childbirth is natural event but still caused by God who send the Holy Spirit that dressed over Mary as if it were some kind of garment and therefore the child is especially blessed Son of God. Mary’s remaining eternal virginty is pure extrabiblical imagination and fantasy based not on text but on bad interpretation and poor reading of the text, so it fits into the extrabiblical tradition and which adds to the story something that is not read there.
Even if Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, that wouldn't preclude the stories to be based on apostolic testimony derived from Mary herself. Jesus' family was well-known within the early church (Galatians 1-2, 1 Cor. 9.5) Given this fact, it would be difficult for Matthew and Luke to come to change the commonly held belief- unless they were just giving the commonly held belief some details. Anyway, the argument doesn't entirely hang on Matthean authorship. Just wanted to make that clear.
That said, here is a compelling case for Matthean authorship: kerussoapologetics.blogspot.com/2021/02/who-wrote-gospel-of-matthew.html
@Richard Fox that's just an argument from silence. Paul quotes Jesus and alludes to him several times. All I wrote was for the sake of argument. It would be hard to come in and change a later position if Jesus' family was known and people knew he had an ordinary birth.
@@TestifyApologetics the message of the first-century church was not “Jesus and the Virgin Birth.”
Nor was it “Follow this Teacher and do your best.”
It was “Jesus and the Resurrection.”
@@VeridicusMaximus That's just an argument from silence. We have 13 letters from the apostle Paul. (Or 7 if you're hyper skeptical. Galatians 4:4 says he was born of a woman, which seems a bit odd to point out. But why expect him to mention it when he's dealing with issues in the churches? Here, a little parody might help: www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=9546
@Richard Fox Actually there is a source that implicates two Matthews, one who actually was the author, presumably of Matthew and the other may have been the Q source. So it is possible that apostle Matthew is indirectly a source for Matthew. This has no bearing on the Virgin story since this was contrived after the fall of the Temple.
From what I can gather the apostles testified Sayings and Parables of Jesus (Some of Tomas and all of Q) and the writers of the New Testament embellished these sayings with Pauline Christianity and Greek mythological overlays of names and places form the Jesus stories.
An excellent example of this is the Dionysian story of water into wine, an the unattested account in John of very similar story about Jesus. But we know from the other sayings that Jesuscwas not a fan of ceremonies, he believed that people should give all their belongings and not marry. According to Dennis McDonald there are three overlays in John, the first being the Bacchae, the second being the Anti-Jewish overlay.
Matthew also incorporates a lot of Grecian mythology, the Virgin birth is one of them, but also the ressurrection.
In total, while Matthew may have been the source for Q sayings in Matthew, the majority of Matthew is the embellishment of those sayings and mythification of Jesus’s life. The author Matthew may have had an additional source of sayings, or they maybe sayings from other sources.
@@Mark-cd2wf well, that was ONE of the messages of the 1st century church. The one that won anyway..
It seems to have been forgot that the creators of the Septuagint were Jewish scholars who knew the Hebrew and chose the Greek work virgin as an equivalent when they translated it.
The original Septuagint included only the Torah, not the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Sure there may be Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures before Jesus but they were not the Septuagint. The Septuagint were only of the first five books of Moses. This would not include the book of Isaiah.
What you call the Septuagint now is a Christian addition unto the original Septuagint by early church fathers such as Origen.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 explain fragments of the septugint in the dead sea scrolls
@@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 It’s not enough to establish the textual accuracy by looking at minuscule fragments of the Greek Old Testament in the DSS. I’m a Christian, but even I have to side with the “young woman” translation of the Hebrew text. Both in context and terminology, Isaiah 7:14 cannot be a literal prediction of Jesus exclusively. The way Matthew creatively applies it to Jesus has other significance.
@@ManoverSuperman the dead sea scrolls have the hebrew of isiah 7:14 have you not heard of the great isiah scroll its a complete scroll in the dead sea scrolls its not just a fragment and its hebrew not greek and you have the latin and the aramaic peshitta tahnak and the septugint all confirming the original reading the meseretic text is not as good as these other sources for example the samaritian penteouch and all these other sources have a reading of genesis 2:2 that causes no contradictions with the book of exodus but the meseretic text and a dead sea scroll fragment have a reading that does cause contradiction but its a minority reading the youngest parts of the dead sea scrolls more aline with the meseretic text and the oldest aline more with the septugint and other textual families in the dead sea scrolls
@@ManoverSuperman Greatest Abomination Evil Ever Committed Against God YHWH the Virgin Birth Lie Deception. This wicked evil doctrine which was interpolated into the gospels of Mathew and Luke evidenced by the original Mathew Gospel of the Hebrews not having the virgin birth narrative story makes Holy Almighty YHWH look like an adulterer who takes another mans wife then gives her back to him pregnant.
This is repulsive and sick. The evidence is clear they added the 2 chapters in Mathew and Luke testified by major scholars and ancient church historians to appease their pagan worshipping Greeks, Romans and others who loved the stories at the time of Gods having sex with young females and getting them pregnant. Holy Yeshua Jesus Christ was declared by His Father at the Baptism '' Today I have begotten thee '' meaning this day I declare you as my unique one and only Heavenly Son. All the Jewish followers at that time accepted Holy Yeshua as Messiah because of the witness of His words and deeds and Resurrection and Ascension.
None of the Apostles ever wrote that He was born of the virgin birth not even Paul. On behalf of all those who love and follow our Messiah Yeshua Jesus Christ and fear Him and repent of their sins and have been Baptised and who live by His Commandments as given to Moses.
The corruption to our Bibles commencing in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine created the Vulgate and Sinaiticus Bibles. May the Jews of Israel accept the Messiah as their lamb of God the final and last King of Israel. The prophecy of Isaiah 7.14 in Mathew is false and another lie. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the word was '' a young woman '' not a virgin and if people read the whole chapter they will see that the young woman was Isaiah's own wife who had the son as a sign to King Ahaz that before Isaiah's child would be old enough to know good and evil the war affecting Israel, Ephraim and Syria would come to an end in the 7th century BC
So, according to Paulogia, he is able to correct an alleged *error in translation* made by a Jew over 2000 years ago, who had access to far older Hebrew manuscripts than we do, and, being 2000 years closer to the events themselves, would have obviously had more insight into the *intended meaning* of the original Hebrew than Paulogia does today.
@@tomasrocha6139 Yes, that's when the LXX was first created.
@@tomasrocha6139 There's no doubt that not all of the LXX is of the same age. However to claim that the LXX is "largely post-2nd century and Christian" is to greatly exceed the evidence. Obviously the LXX being used in the 1st century gave rise to our modern LXX. If you want to make the claim that the Christians deliberately changed the Hebrew OT to deceive people, then you'd need to show some evidence for that claim beyond saying it was "in Christian hands", whatever that's supposed to mean. The fact is, there is no single ancient Hebrew word that means virgin and *only* virgin. So in context, alma is a perfectly acceptable choice for the intended meaning. It's not as if the case is somehow resting on the LXX in the first place.
The argument is that the author of Matthew didn't read the Hebrew, and instead read only the very popular Greek Septuagint, which translates ʿalmah into parthénos in Isaiah 7. Its widely believed that those who spoke Hebrew and grew up with the tradition wouldn't have understood 'almah to specify the strict virginity, but to being a young marriageable woman. This might be in English like using "lady" and translating that into "noble girl". When we know that a mother scolding her child with "young lady" has nothing to do with nobility a foreign reader might see the "noble girl" and think that the girl must have been a noble. Its not a clear error in the translation for Isaiah, but the author of Matthew's naive reading of the prophecy could lead him to thinking that the prophecy required virginity. This doesn't mean that a virgin wouldn't have fulfilled that clause, but that it wasn't considered necessary by the Jews at the time. There are other parts that infer that the author was not native in Hebrew and interpretation of customs, rituals and prophecy are best explained as a foreigner's understanding.
@@work3753 It's a poor argument. There is no Hebrew word that means simply "virgin" and cannot possibly have any other expanded semantic range. Alma is a perfectly acceptable word to use there to mean "virgin", and indeed that is what happened according to the eyewitnesses we have in the Gospels.
@@uncensoredpilgrims If they wanted to specify that the woman was truly virgin rather than young unmarried woman, they could have used "betulah". Isaiah 7 just isn't trying to lay on that specific as the important part. Whats more likely is that someone was looking at what scriptures Jesus fulfilled and saw "partenos" and said his mom must have been a virgin if he fulfilled it. (especially because jesus was probably ascended at that point and it would have been rude to start questioning Mary). But the real important part here is that neither the authors of Matthew nor Luke claim to be written by eye-witnesses within their text. You can't get that just from the Gospels.
Also the fact that the virgin birth is in both Luke *and* Matthew, and that the two are textually independent. That’s independent attestation.
We have the testimony of both a Hebrew scholar and a medical doctor right here, folks. They both even show their credentials.
Who thinks that Luke and Matthew are textually independent? Luke and Matthew share Mark as a source per normal opinion, though it's also possible that Matthew was - as tradition held - the first synoptic Gospel, and IMO Mark and Luke responded to the problems with Matthew by trimming him down and reworking him, respectively.
Where they differ from Mark is not "independent attestation" but completely different nativities and genealogies, Matthew's being unsalvageable.
I notice that Paulogia does not mention that Hebrew has no word specifically for virgin while the Greek does and that’s how the greatest Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint in 2nd-3rd century BC used.
The Hebrew word for virgin is betula. Here is even more proof that the translation was wrong and intentional. In the Hebrew bible it says the young woman IS with child, doesn't say the young woman SHALL concieve. FYI the Rabbi's that translated the Septuagint only translated the Torah, not the entire Tanakh. So the translator if Isaiah was not well versed in Hebrew.
So, back at RTS (seminary) I did a project on this question and came to many of the same conclusions and arguments as you (I got an A!) However, you did it better. Great video.
Thanks. If it is good, it is grace. I've taken advantage of some of the awesome free classes from RTS.
@JD Apologetics Yeah I'm not either, but they do have a lot of good classes on church history. And Michael J. Kruger's got quite a few courses of well, and that man has a wealth of knowledge.
well you teacher was the dumbest,
I think it's important to note that the LXX was also published before Jesus came on the scene. So the fact that the Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew into Greek chose to use a word that means "virgin" most of the time seems to indicate that the proper understanding of "alma" in that instance was "virgin." You could at the very least conclude that Christians had no influence over the decision to use that particular Greek word in the LXX since they didn't yet exist.
All the evidence leans heavily towards virgin being the proper translation, so to go a different direction is actually going against the evidence.
A major counter-argument to this is that the LXX was not a “Bible” in the modern understanding of the term. It merely refers to a family of translations, some of which were more competently done than others. Isaiah’s translation into Greek has been noticeably shown to be inferior to that done for the Torah, for instance, which was the original LXX. That mistranslations of the original texts occurred when translated in a language with an entirely separate lingual history is not surprising in the least. So I wouldn’t make too heavy use of early (hypothetical) LXX translations as a good place to argue for that reading.
For myself, the virgin birth was a theological necessity, not a prophetic one. Matthew’s drawing on Isaiah 7:14 is brilliant-as are the other Scripture texts he uses throughout his gospel. But I do not believe that any originally understood predictive prophecy about the Messiah necessitated that he would be born of a literal virgin. Nevertheless I do believe Jesus “fulfilled” Isaiah 7:14, just not in a predictive sense.
Alma means young woman. There is a different word for virgin - betula. But the Greek word parthenos can mean both and the meaning virgin was becoming more common at that time. If you pair the mistranslations with the contradicting accounts of Jesus' birth story in Mathew and Luke and the fact that Isaiah was talking about the birth of his own son and the young woman was his wife, you will realize that the virgin birth story was invented for the purpose of prophecy. Again, the prophecy was not about the Messiah. Read that part of Isaiah carefully and in context of preceding and succeeding chapters and you'll realize that the prophecy was that his wife would bear him a child and the 2 kingdoms that attacked Judah during his time would be destroyed before the child had grown up. Even if you don't know Hebrew hermeneutics, a careful reading in context would reveal that the prophecy is not messianic. Also, while we are talking about Isaiah, read the whole book carefully and you'll see that the suffering servant in 53 is Israel rather than the Messiah. The Book of Isaiah has been corrupted and you, my friend, have been deceived.
@@Nexus-jg7ev
"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5, ESV)
Isaiah uses the word 'we' here. The 'we' obviously refers to Israel. The suffering servant healed Israel. As such, it is illogical to say that Israel suffered for Israel to heal Israel.
@@jaidengabriel1675 First, the author of the latter part of Isaiah is not even Isaiah himself. The latter half of the book is written during the Babylonian exile by authors who were likely disciples of Isaiah. This part recounts the suffering of God's servant - Israel - it's oppression under various nations who have gone astray, who despise the Lord and his servant whose task is to bring these other nations to the Lord of Israel. In 52 there is an account of exile and suffering inflicted by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. 53 talks about the Babylonian exile. 54-65 talks about the eventual redemption of Israel by her Lord and about how the transgressing nations shall be made righteous through the righteous servant's knowledge of God - the servant Israel will teach the nations about God and righteousness.
'The sons of those who afflicted you
shall come bending low to you,
and all who despised you
shall bow down at your feet;
they shall call you the City of the LORD,
the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
with no one passing through,
I will make you magestic forever,
a joy from age to age.
Read the whole book carefully, my friend. Do you only read 53? Or do you only read 7 for the virgin birth? Do you only cherry pick the chapters that are made to look Christological? Also, you should use an NRSV. Or... learn a bit of Hebrew and study an authentic Tanakh.
@@Nexus-jg7ev 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7, ESV)
This is why we know the suffering servant is not Israel.
The child will be called 'Mighty God' Israel is not God. Furthermore,
"The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psalm 110:1, ESV)
Which Lord is redeeming Israel?,
This was excellent! Thank you so much for covering this topic!
@skeptic provide evidence of your claim
I get it ! 😍 Culture in the Old times are different than today. Of course parents are more protective and conservative in raising their daughters. This gives higher percentage of "Alma" is referring to a "virgin" young woman.
Exactly! Also, it's supposed to be a sign as it's stated in Isaiah 7:14 itself and I don't see how a natural conception can be a sign.
The term 'almah' is not exclusive to virgins since it doesn't convey the state of sexual purity in a woman. It only conveys two things: youth and gender.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 weren’t a young women not married supposed to me virgin in a Old Testament concept ?
@@Mikha2200 Isaiah claimed his children themselves were signs (Isaiah 8:16). This precludes every sign having to be outright supernatural in an immediate sense. Heck, even Isaiah being barefoot and slipshod for three years was a sign in Isaiah 20.
@@tomasveras2175 Yes, but Proverbs 30:19 uses Almah in a way that evidently shows it is not referring to a virgin. So there is a use in the OT that proves it wasn’t exclusively referring to a young woman who is an actual virgin.
Wikipedia got this wrong.... It says 'almah' means what skeptics want.
The general gist: Paulogia looks at it through naturalism. A naturalist looking at the evidence as if no miracle occurred, then trying to explain the evidence available as if no miracles actually occurred and that everyone who believes that miracles *do* occur is foolish or lying.
In other words: being closeminded against the evidence because of an a-priori conviction against the supernatural.
If someone is open to the supernatural actually occurring, they can evaluate evidence in that light, and explore the possibility of 'Did something supernatural actually happen?' - but a naturalist 'cannot let a divine foot in the door,' and so stunts his progress of knowledge.
In the 1960's, one Dr. Richard Lewontin, due to his commitment to materialism (related to naturalism, as you might guess!), believed that any theory which even supposes the possibility of the supernatural must be rejected.
Why? Well, not because of the evidence, but rather I imagine it's because he understood things like the Kalam better than a lot of atheists I've seen do and he doesn't like the conclusions. Instead, he must draw different ones: not because of the truth, but...
Quoth Dr. Lewontin:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Does the phrase 'Not that the methods and institutions of science, but.... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door' sound like the epistimology behind Paulogia's thinking: not a commitment to where the evidence leads, but a commitment to where it 'cannot' be allowed to lead if we follow any form of materialism? Not truth, but a worldview?
Food for thought.
Rejecting evidence due to an a-priori commitment to any form of materialism is quite simply placing ideology before truth, and that will lead you to falsely assuming materialism is true in any possible world where it is false (including, especially, the actual world!).
Quite like how x-rays aren't very good at detecting ink on a page. X-ray reading goggles are the wrong tool for reading: set them aside if they're ill-suited for the evidence.
Truth, however, will set you free. It can be uncomfortable at first, like getting a shot or exercising can be, but the end results are far better than the starting condition.
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)
www.str.org/w/who-really-is-closed-minded-
@Richard Fox One of the chief concepts moving me away from religion is the request I suspend rational thought and believe magic occurred even though we never see events similar today. Extraordinary claims and all that.
The first half of your sentence is reasonable and worth responding to. But the second half, "everyone who believes that miracles do occur is foolish or lying", is not only untrue. It's downright insulting and consequently makes it hard for me to write a response and not allow my feelings to interfere.
"Naturalism" is a way to avoid saying "rational" or "science based". "Naturalism" is not a philosophical stance.
When something happens 1000 times in a row, it is rational, reasonable, to expect the same thing to happen again. That is how science works, and yes, I'm simplifying. RUclips comments are not the places for writing essays. When that thing is a phenomenon observable in nature (lightning, birth...) and when, IN EVERY CASE, natural forces have been found responsible for this phenomenon, it is reasonable to look in the direction of those same natural forces the next time that event occurs.
"being closeminded against the *evidence* because of an a-priori conviction against the supernatural."
Present EVIDENCE of a miraculous event, strong evidence, strong enough to make natural alternatives the less likely cause, and no rational person will be able to resist your argument.
Can you present such evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus? If so, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to see it.
By the way, 2000 year old accounts, even if they were by people who actually witnessed the event, and not just people who believed in it, would still be problematic. On what basis were they able to rule out the natural causes for Jesus' birth? Were they relying on Mary's testimony? Were they medical doctors who did genetic tests and determined the baby was a clone of Mary?
Do you see now the difficulty? Yes, a rational person would consider evidence of a supernatural cause, if such evidence existed and was strong enough to overcome evidence for other possible causes. "Closemindedness" is not the problem. Your lack of evidence is the problem.
Of course, a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't a virgin birth. But given that the billions of other human births have not been virgin births, it is totally unreasonable, irrational, to *favor* the virgin birth hypothesis. That's okay. Have your belief, ON FAITH, but admit that it is on FAITH alone, and NOT supported by evidence, just a few possibly mistranslated statements by people who weren't present and even if they had been, wouldn't have had the specific expertise to make the determination whether the pregnancy was natural, like the billions of others, or not.
I accept your decision (it's not for me to deny it) to formulate your beliefs and view of the universe on the basis of faith. That is your choice and not for me to object to it. But I choose to formulate my understanding of the universe based on physical evidence, analyzed rationally. And if you attempt to interfere with my life, for example, through political means, in ways that impose your faith-based view on my life, I will do everything legally within my power to prevent that.
Rationality, science, is what moved us out of the caves, gave us agriculture, an understanding of natural laws, such as how the seasons work, how to cure diseases, the power to improve our lives through technology, all the things that make our lives today rich, secure and comfortable. They came about through a rational understanding of Nature. That matters. I will resist attempts to set us back by discounting and demeaning the value of a rational, objective study of nature.
Well if you were to suspend your disbelief and assume miracles why stop at Christianity? Why not accept every miraculous claim as plausible?
How can you justify the place you draw the line?
The point the original poster is making is not that you must "assume miracles" or "accept every miraculous claim as plausible," but rather that you should not reject the possibility of a miracle out of hand.@@jonr9467
@@fepeerreview3150I disagree about your point of naturalism, naturalism is the belief that miracles aren’t possible, that there’s nothing immaterial and spiritual. It’s a belief, I’m a Idealist Christian and I came to this belief through logic and rationality. Rationality isn’t bound to certain beliefs like theism or atheism. Rationality can lead you anywhere.
What's most interesting to me here is that Parthenos doesn't necesarily mean virgin, and is an accurate translation of Alma.
This means, the disciples did in fact have an accurate understanding of the prophecy at their time and were under no compulsion to fabricate the virgin birth as unbelievers claim they were.
The virgin birth did fullfill the prophesy, but Isaiah didn't specify virginity as a requirement. The prophesy was of sign from God in a miraculous birth to a young woman. This was fullfilled in the virgin birth.
I think I get what you’re saying. Isaiah didn’t necessarily prophecy a virgin birth but a miraculous one, and the miraculous birth was fulfilled through the virgin birth
@@hudsond15 You got it!
Parthenos means exclusively a virgin and in hebrew bible is mistranslated. Ha'alma means young woman and is throw out the hebrew bible the same in a different passages too. In Hebrew bible ha'alma is " the young woman" which means someone particularly, that who is Isaiah wife.
Thank you. The virgin birth is extremely important.
@@Pumpkin_Lich it doesn't need multiple mentions to be considered important. And it is important by virtue of being another witness of the deity of Christ. Since it has to do with the nature of Jesus, it is very important.
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 The annunciation is not poetry or allegory it is literal. We are sure Mary was a virgin because she SAID SO. One translation is "How can this be because I have not lain with a man?"
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 The Bible is inspired by God. Written down by many men Once in the Bible, which is, complete, nothing is changed. Those versions which contain changes such as the Jehovah's Witness and Joseph Smith versions are false. Other varients are copy errors or mistranslations. It is our duty to be able to recognize the errors.
The word used for virgin in Hebrew is literally maiden in the sense of a young unmarried woman. But there were severe consequences for not being either married or a virgin. In context the messianic prophecies especially Isaiah do refer to a virgin not a disgraced adolescent living in her father's household. A virgin giving birth would be remarkable, an unmarried slut doing so would be scandalous but not remarkable. The prophecy is of a singular remarkable event
In the Greek of the New Testament the word translated virgin also means young unmarried woman. In the parable of the ten virgins they were supposed to literally be virgins but were not necessarily so.
Mary was literally a virgin because she said so. Mathew also specifically says that Joseph was not Jesus's biological father and that the pregnancy was through the Holy Spirit.
@@mugglescakesniffer3943 I have read the Bible many times in two languages and many translations. I have also found explanations of cultural context on the internet. Also a lot of lies.
I know what the Bible says and what it means. Unfortunately part of what I must get from others is the original languages.
I am confessional Lutheran, our Pastors teach the whole Bible.
What deliberate secrets? That God put up with Canaanite defiance for 400 years (they sacrificed their own children to an idol by cooking them alive) then ordered His people, the Israelites, to destroy them as a people and forbade intermarriage with the survivors? I know that. That God loves you so much that if you reject being in His presence in heaven for eternity He will allow you to go to Hell where He isn't? I know that too.
The Bible is true. Case closed.
I have read that the specific definition of Alma meant 12 years old (pubescent) to 20. In the ancient Middle East, women typically got married and started having children before the age of 20. What do you think?
That's just inaccurate. Alma is best translated as Maiden, as in young unmarried girl. A maiden found with child would be executed under Mosaic law.
@@Thedunguen9999 it's best translation is maiden. And a non virgin maiden at the time would literally be executed 🤷♂️
Let me open up your eyes. First of all, I thank you both for being in the trenches defending the faith. The Holy Spirit runs really strong through me, and I can show you a mystery that will further open your eyes. When you read Isaiah chapter 9 in its entirety what you'll find is as you said, the child mentioned in chapter 7 is indeed the same child who is now born to us in chapter 9. What begins in chapter 7 is very ambiguous and little is known about what Isaiah is talking about unless you understand certain keyword phrases. Isaiah brings his son to the scene when prophecy was given to Ahaz. In Chapter 7v14 we don't know who this woman is, if any was present, and who is the child who will eat curds and honey. Is it the child in the woman's womb, is it Isaiahs's son? We simply do not know, yet the word BEHOLD in chapter 7v14 is a word that does not point to someone present but rather this is the typical language used by prophets when giving prophecy. Hence, we can conclude that the woman spoken off is not present and it's a future prophecy all the while he points to his son as the one eating curds and honey because the word child in that passage does not refer to a newborn but rather a child between the ages of 6 to 18. chapter 8 Isaiah makes love to the prophetess and another child is born but this child is given a different name by Isaiah himself, so this child is not from the previous chapter. Hezekiah is not the child in chapter 7 because he was already born, and the prophecy was during Ahaz 4th year of his reign when Hezekiah was 9 years old.
So, it begs the question, what is going on here? The theme Isaiah was building was that a Child was going to be conceived after the exile during a time the regathering happened. That's why in chapter 9 we see that conflict has ended and Israel is being gathered again, and after war was over THEN THE PROPHET EXCLAIMS, "FOR A CHILD IS BORN TO US'' denoting that the child will be born after the exile. But the question is which exile? This is where the mystery will be unraveled, and it will open your eyes that it was not after the Assyrian exile, but it is indeed after both exiles including the Babylonian one and all this is secretly contained in Isaiah 9. When you look at Isaiah 9v1 Isaiah takes a jab at 2 kings, and we don't know who, but as the passage goes further and you understand the keyword phrases, you'll see that he is actually taking a jab to Hezekiah, indirectly saying that he is not the King that will bring glory. It might seem like he's taking a jab at Ahaz in contrast to Hezekiah, but since he leaves it open by not mentioning names it's a jab at Hezekiah as not being the fulfiller of these prophecies. When you read when the child will be born a keyword phrase is used to denote the timeline of the appearance of this future king who will make the way of the sea glorious. In Isaiah 9v3-5 he says the ROD of his oppressor (Symbol of Assyria) The yoke of his shoulder (symbol for Babylon) is only then that after both are broken the child has been born and the nation of Israel increased in size. In Isaiah 10:27 the yoke will break off Israel's neck because of "FATNESS". Pay attention to the keyword phrase, no one can break something unless it is skinny first in order for it to fit. So, Hosea 10:11 the yoke fits due to a skinny neck (small nation) then it breaks because of a fat neck (enlarged nation) Isaiah 10:27. Also pay attention to the keyword phrase "Divide the spoil'' Isaiah 53:12. The theme is always the same, The Rod and the Yoke will be broken then the prophets and prophecy will end and be cut off, a theme that is further expanded by Daniel chapter 9. Deuteronomy 28:48.
Assyria is the Rod Isaiah 10:5
Babylon is the Yoke Zachariah chapter 27, 28, 29
In Hosea chapter 10:11 The yoke goes on skinny necks.
In Isaiah 10:27 the yoke breaks because of Fatness.
Now we can go to Matthew chapter 2:13-14 and Matthew chapter 2:18 and now we can fully understand why he used this seemingly out of context these two narratives that portrays both the Assyrian exile (Matthew chapter 2:13-1) and Babylonian exile (Matthew chapter 2:18) but it's not out of context once you understand Isaiah 9:4-5. He was saying that the events of both the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles had to happen first before the messiah's advent and in Matthew chapter 1:17 he further triangulates the precise timing of the messiah's advent. So, in summary the Messiah had to come after both exiles during the 490-year Daniels chapter 9 prophecy. Simple. Now we can see that Isaiah 9 contains further prophecy that sandwiches the birth of this child between 3 events. The first 2 events are the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, then the child is born, then in Isaiah 9:8-21 God expresses further anger against Israel, culminating in a siege where cannibalism will take place. Event that was only recorded during the 70 AD Roman siege and never before or after such a horrendous event has been recorded only during this 70 AD event. It's all clear as day.
I’ll miss Michael Heiser’s rapier whit.
If Almah in proverbs 20:19 means maiden (unmarried woman) instead of virgin, the meaning is still the same. She would still not be an Almah very quickly if she married instead of losing her virginity
Glory To The Triune GOD😊
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later.
If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment. ((I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular “you” and the plural “you.” (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language “you” can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.)
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
Isa 8:8 KJV And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
Awesome video. I would add that papias writing at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century said that Matthew was a written originally in Hebrew.
Yeah and there is a lot of dispute about that for multiple reasons. I think there might have been a proto Matthew similar to what scholars refer to Q as.
@@TestifyApologetics I would agree with that. Either way we see Levi's familiarity with the Jewish culture. Also his having been a tax collector he would have been at least conversant in multiple languages including Hebrew (which he would have heard in his youth.)
Let me clear this up real quick. In 1 Samuel 20:22 David is described as a Alm, the masculine equivalent to Alma. This is after he’s married in chapter 18. Therefore it cannot mean virgin.
@J.M Ben
That verse isn’t referring to David at all. It’s clearly referring to Johnathan’s young servant. Please at least actually read the passage before you make claims like this.
@@xAvagantamos
You are right it is. But even still I don’t think there is any Christian translation that translates him as a virgin. This is because his sexuality isn’t important. He’s a lad, who could be a virgin but doesn’t have to be. The same is for an Alma. Secondly when you put that onto Isiah 7. It’s clearly the same logic. Emmanuel’s conception is not important but his age is. That’s why before he knows the difference between good and evil and when he’s eating curds(poetically meaning when he’s roughly a toddler) the enemies of Judea in the Syro-Ephraim war will be desolated. That doesn’t apply to Jesus, because one, how could Jesus, an eternal being, have a time before he knew the difference between good and evil? And we get no information about him eating curds.
Makes sense. Jewish man used the Septuagint to pull his prophecies and then wrote his books in Greek. Almah means young woman, it can be a young woman with children, or a young woman without children. If Isaiah wanted to let his readers know the sexuality of the woman he would have used betula.
As noted, the problem is that many do not understand typology. The child that is born when the land is forsaken of both her kings is Manasseh. Manasseh becomes a type of Christ. This child would be born in that time line. WE need to recognise that the 65 year prophecy is connected to Daniel's prophecies and begins the starting point for the chastisements in Leviticus 26.
Therefore *the Lord himself shall give you a sign* ; Behold, a virgin (or young maiden) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Very simple, *a sign from God* is a miracle.
@Richard Fox
A sign from God is something that doesn’t happen every day. A woman giving birth happens every day, it’s nothing unusual.
Not all signs are miracles i.e. the rainbow was called a sign in the Hebrew in Genesis 9:13.
A sign is something that can be seen. Something that cannot be said about a virgin conceiving. You'd just have to take her word for it that she didn't conceive through fornication.
@@theophilussogoromo3000
If you read the surrounding context this is a huge miracle from God.
@Tipple Bear actually, nothing about the context says that the sign is a supernatural one. If you continue reading from verse 14-16 it explicitly stated that the sign is that before the child grows up to know good or bad, the land of the two enemy kings will be desolate.
@@theophilussogoromo3000
Obviously you have no clue what’s going on in the verse, and failed to read the verse before. God tells Ahaz to ask him for a great sign, not something that happens everyday, there nothing out of the ordinary about a woman having a child. That is why we know that this sign is a miracle. A young maiden during that time would have been a virgin, so when God tells Ahaz to ask for a miracle that only God can do, we know this isn’t something to sneer at.
"how can this be since I have known no man?" What about Luke 13? Why would she ask this ?
This is due to Mary’s vow to perpetual chastity; Thus the daughter of Jephthah goes to the mountains to bewail her virginity because 'She had never known a man' (Judges 11:39). Similarly, Judges 12:12 speaks of four hundred virgins 'who never slept with a man' as though they were unfulfilled.
@@JengaJayAh yes. The Christian child sacrifice passage reference. The one Christians prefer to pretend isn't in the Bible. I can already hear them whining "You're taking it out of context, man!" What part of "burnt offering" makes them think Jepthah's virgin daughter survived the ordeal? YHWH just loves the smell of burnt flesh. That's his omni-loving side!😂😂
@@wesbaumguardner8829 I have no problem with people being critical of the scriptures.
But what I will not tolerate is someone who willingly reads the Bible *out of context* to support their agenda. Then refuses to listen to the context when explained.
In the margin of the KJV, verse 40 of that scripture says that the women “talked with” Jephthah’s daughter year after year. Other translations of the Hebrew word “Tanah” can also be rendered “commend”.
Besides Jehovah said *explicitly* that he hated human sacrifices.
Please feel free to reject the scriptures, but don’t use blatant mistranslations to justify doing so.
@@menoswater1032 " I have no problem with people being critical of the scriptures.
But what I will not tolerate is someone who willingly reads the Bible out of context to support their agenda." LOL, my prophesy has come true! A Christian is whining about context. Per the Bible, Jepthah promised god that in exchange for victory in battle, he would provide as a burnt offering whatever first came through the door of his house to greet him upon his return from victory. Then the bible says that his virgin daughter was the first thing to come through the door of his home to greet him and he lamented that it was her. Now, if this was not a human sacrifice, why would he be lamenting for his daughter? Go on and explain that. Then the Bible says that he did has he promised god and fulfilled his vow. That means he offered her as a burnt offering to Yahweh. Go on and provide the context where a sacrifice survives being a burnt offering.
"In the margin of the KJV, verse 40 of that scripture says that the women “talked with” Jephthah’s daughter year after year." So what? You Christians talk to your dead all the time. You pray to Jesus and he is dead, too.
"Besides Jehovah said explicitly that he hated human sacrifices." This is just an example of many contradictory things in the bible. Why didn't Yahweh stay Jepthah's hand as he did Abraham's if he hated human sacrifice so much? Or better yet, why wouldn't Yahweh send a goat through the door first to spare Jepthah's daughter? Neither of those happened in the story. Yahweh must have wanted Jepthah's daughter as sacrifice to send her through the door first. Or are you claiming that Yahweh is not all powerful and could not have changed the events for a different outcome?
Funny how your god of peace and love just loves burnt offerings. You know, that is not the only location in the bible where human sacrifice occurs. That is just an example of one that people today would consider extremely distasteful, which is why people like you have to pretend the words in the bible do not mean what the words in the bible mean.
Do you think you could do a video on the Quirinius census? There have been a few solutions, but I'm just curious what your take on it is.
I believe Inspiring Philosophy may be working on one that has a rather interesting and satisfying solution. I have my own view as well, and will do videos on alleged historical errors at some point.
ruclips.net/video/c6ViluS8AAg/видео.html
Sometimes I seriously wonder how Paulogia does this: make bad arguments sound good.
It's like an art or a talent.
Yep it does. Intelligence signaling.
@@ronnychristenjoyer6778 Maybe
It’s a gift, apparently.....🤔
@@ZTAudio great point, although I don’t think Paulogia is being deliberately deceptive. He’s just playing to the cheap seats.
@@ZTAudio yes, and anyone can see he’s quite intelligent.
He’s just always wrong.
Salt Lake Tribune had a story around Christmas making this exact same claim. It seems to follow the "the 'right' meaning of a word with a range of meanings is the one I find most helpful for my views" line of thinking.
Off-topic question. How was the Horn vs Dillahunty?
I didn't watch, but I heard Horn took it to him on his I need evidence but I don't know what wouldd convince me routine.
I heard it went well
Thanks for your video! Appreciate it! God bless!
5:01
6:41, 6:56, 7:47
And as said by EditsOfAwesomeness in the comments section, Isaiah 7:13 is directing the message to the House of David, not Ahaz, so Isaiah 7:14 should be understood in this light.
Michael Heiser always saving the potatoes
Well we have to admit that no Hebrew scholar would have thought the Messiah would be born of a Virgin. So Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 the problem is the fact that the Hebrew word is almah which always translates as young woman, maiden, or damsel. If you look at Isaiah the prophet utilizes the word virgin in passages in Isaiah 37:22, Isaiah 62:5 just to name a few as the Hebrew word betula. Emmanuel was the child in Isaiah 7:14. Go to Isaiah 8:3 the prophet Isaiah has relations with his wife the prophetess and end up naming the other child Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The birth of the child was not the sign. The sign was the child growing up and eating curbs and honey. Some would say well Matthew was quoting the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 which uses the Greek word parthenos (παρθένος). But parthenos (παρθένος) in Greek can also mean young woman, maiden, or damsel. If you look at Genesis 34:4 in reference to Dinah you'll find in the previous verses she was violated by Shechem. But in Genesis 34:4 it uses parthenos (παρθένος) when she was not a virgin after being violated. So it’stranslated as young woman. Hebrew Scholars would have to look at the context of the passage. There's a reason why Matthew is sometimes refered to as the Gospel that failed to reach the Jews. Yes we find in scripture the Virgin story accounts in Matthew and Luke
My question then becomes in consideration to the prophecy within the specific context of Isaiah 7. It seems to me that the idea of a virgin birth within the OT either contradicts or underwhelmes the exclusivity of Christ. At face value, the text seems to be directed toward Isaiah and his wife, which would then disqualify the idea of it being a virgin birth since ya brethren Shear-jashub existed. This seems to leave us with the idea of the Hebrew meaning "young women." Why does Matthew make this jump between the two concepts ("virgin" and "young women") when quoting from a specific passage which contradicts this new meaning? I'm really struggling with this.
Does it? I mean, were anot exactly told the biography of Isaiah except in relation to the events described in the book. Isaiah could have been a widower who remarried or he could have divorced his wife and taken another. It's not that these things did not happen, and given that his eldest son was more likely a grown man by this point, either possibilities could be plausible. Not mentioning the fact that at least I have never encountered an instance where almah is used in the OT which could not refer to a virgin. Besides, it would make it easier for Ahaz to identify the child, since the mother is not specifically mentioned there and he would have to look for a woman he knew. Well, if the woman was to be newly wed (and untill consumation a virgin), he would probably have a much easier way of identifying her. Now with respect to the birth itself, the text doen't specifically say that the conception would be miraculous (that is that the girl would maintain virginity), but it doesn't exclude it either. What I am trying to say is that you have both. In the case of Ahaz, he is told that "the" almah (that is this specific woman that you know) is going to have a child and so on, but one can literally interpret the text as describing a virgin birth (that is retaining virginity at conception, and during and after childbirth), which through typology would point to Christ. It all hangs upon the text allowing for multiple interpretations at the same time in a way that they don't cancel each other out.
The context of Isaiah 7 is future, despite what Paulogia or others may claim. If you read the text closely you see that Isaiah rebukes Ahaz and speaks to the house of David. The prophecy about the virgin birth is not given to Ahaz, but the house of David. Further, he doesn't say a virgin but the virgin, as a definite noun. This indicates a specific woman is in view. And the child will be named "God with us" thus indicating who he will be.
Taken in light of biblical expectations, Isaiah is tying together multiple biblical promises and setting those as a sign: 1) God promised David that his house would continue forever, 2) the promise that "the seed of the woman" would come, going back to Genesis, 3) that this messiah would restore the relationship of man and God, and 4) that this messiah would be divine. After setting this expectation, he then switches back to speaking to Ahaz, going from the plural "you" in verse 14 to the singular in verse 16.
Further, as we read in chapter 8, the child born to Isaiah was from his wife. It would be very odd for the Isaiah to call her "almah" in chapter 7 as she was already his wife. The idea that the "maiden" of chapter 7 would be an already married woman at the time of the prophecy seems stretched. Also, God refers to the land as "your land, O Immanuel" in chapter 8 verse 8. The broader context indicates that there are two prophecies at play, one for the people of the time but another that is fulfilled in a future messiah.
Im glad I just found your channel
'specially cause your comedy matches mine a lot
Me too
Another great video. The views and likes keep on increasing. Soon it'll pass 10K.
As long as it find the right people I'm happy, regardless of the count.
Someone asked what Isaiah 9:6 was about... here is the verse - with explanation below.
Isaiah 9:6 (NIV)
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Explaination:
INSIDE of a person is a 'woman' - the 'one flesh' that God 'created' (NOT the 'man' that LORD GOD 'formed', then separated, and advised should be joined BACK together again, as what GOD has 'joined together' let man not separate).
As GOD created man as MALE AND FEMALE, created them 'he' - and called their name... 'Adam'. God's creation of man was 'androgynous' or 'male AND female'. And thus... it is what COMES OUT of a MAN that defiles him.
Thus... one should be able to see 'the WOMAN' of Revelation 12. IF this 'woman' inside of you does what is GOOD in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT of that choice is then 'male' - and acceptable to GOD and taken into HEAVEN.
BUT... if the 'woman' inside of you does what is EVIL in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT is then a 'female', 'daughter of man', and another 'woman' or 'seed bearer'... which is then another 'opportunity' for something to come of it, but then it is NOT a 'first fruit' and NOT ACCEPTABLE to GOD.
THIS is also (spiritually)... the 'VIRGIN BIRTH' as it DOES NOT require 'physical union' to produce FRUIT, or to say... THE WORD MADE (into) FLESH. This is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke with Nicodemus... or being BORN of WATER & SPIRIT, and also what is referred to with Mary (Jesus mother) AND ALSO, why Jesus is called - 'the Word', as it is the COMMAND of GOD through which everything that has been made or will ever BE MADE... is made.
Note that the daughters of man, became 'evil' spirits upon the earth... and thus 'spirit give birth to spirt' is then true.
Flesh gives birth to flesh is simple to understand - as this is an 'earthly thing' vs. and lacks the complexities of 'heavenly things'.
“Traditional scripturalization” some people just call that proof texting. It’s when you look for support for a preconceived concept that you aiming to confirm or verify. Translation, the writer of Matthew wanted a virgin birth and therefore sought out a text that could support that. That doesn’t prove or disprove that Isaiah 7:14 is connected to the NT Jesus figure or it is truth, or crafted fairy tales or just imaginative typology fit for its day. At the end of the day, people still get to choose if it’s all believable or not. I find that the ones who want to believe it will rest on the forgiving explanation and the ones who don’t want to believe it will fall on the most likely explanation.
Awesome stuff once again! Completely on point regarding the Hebrew word 'almah'. There's not a single instance in Scripture where you can show it refers to a woman that is _not_ a virgin.
I had a conversation on reddit about this topic a time ago and would like to add something crucial that I didn't see you mention in the video, regarding the designation of this prophecy. Paulogia casually mentions that this prophecy was aimed at Ahaz, but is that what the text actually says? Let's read the passage, including the context:
"10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, *O house of David!* Is it too little for *you* to weary men, that *you* weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give *you* a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah-the king of Assyria!”" - Isaiah 7:10-17 (ESV)
Notice something? Who is Isaiah addressing in verse 13? Not Ahaz, but "house of David". The main designation of the prophecy is _not_ Ahaz, but the house of David. If anyone is not convinced by this careful reading, the original Hebrew makes it clear. The Hebrew for the "you"'s I put in bold (verses 13 and 14) is - in contrast to verses 11, 16 and 17 - plural.
[Click on the little 'a' and 'b' to see the mention of singular and plural pronouns in the passage: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7%3A9-11&version=ESV]
I hope that's helpful to some, God bless you all!
I almost included something very close to that but opted to cut it out. Good insight. Rydlenik argues something very similar.
Only because 'almah' is not a frequently used word in the Hebrew Bible. It's used only 6 or 7 times in the entire Hebrew Bible so the chances are it would be used to refer to a unmarried young women, however it is not a term that is exclusive to virgins. It's synonym 'naarah' is much more widely used.
The word 'almah' conveys only youth and gender, NOT the state of sexual purity.
It's root word is 'elem' which means vigor or youth. Infact, it's noun derivatives i.e. 'alumah' means youth. None of the words relating to, 'elem' including 'almah, conveys sexual purity.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 So why was 'almah' translated into 'parthenos' in the entire Greek Old Testament, which evidently means 'virgin', in all cases in the Greek New Testament?
And why did Matthew cite this verse as evidence for its miraculous fulfillment through Mary, if 'almah' just means 'woman'?
And why is it that in all instances in the Old Testament, you can't show me a _single_ instance where 'almah' refers to a non-virgin woman?
@EditsOfAwesomeness that's a very good question.
The answer is obvious. It was a mistranslation.
The so called Septuagint of today also has mistranslated 'naarah' as virgin in Genesis 24:14, and not to mention it had no problem translating 'almah' in Exodus 2:8 as young woman. This translation is not only inaccurate but inconsistent at best.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 In Genesis 24:16, we read:
"16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden [naarah] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up."
The reason the Septuagint translators translated 'naarah' in Genesis 24:14 to 'virgin', therefore, is because the context implies this meaning. I prefer my translations more word for word, but there is no mistake here.
The same goes for Exodus 2:8. A virgin, by definition, is also a young woman, or girl. That doesn't take away the fact that she was a virgin, nor does it do anything to refute the argument.
Commenting for the algorithm. Great video, keep up the good work!
Awesome that clears it up. Although I will have to look into the Immanuel situation.
Hello brother! In case you've not found an answer yet, I think my comment may have dealt with your issue. You can find it somewhere in the comments. God bless you!
Testify, do you have a glossary or similar where you pull these quotes? How do you choose what books for your research?
If the virgin birth even happened, Paul would have made mention of it in Romans. His writings are the oldest texts regarded as scripture, he says NOTHING about it. It was a later addition to the story about Jesus, and at the time would have been understood to be an allegory, painting Jesus as a true messenger of the Divine. The ancients knew better than to read this as literal truth, the fact that it is now taken as such simply speaks to the depth of ignorance of the entire collective of the church since Gentiles got a hold of these texts and mistaught them when the Jewish Christians who knew better died off. Paul writes in his letter to Timothy about believers accepting myths as truth, IMO this a perfect example of what he warned about.
This is a whopper of an argument from silence
How would people during the time of the Old Testament determine whether a young girl is a virgin? Would this method to be reliable? Can a woman become pregnant without coitus? Since we have today several women who became pregnant without coitus I assume we would see the same phenomenon in ANE.
yes, women today can get pregnant without coitus through amazing advances in technology
was that technology available prior to 70AD where the temple was destroyed? the prophet daniel prophesized the messiah would come prior to its destruction
@@InitialPC you do not need advanced technology to bring sperm into close proximity of the entrance of a vagina. As long as the hymen is intact a woman was to be considered as a virgin. A virgin birth is rare but not imposible. Now and then.
Interesting is that the oldest NT scripture's like Mark and Paul's writings doesn't mention about the virgin birth, they could may know the Septuagint writings from the Hebrew bible, but didn't see the importance to mention at all about that. In fact, Paul mentioned about the Jesus that he is from a YOUNG WOMAN! And about the ha'alma, that means only the "young woman", of cource young woman can be virgin but can also have childrens. Betulah, as virgin can be young but also can be old. Thats not the case. Betulah does not refer to the age at all. And secondly, Isaiah passage tells that " THE( particular one)young woman IS pregnant" so after all when he IS pregnant, she can't be virgin anymore.
The genealogy between Mary and Joseph are the same,here’s your answer for TLDR peeps.
Dont forget that a young unmanned woman who was not a virgin could be stoned. Along with the man if she was engaged to someone else.
Not if she was unbetrothed.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 If she was unbetrothed the man who was responsible for her not being a virgin had to marry her. With no possibility of divorce ever.
Only if the woman's father agrees upon the match (Exodus 22:16-17).
@@theophilussogoromo3000 That is reversing the emphasis. It says if a man seduces and has sex with a virgin ( could be literal could be still living in her father's house) he has to marry her and pay her father the customary bride price ( compensation for losing her free labor). If her father absolutely refuses to allow the marriage the seducer must still pay. ( probably because no one else will pay to marry a non virgin, or at least not as much )
Drastically different emphasis. Not the father must permit the marriage. The marriage is automatic but the father can stop it .
@Mark Horton I concur.
But most scholars do not believe that we know who write Matthew
The word 'almah' conveys youth and gender, NOT virginity status.
In a video in addressing this very issue, Dr. Michael Brown who has a PhD in near-eastern languages -and mind you the foremost Christian apologists to Jews- states that 'almah' doesn't convey the virginity status of the 'young woman'. The word 'almah' is NOT exclusive to virgins. It simply means a woman of child bearing age, regardless of her status of virginity.
There is only one word in Biblical Hebrew that conveys sexual purity, 'bethulah'.
If Isaiah was speaking of a miraculous 'virgin' birth, he would indeed use 'bethulah' to convey that. Otherwise, the 'almah' conceiving as stated in Isaiah 7:14 isn't miraculous at all, since it implies that the young woman has conceived through natural means.
Ok. I consulted Dr Brown's book in making this video. I don't quite think that is Brown's position completely.
Check his RUclips channel ASKDrBrown. Video titled: Episode 18 - "Objections based on Messianic Prophecies: Isaiah 7:14.
17:30 into the video he explicitly states that 'almah' is not an exclusive term for virgins.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 read his book Jewish Objections to Jesus for more
Does he say something different in the book from the video I've just referenced? Because that would be a contradiction and that would be problematic.
In any case, my point is that in the specific video I've referenced, he explicitly states that 'almah' is not a term that is exclusive to virgins, and I'm pretty sure the video is more recent than the book.
P.S. just curious have you seen the video I've referenced above? It's 17 minutes and 30 seconds into the video mind you.
@@theophilussogoromo3000" Bethulah " doesnt mean only a young woman and that's why Alma was used for Mary: the word the Israelite translators used was for a young woman who was a virgin : maybe they knew more than U do 2,000 years later.
Not getting Married and having children was looked on as a curse so there weren't many 20 year Olds that would still be virgins so Bethulah is not used because of these early marriages.
Nobody has the original Hebrew text. The Jewish translators who translated the Old Testament into Greek had access to Hebrew texts that we don't currently have today.
Thank you so much for this!
The lack of aesthetic appeal in these atheist videos really don't help me sympathize with their stance 😭
For me: Question is which works as a sign since the birth was meant to be a sign, A young woman, A unmarried young women or a virgin give birth depending on translation, Well two of these happen everyday or at least was not uncommon even then so as a sign the one that stands apart is the virgin giving birth.
If you read on from verse 14-16 you will see what the sign is.
The sign to Ahaz is that before this child could speak, both lands of the two king's attacking Judah would be abandoned.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 See how the child is still the sign?
Sign meaning: an object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else.
End of Road that would be a pretty bad sign if i placed it after the road ended. Before or at an event is a sign after is a taunt. Look for this child (sign) and this event will follow or if your looking for the child look for this event he will be around at the same time. They can be signs to each other but only the child is the sign for what is coming enemies laid to waste.
That's my answer without getting into how prophecy is normally threefold with shadows of the event not matching exactly what was said normally missing something until fulfilled.
Example:
You will get a million dollars when a blue dog does three backflips while you are crying then you see a bright blue dog do three backflips it was awesome but you were not crying then it was not fulfilled just a shadow of the prophecy.
Sometimes the actual prophecy is not what you thought, You see your grey and black dog get hit by a car you cry on impact you sue someone and are awarded a million dollars you only then realise your dog did three flips in the air backwards from being hit your grey and black dog is commonly called a blue heeler all the elements are there it's fulfilled but happened in a way very different to how you thought it would.
The lands being desolate before the child could speak is the sign.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 The sign for what ?
@Hidden Rambo a sign to the wicked King Ahaz that God would keep his promise to king David and that the two Kings will not succeed in overthrowing the Davidic dynasty.
Isaiah 7 in context does not speak about a jesus ...all are taken out of context by whoever wrote matthew.
The virgin birth makes perfect sense, since if he didnt had one
He wd have come from normal humans and cd not die for humankind sin since we all himans are by birth sinful this teaches the bible
Roman 12 through one men -adam sin entered the world
Etc
Why bc all humans are mixed with serpen seed
Jesus wasnt
He was pure creation by god as intended for us ever since afam and eve before they messed up. Literally
If you cancel virgin birth
Hos sacrifice for men kind makes no sense.
All of Christianity makes no sense without virgin birth
Different genes than we all mortals since noah
What every single skeptic seems to miss in their desperate effort to not surrender to Christ, is that, when the Gospels or proto-gospels (we know John is a compilation of presumably John's earlier writings, because it admits to this itself) were penned, there were still PLENTY of people alive who knew Jesus, who knew the story about His birth, the flight to Egypt and so on.
You simply cannot invent stories in an effort to tie them to prophecy and have them stand up when the people who can easily contradict them are standing right there.
There is not enough time separating the manuscripts to allow games of telephone and narrative inventions to gestate and be accepted.
I'll also mention Paulogia gets the Septuagint history wrong too. Tradition holds that the Septuagint got it's name because it's a "translation of 70" although some say 72 instead of 70.
Paulogia makes an empty claim "the translator" got it wrong. In truth it would have been several rabbis who translated that passage into Greek. I'll now point out: virgin is what the rabbis of the day beleived that word said. It wasnt Matthew that made that translation, it was the rabbis 200 years before Jesus that said that.
You are confusing when the LXX was first 'said' to be made with subsequent copies being done by a scribe/s. There is not one LXX but many different families and manuscripts of Greek translations of Hebrew OT. There is no extant LXX version of this passage prior to the 1 century CE.
Thank you for this post
Personally, I much preferred this argument when it was used in the opening of Snatch.
Excellent explanation. Thanks for the video
"The author of the Septuagint."
So this guy doesn't know that there were 70 translators, and they all came up wih the same translation.
Only 2.5 min in so I will see where you go from here. However, you ask who is Immanuel in the text. As far as I can tell there are 2 kingdoms, Israel and Judah. Each has a Prophet here. Judah has the Prophet Isaiah and Israel has the prophet Hosea. Isaiah is given a wife, a prophetess. Hosea is given a wife, a Prostitute. These are symbolic in nature as Hosea 12:10 says "I have spoken through the prophets in Similitudes". So Isaiah has children with the prophetess in Isaiah 7:3 we see he has a son Shear-Jashub and in Isaiah 8:3 he has another son Maher-Shall-Hash-Baz. While in the meantime Hosea has Children with the Prostitute in Hosea chapter 1:4 he has a son Jezreel and in verse 6 he has a daughter Lo-Ru-Hamah, and again he has a son in verse 9 Lo-Ammi. Each one of these names implies how God is NOT with Israel, he will not be on their side as it says "for you are not my people and I will not be your God". On the Contrary, each of the names of Isaiah's children implies how God is on the side of Judah. Their names each have specific meanings for the people as Isaiah 8:18 says "Behold I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells in mount Zion". The word "Children" here being Plural, hence there was a child before Mahershalalhasbaz as we see in Isaiah 7:3, hence she was not a VIRGIN and as such in the context of the story, we have an explicit example of this word being used where we can know the Almah was not a virgin. Either way, this is what is meant by Immanuel as I see it in the text. The name of the child is implying that God is with Judah (God with us) just as the names of Hosea's children imply that God is not with them.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The timeline is at least 700-years off. How is Ahaz to know that the prophecy was fulfilled (which was the point) when he died in 727BCE and the mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born somewhere between 4BCE and 6CE?
Christians... professional liars for Jesus!
Jesus was a historical person and we have proof from Josephus he mentions James Jesus half brother trial so checkmate buddy
Great job! 👍🏼
I have a good joke about assumed virginity, but unfortunately it can’t be told here. The juxt of the joke is the proof of virginity awaits the night of marriage.
Thats a great point. How can "a virgin shall conceive " be a sign when virginity could not be proven except by coitus?
I think this could be a much better video by cutting out the argument that, "Well, lots of times young women are virgins." It seems like that expert is refuting a claim that Isiah contradicts a virgin birth. But the real skeptical claim is that Isiah doesn't *predict* a virgin birth.
Alma, the young unmarried woman, would've most definitely have a been a virgin in that culture🤦♂️.
An almah can apply to a virgin, wife, a widow, or even a woman defiled, since the term only conveys youth and gender, not the state of sexual purity of a young woman. It is not an exclusive term for virgins.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 Almah - young woman. Betulah - virgin. LXX has three Hebrew words as parthenos.
Is there any historical evidence for the curtain being ripped in two?
Don't think there is for the curtain, but there is a lot of historical and archeological evidence for the sun being darkend, the earthquake and the other miracles at the crucifixion. Just search for "evidence for miracles at the ressurection genesis apologetics" and youll find it
@@jochemschaab6739 thanks
Oh, if this guys 17 year old is not a virgin….
How would he ever know!?
All children are born of women. If it is referring to an ordinary conception, there's no need to even mention a woman at all, let alone a young one, because it goes without saying.
Of course, if "young woman" is synonymous with "virgin" then of course it makes sense to use such a term.
The term is used, so either the sign it is describing is either a very young woman conceiving - something which would not have been unusual at all at the time, OR, it's referring to a virgin.
And as with much prophecy, it has its fulfilment in layers of types leading up to the ultimate fulfilment.
The Song of Songs reference also captures another important factor - "alma" is not *only* a reference to physical status as virginity, but of place in society, seemingly as one who was betrothed or with the prospective of soon being married.
Similarly, Mary wasn't only a virgin physically, but she was also betrothed, as opposed to being say just a girl with no current prospect of marriage.
It seems to me that "alma" carries meaning that extends beyond the physicality of virginity, which is what we modern English speakers think of exclusively when we hear the word "virigin".
We live in a culture where sexual activity is acceptable outside of marriage, and a woman can be in any number of social states when she loses her virginity.
This was not the case in Bible times, when virginity and maritall status were generally inextricably linked.
Not really willing to blow people's minds but the word alma being used is correct for Isaiah's prophecy and also where it's used concerning the time it was used for Rebekah and Miriam, Rebekah at the time she met Abraham's servants and Miriam at the time she followed the basket with Moses in it, other translators seeing this word alma used in other scriptures changed it to betulah because they believed the word alma was incorrect as also other words used to describe a young woman, the original word alma to the translator couldn't have been right in his mind because it would have been impossible for a alma to conceive a child, impossible because of the age related to the word, the young woman so to speak hadn't begun puberty, the reason Isaiah uses this word is because of what God said, He would give them a sign, a sign from God is a miracle, a miracle is not a act of nature nor can it be in order to call it a miracle, a young woman having begun puberty is a natural event, a young woman getting pregnant after beginning puberty is NOT a miracle, no matter what she say's, like what the translators added in Matthews text that has Mary saying, HOW is this possible for I know not a man, what this is, is actually a lie, I say a lie because it happens all the time when a young girl gets pregnant and tells her parents she don't know how it happened because she never had sex before, every human being alive will think the same thing, the girl is lying, especially in ancient times when betrothed people were permitted to have sex before they got married, not only that but any doctor alive will tell you it's impossible for a girl having no eggs to get pregnant, a betulah was also translated as a young woman and was used by certain translators because of the implications of any scripture that implied a marriageable age because of what most believed was that age, after the onset of puberty, there's no doubt the original word used was implying age, only alma was prepuberty and betulah after puberty, one instance in the old testament where I know they changed the word had to do with a man that married a virgin but later discovers or believes she wasn't a virgin and he sends her back to the parents, this requires some thinking because of certain stories going around concerning this but nevertheless the parents could prove she was a virgin by presenting some sort of cloth to the judges to examine, it's obvious the judges are looking for blood, here's where it gets tricky, if there was blood and the cloth is the bedsheet of the wedding night that the man supposedly gives to the parents to prove their daughters virginity, how stupid does that make the man to say their daughter was not a virgin, that's like video taping yourself going to steal something and giving the tape to the police then stealing the thing then saying it wasn't you, anyway, had there been blood, that would only prove one thing, she bled on him, how is it that it wasn't her period blood? it should be noted here also, not all women bleed their first time having sex, also, virginity is impossible to prove, virginity is only something that others can believe, however, being a virgin could be proven, what the judges seen was NO BLOOD, no blood on the cloth or cloths, probably some sort of undergarment that girls wore when approaching the time, anyway, the point, had Mary been 12 years or older, she would have more than likely began puberty, meaning she had eggs, every doctor knows a child born get's it's blood from both the father and the mother, that's a real problem with Jesus birth since sin to the Jew was associated with the blood, if Mary had a egg and that egg was used, Jesus blood wouldn't have been PURE, thereby making His blood sacrifice pointless or unacceptable to God, if Mary was even at the age of having a egg it would have been too debatable to anyone knowing how babies are born that would have proven Jesus was God's Son, meaning there couldn't have been a young woman after the onset of puberty used to bring Jesus into this world simply because it had to be a MIRACLE BIRTH, any person alive, any doctor alive, any wise man alive would have to admit the same thing, no egg? NOW THAT's a MIRACLE, the problem with people being able to accept this is because of the impossibility and the SHAME that it makes it appear, I don't really see why though since Jesus said if God wanted to, He could make the rocks cry out to Him, if you will study the age of Rebekah and Miriam at the time the word alma was used for them, you will come up with a age somewhere between 7-10 years old, I say 7-10 because of the task they do and the intelligence required to do so, younger than 7 is taking it to an extreme, just as making Miriam's age beyond 10 is an extreme since at the time Moses was born, Aaron was 3 years older than Moses, average age between siblings is 2-4 years which would have made Mariam at close guess between 7-10, I also read an article that said Rebekah was between 5-10 years old when she married Isaac, what's debatable here is whether Isaac had sex with Rebekah at that time, I prefer to think he waited, nevertheless, what you should be focusing on is a miracle and not a lie or something that could indicate a lie, I can just see the apostles going out into a world trying to prove Jesus was the Son of God and people asking them, HOW SO?, then laughing at them after they said He was born from a woman that had eggs but said she didn't know how she got pregnant, they didn't recognize Jesus for who He was when He came because they had already mistranslated much of the scriptures concerning Him, either by changing the word or adding to it or taking away from it, what you read today has not changed much in how it's translated but enough to HIDE the truth's in it, in my own mind it's hard to comprehend why God would use a child to bring a child into the world which is why I try to see Mary as a very mature 10 year old but hey, it does say God does things to confound the wise
Logical but why have two words: betulah for virgin and Al mah for young woman if one word will serve? Not very logical except to specify virginity
Because language isn't rigid and is a fluid dynamic thing that is determined by overwhelming amounts of circumstances. We have a term for words like this, it's called a "synonym". Also, why have the word "fruit" and "vegetable" if they effectively mean the same thing etymologically and in colloquial (pre-modern scientific) use?
@@koderamerikaner5147 A virgin giving birth is technically an impossibility and would count as supernatural hence there would be strong theological significance to emphasize this.
But who really cares whether you call an apple a fruit or a vegetable?
The Jews at the Time of the Birth obviously did not believe in the virgin birth otherwise the entire Jewry would have turned to believers and no one would dare to plot and eventually execute Jesus.
I heard MLK Jr. had this position on the virgin birth. True? Not sure if this was before or after the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, which have the OT in Hebrew
So if truth be told, then there were two virgin birth miracles in the bible. One is in Isaiah's time to comfort the king of Judea that God was with him. The other virgin birth miracle happened some 700 years later at the birth of Jesus. And there you have it, christianity's two virgin birth narratives.
Watch my video on Isaiah 7:14
According to Hebrew commentaries, the young woman was Isaiah's wife. (See Rashi's commentary on the Chumash)
The virgin birth creates a huge problem. Anyone born of a virgin would not have a patriarchal lineage. That means the child could be the son of David, and therefore could not be the Messiah.
Mary and Joseph were from the line of David, so either side makes him the son of David.
@@VexalPhoenix The Messiah must trace his lineage only through King Solomon (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10). But according to Luke 3:31, Jesus was not a descendant of Solomon, but of Solomon’s half-brother Nathan. Therefore Jesus was not a descendant of King David through King Solomon, and fails this test.
The Messiah may not be a descendant of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, or Shealtiel, because this royal line was cursed. (I Chronicles 3:15-17; Jeremiah 22:18,30). But according to Matthew 1:11-12 and Luke 3:27, Jesus was a descendant of Shealtiel.
@@douglasgorden3843 if a person is born of two humans, they have sinful nature. That’s why Jesus is a virgin birth. Jesus never sinned. And knowing that Joseph was a descendant of David and knowing that a Man can’t give birth. It was the man lineage that mattered. Read what the Angel said Below:
Luke 1:32
King James Version
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
@@douglasgorden3843 The verses you quoted in Jeremiah doesn’t refer to David’s lineage, it refers to someone named Coniah. Read a few verses earlier in: Jeremiah 22:28.
@@bornagainalex2250 according to Matt and Luke, his father is not Joseph. Therefore he can't be a descendant of David.
And where is it demonstrated that sin is only pass on through fathers? For that matter, where does the Tanakh show that sin can be inherited?
I suppose then that Noah wasn't copied from the epic of Gilgamesh, (and deucalion )the book of Esther a copy of the akkadian Ishtar. Genesis a copy of the enuma elish. Moses a copy of Sargon the great or countless others either?
I know you're asking it sarcastically but the answer is yes
If the Messiah was to be born of the SEED of David, which Joseph also was, having a virgin birth, excludes that very important part of prophecy? Real prophecy with no doubt or confusion in the language or wording?
Because Mary was also of the line of David and her marriage to Joseph constitutes legal adoption into the line as his son as well.
@@TestifyApologetics Mary does not carry the SEED of David, only males carry SEED, NOT women. Check out The Virgin Birth Debate. By youtuber TheTribeOfJudahTeach, at the very least it will get you thinking? Let me know what you think. God Bless.
The Messianic Prophecy isn't just the birth of the child to look at. Jesus said he wasn't a king, which is significant in the scriptures.
Mary IS the seed of David. Come on man that's not even confusing.
@bigol9223 We use fathers Bloodline and not Mothers.
This whole alma thing is a red herring it does nothing to prove Mary wasn’t a virgin but merely at most indicates that Isaiah didn’t prophesy about it, which actually makes the NT more miraculous and believable, Isaiah still prophesies about Messiah. In Matthew, in the Greek Mary uses Greek phrases that exist outside the Bible since 400 BC ~ to mean you’ve never had sex, and it also exists as a Hebrew idiom, it’s possible it’s also an Aramaic idiom, since so many Jews in 1st century Rome were Hellenized so even if she’s originally speaking to the angel in Aramaic she’s probably saying exactly that or some similar idiom, that is ‘to know someone’ it’s inarguably indicating that’s she’s a virgin by use of a negative verb, no translation of alma or any other noun. I think alma does mean virgin but it’s a silly argument to bring up, it’s like people think the Bible was written in 1952 not 90 AD.
In Isaiah 7:8, we have a prophecy of 65 years, given by Isaiah to Ahaz, the new king of Judah, in 742 BC.
The son to be born to the house of David cannot be Isaiah's son. It would be Manasseh, who becomes a type of Christ. While it is true that Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin birth of Manasseh, it must refer to a virgin in the typical sense. Here are some verses to consider.
Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah. (2 Kings 21:1 KJV)
Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. (Isaiah 62:4-5 KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:14-16 KJV)
Clearly, the virgin is the land of Israel. This is typical language, pointing to the prophecy regarding Christ's birth.
The land is forsaken of both her kings (Hosea's captivity in 723 and Manasseh's in 677 BC. This prophecy is part of a structure which contains the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 (which clearly points to the time of Jesus work as the Messiah).
John in the Revelation further illustrates this with the vision of the woman giving birth to a man child.
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. (Revelation 12:1-6 KJV)
The period of 1260 days symbolises the second period of 1260 years from 538 to 1798 (Daniel 7:25) the first period of 1260 years begins in 723 BC (Daniel 12:7), being part of the 65 year prophecy. God declares the end from the beginning.
Unless I'm missing something, how great of a sign would it be to say a young woman of marriageable age will have a son? There was probably much more than one young woman having a child at that time in that region. Now if a virgin young woman had a child, that would be a definite sign. But they would basically be calling the child GOD "with us." Why would God tell someone to call their child God? I suppose you could say the parents in Isaiah's day could interpret the name as something like God is with us if he was a reminder of God's intervention. However, these probably just underscore the value of the dual meaning of the prophecy, being near (partial fulfillment?) and distant future. The name is even a prophecy since Mary was told to call His name Jesus but the prophecy cited says His "name" will be called Immanuel. But Ahaz was told to call Him "God with us." Immanuel was a name meant to give an even greater description of who He was. Insight of this was there even hundreds of years before His incarnation. Just pondering.
Once again - the sign is not the birth. The sign is that G-d will deliver the nation of Judah from the invasion before the child knows good from evil (aka within a few years)
You should also read this :" Like a virgin (mother): analysis of data from a longitudinal, US population representative sample survey" BMJ 2013;347:f7102
"Of 7870 eligible women, 5340 reported a pregnancy, of whom 45 (0.8% of pregnant women) reported a virgin pregnancy (table 1⇓). Perceived importance of religion was associated with virginity but not with virgin pregnancy. The prevalence of abstinence pledges was 15.5%. The virgins who reported pregnancies were more likely to have pledged chastity (30.5%) than the non-virgins who reported pregnancies (15.0%, P=0.01) or the other virgins (21.2%, P=0.007)........."
Yahweh blessed American Virgins and most probably more worldwide!
I would assume in ANE similar numbers of percentage were present.
If Matthew met Mary he could have easily inspected the hymen on her hole. there is no mention of this.
I affirm the virgin birth! Whew! That ought to keep Nick Peters at bay for a while.
Thanks to David Wood's scuby doo and the case of the silly scpitc I do pay attention to the nonbelievers
Matthew wrote Matthew and sourced Mary? Please submit evidence for this idea please
Greatest Abomination Evil Ever Committed Against God YHWH the Virgin Birth Lie Deception. This wicked evil doctrine which was interpolated into the gospels of Mathew and Luke evidenced by the original Mathew Gospel of the Hebrews not having the virgin birth narrative story makes Holy Almighty YHWH look like an adulterer who takes another mans wife then gives her back to him pregnant.
This is repulsive and sick. The evidence is clear they added the 2 chapters in Mathew and Luke testified by major scholars and ancient church historians to appease their pagan worshipping Greeks, Romans and others who loved the stories at the time of Gods having sex with young females and getting them pregnant. Holy Yeshua Jesus Christ was declared by His Father at the Baptism '' Today I have begotten thee '' meaning this day I declare you as my unique one and only Heavenly Son. All the Jewish followers at that time accepted Holy Yeshua as Messiah because of the witness of His words and deeds and Resurrection and Ascension.
None of the Apostles ever wrote that He was born of the virgin birth not even Paul. On behalf of all those who love and follow our Messiah Yeshua Jesus Christ and fear Him and repent of their sins and have been Baptised and who live by His Commandments as given to Moses.
The corruption to our Bibles commencing in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine created the Vulgate and Sinaiticus Bibles. May the Jews of Israel accept the Messiah as their lamb of God the final and last King of Israel. The prophecy of Isaiah 7.14 in Mathew is false and another lie. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the word was '' a young woman '' not a virgin and if people read the whole chapter they will see that the young woman was Isaiah's own wife who had the son as a sign to King Ahaz that before Isaiah's child would be old enough to know good and evil the war affecting Israel, Ephraim and Syria would come to an end in the 7th century BC
Not quite sure about the details of how Mathew the book was tied to Mathew the Apostle (though you could source that yourself just from reading early Christian writings), but ties to Mary as a source should be VERY obvious just from reading the book. Matthew relates a number of events that have Mary as one of if not the only participant. That’s a pretty good hint of where that information could have been sourced from.
Isaiah 7:14 should is a young women, but specifically a young women who is a virgin and never layed with a man so it would be translated "the young virigin".When the word almah appears in tanack it is only used contextually for a young women who is yet to be married,examples are Miriam and rebecca,as for betualah while modern Hebrew it is the only word for virgin in scripture it only means virign when used in a legal context. The prophecy shows a virgin birth of a child named Immanuel who would've shown up at this time but ahaz and Judah rejected the waters of Shiloh in chapter 8 this is clearly shown,in genesis 49 its clear shiloah is a prophecy of the future messiah, so they rejected messiah at the time which is why they got maharshlal hashbaz instead as a punishment sign.Chapeter 7 in hebrew is not just just addressing ahaz but the house of david which is shown when you is said and in the plural,chapter 9 the same child is spoken of and is called the mighty God which is only a name for hashem yet given to this child.Instresting enough even rambam the greatest rabbi to jews in his epistle to Yemen applies this passage in chapter 9 to messiah and Calls him el gibor which in chapter 10 is used only for God as well as another time in jeremiah. When you study to show yourself approval you will clearly find the proper answer an messiah Godbless everyone.
Im not sure this is quite a refutation on paulogias main point. Your first speaker doesnt really argue that virgin is the appropriate interpretation but rather the idea a young woman wouldnt exclude the idea that it was a virgin as well, which wasnt quite the argument. Your second speaker even seems to agree with the notion matthew was taking stories in circulation and trying to find ways to fit them in with the old testament.
That aside, well put together video, it certainly wasnt as aggressive as the thumbnail had me worrying it might be, just a reasonable response style, even if i ultimately dont agree with the conclusion.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand - the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later.
If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment. ((I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular “you” and the plural “you.” (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language “you” can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.)
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
It's to refute the possibility that the virgin birth is based upon a mis translation which is Paul's main point. There's no reason to assume it cannot refer to a virgin, and testify himself gives the reason to think that Matthew's interpretation is a justified one
@@rayzas4885 how can we Virginia be a sign? Think about it?
A sign is something you can see.
That mean you believe in the virgin birth and issah verus talking about the virgin birth ? Can I have a yes or no answer that all please
Isaiah 7 in context does not speak anything about a prophecy that would be fulfilled 700 years later.
Reading the whole passage of Isaiah 7 and 8 clearly does not point to a 700 years fulfillment.
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. note
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Verse 16 clearly does not point to jesus .... Verse 14-16 speak of the same child that would be born from the young woman ....and verse 16 answer it
17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.
18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. note
20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
Hello sir, what do you think about the time frames noted in the Isaiah 7 prophecy regarding the Northern Kingdom and Syria? If Immanuel was born shortly after this prophecy was given, wouldn't that contradict Isaiah's statement in verse 8? That is, "within 65 years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people." That is, 65 years vs a few short years for a child to be born and weaned. Regarding Immanuel, "He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."
Isaiah 7:15-16
Deserted is presumably equal or more than being shattered from being a people, which is given a 65 year duration. How long did it take for these lands to be deserted? I think the 65 years marks the early end of the possible time period for the child to come. Because, by the time the prophecy is fulfilled everything is said to have become overgrown with thorns and briers, and sheep and cattle begin to inhabit where there were vineyards. Quite likely this is much longer than 65 years. The prophecy states that these kings and nations(Syria and Israel) will disappear BEFORE Immanuel comes, or AT LEAST before he has come of age. If you take Isaiah 9 as an extension of this prophecy, even assyria is no longer a presence in the Northern parts of israel because the northern lands are free of oppression. That is, "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."
Isaiah 9:1
This statement gives the context of the arrival of the Messiah, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6
So by the time the Messiah would come, his kingdom definitely extended into the region of Galilee. This includes the time frame of dealing with Assyria. Regarding Assyria, in chapter 10 the prophet tells the people of Judah not to be afraid of them, "For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their(in the context this is Assyria) destruction."
Isaiah 10:25
And still the prophecy is not done, but extends even further into the future, saying that of the people of Israel, "only a remnant of them will return."
Isaiah 10:22
After Assyria swept through, the remnant would return some time in the future, and then, "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit."
Isaiah 11:1
Because of all this, Immanuel can't possibly be one of Isaiah's sons. Nor could it have been Hezekiah, because he never ruled the region of Galilee or Samaria. The timeframe of prophecy of Immanuel(Isaiah 7) must include assyria having already come and removed much of the inhabitants of Israel. He will "eat curds and honey" because all the vineyards would already be gone by then. This could have happened anywhere from 65 years to centuries in the future. I think from the prophecies in chapters 9 and 10, and the description of what would happen to the landscape in chapter 7, it leads me in the direction of centuries.
I think in Isaiah 8 this other child was to give proof that the rest of his predictions would come to pass. And then the fact that the predictions about the northern kingdom of Israel and about Syria and Assyria came to pass, that would be proof that one day the virgin would conceive, the Messiah would come, a light would shine in the Northern lands, and all of the above prophecies would be fulfilled. So it could be that the child wasn't the sign about the defeat of those kingdoms, but rather the defeat of those kingdoms was a sign that the child would come. It should be noted that God gave the sign to the house of David, not to king Ahaz himself. Meaning, it could stretch far into the future without needing to have Ahaz witness its fulfillment.
Jesus chose a very strange language to make his Bible be written. English is so easier to comprehend😂
Yahshua chose?? It was the Father Yhwh. This is the Father’s story and plan of salvation. Yhwh speed.
Sure ,Jesus should have used English!
The fact that almah can refer to young women or girls who are usually virgins does not mean almah points to the person's virginity. Talking about logic (wink wink).
Alma is virgin in every context. Even proverbs. It contrasts the WAY OF the man with a virgin ( who will not submit) withe the WAY OF the adulterous woman who shall . Adulterous woman n wild man are meant for each other. Notice 3 things are to wonderful for him and the 4rth he knew not ( never even heard of such a thing).?
Yes, Jesus was also a man.
"We have evidence that it's not messianic and not a virgin birth and that jews wouldn't have thought this" *Says the Talmud is evidence* LMAO
No Isaiah son is different n not same as in chapter 7. The sign is they will survive every war as a nation till Jesus comes born of virgin
Poor Mary. Raped by a ghost or by a human. Hope it's just legendary development as it almost certainly is.
If you’ve ever read Luke, you would know that Mary literally consented.
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Oh really? is that what the men wrote down decades later, that she said while she was sleeping in the middle of the night when she was like 13yo. She's a servant that wants to be ful"filled" so gross
@@js-sp9bz she was not 13. Scholars point out that Jewish women at the time were betrothed in their late teens or easily twenties. Mary was very likely 18 at the time.
Consider David... he laments he was born in sin.
Some scholars think this is David admitting he had an inauspicious origin... he was a bastard. And David is an image of a king who LOVES God, but is very flawed.
God prophesied a "son of David" would rule, and if his throne there would be no end (which inspires a divine son-of-david messianic type and shadow).
Jesus was also conceived OUT OF WEDLOCK, but he's not merely passionate for God, he's "God with Us", and as such he's perfect... thus despite being born out of wedlock, he's NOT born in sin.
How is that possible under the law?
Virgin Birth.
Didn't Jesus say he came not to abolish the law but fulfill it?
Precisely.
Where does it say that David was a bastard? He was Jesse's youngest son and like many boys (and girls) served his father as shepherd. His older brothers may have before he was old enough.
@@markhorton3994 I didn't say it says it, I said many scholars think that when David said that he was born in iniquity that he's saying his birth was in sin, not merely that he was saying all man is fallen, but that he was being particularly specific about his own inauspicious background.
Note: sexual sin is the context of the Psalm where he says this... traditions around the psalms have it that this psalm is where David is in deep repentance about his own sin with Bathsheba.
I'm not even saying it's confirmed, only it's one angle to consider.
But it would explain why he was so looked down upon by his brothers and his own father. His father didnt eveb include him in the assembly of his brothers. Just because he was a teen and was busy? Simply being younger isn't necessarily a perfect fit for that in light of the previous histories in scripture of younger siblings.
@@ravissary79 If you mean Psalm 51 a lot of scholars are grasping at straws. Psalm 51 is David admitting his adultery and begging for forgiveness. Being a bastard is not the sin of the bastard. Having an illegitimate child is the sin of the parents. In Psalm 51 David is talking about his own sin.
As far as I can see the only Biblical punishment for being a bastard, which term it never uses, is lack of inheritance. Ishmael did ok.
Solomon is the son of Bathsheba but after the child who died as punishment to David. David's words at that time imply that the dead child went to be with God.
@@markhorton3994 yes, obviously it's about his own sin... that drama in any sense defeat the point being made. It's a tally contextually native to the point I'm making.
Hello. I like your videos about apologetics. I have a question if you happen to make a video about refuting objections to the New testament. So the objection that the story of Jesus was created by inspiration from the Old Testament ... or that some stories were created after Easter Christians, such as Jesus walking on water, is an allegedly fictional Easter story that is supposed to discourage Jesus' victory over resurrection death ...
A lot of my videos are defending the reliability of the gospels. If they're written by witnesses who were consistently honest and close up to the facts, then it takes a lot of that stuff away.
What will Christianity lose if Mary does not remain a virgin when she becomes pregnant, gives birth to Jesus, or has other children after that? Will it change the message of Christianity if Mary loses her virginity due to her first pregnancy?
The text says that a young woman who is a virgin (almah means both) becomes pregnant, but neither Matthew nor Luke says that this young woman who becomes pregnant remains in her virgin state. And especially Luke formulates that that her pregnancy and childbirth is natural event but still caused by God who send the Holy Spirit that dressed over Mary as if it were some kind of garment and therefore the child is especially blessed Son of God. Mary’s remaining eternal virginty is pure extrabiblical imagination and fantasy based not on text but on bad interpretation and poor reading of the text, so it fits into the extrabiblical tradition and which adds to the story something that is not read there.
Virgin Birth is found in Roman/Greek mythology. Example is Perseus was born from a virgin.