# Virgin birth to Crucifixion -- other stories



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

Just how many are there? Watched and read a lot... Why aren't these just as easily believed? Because your parents, your culture, didn't believe them. Why are these easily dismissed? Because your parents, your culture, haven't told you since the moment you were born that they were the way, truth and the light. 


http://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html

Any other good reads? Maybe something more credible than this if that is in question.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 7, 2013)

LOL, In my opinion, the whole story of the virgin birth was made up by Mary and Joseph to cover up the fact that they had premarital sex, which was a big no-no back in the day!  OR, she could have been abducted by aliens and impregnated to create a super human hybrid, later known as Jesus.  Either theory is just as plausible as an actual virgin birth in my opinion.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 7, 2013)

Seems to me that Mary could have made up a better story than that.
Sure don't hear a lot of teenagers use that excuse today.
.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 7, 2013)

I thought the Jewish lineage was through the mother which would explain the House of David kinship. 
Why was the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles  mysteriously vanished?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought the Jewish lineage was through the mother which would explain the House of David kinship.
> Why was the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles  mysteriously vanished?


I could be wrong, maybe Lowjack will help out here, but I don't think that lineage comes through the mother. Women were still considered lesser even in that period. I suspect that this idea sprang from those who try to force Lukes genelogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph because they don't match.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I could be wrong, maybe Lowjack will help out here, but I don't think that lineage comes through the mother. Women were still considered lesser even in that period. I suspect that this idea sprang from those who try to force Lukes genelogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph because they don't match.



Can you think of another reason why they differ? Lineages were of great importance during that time period, so I'm sure Luke wouldn't have made one up and still expected his writing to be taken seriously.


----------



## jmh5397 (May 9, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I could be wrong, maybe Lowjack will help out here, but I don't think that lineage comes through the mother. Women were still considered lesser even in that period. I suspect that this idea sprang from those who try to force Lukes genelogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph because they don't match.



You would be mistaken.  Judaism used matrilineality to "prove" whether or not a child or lineage was truly Jewish or not.  There are many cultures, including native American that used matrilineality.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2013)

I have never seen in the OT or the NT, "daughter of". I will research this. First place is to ask the Jews


----------



## humdandy (May 9, 2013)

I heard you can get pregnant from dirty toilet seats.


----------



## jmh5397 (May 9, 2013)

humdandy said:


> I heard you can get pregnant from dirty toilet seats.



Wow!  How profound.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> You would be mistaken.  Judaism used matrilineality to "prove" whether or not a child or lineage was truly Jewish or not.  There are many cultures, including native American that used matrilineality.


What I have found, so far. A child can be "jewish" through his mother. But that does not answer the main point. I will keep digging. The web is full of claims of lineage only coming through the Father. Jewish or kin can come through the mother. But can "lineage" come through the mother. ????


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2013)

Nowhere in the bible do we have any information leading us to believe that Mary is a desendant of David


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Seems to me that Mary could have made up a better story than that.
> Sure don't hear a lot of teenagers use that excuse today.
> .



Because no one would believe it today... but since it happened 2000 years ago and the bible tells them so... and their parents tell them so... WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IT...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> What I have found, so far. A child can be "jewish" through his mother. But that does not answer the main point. I will keep digging. The web is full of claims of lineage only coming through the Father. Jewish or kin can come through the mother. But can "lineage" come through the mother. ????


Based on what i have found, internet and asking Jews at the Judaism board [CARM], tribal/lineage come through the father only. This is verified by the fact that we always see, "son of----, son of -----, son of -----". Several attempts were found where someone was clearing trying to force the outcome beyond reasonable. One being that Joseph and Mary were "one". Another was to say that the lineage was written "as perceived" and that it was perceived that Joseph was David's son. This eliminates Jesus as being the Messiah. Another is that "son" and "son in law" are not distinguished here. The probable truth is that Luke's geneology or matthew's is not correct. Maybe both. I'm sure they did not have access to records and just recorded that which had been handed down by oral tradition. The goal of the genology was to show Jesus as coming from the line of David, thus showing him as fitting the description of the Messiah. It should be pointed out that the expectation of the Messiah and who he would be was that he would be a Moses like figure.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Based on what i have found, internet and asking Jews at the Judaism board [CARM], tribal/lineage come through the father only. This is verified by the fact that we always see, "son of----, son of -----, son of -----". Several attempts were found where someone was clearing trying to force the outcome beyond reasonable. One being that Joseph and Mary were "one". Another was to say that the lineage was written "as perceived" and that it was perceived that Joseph was David's son. This eliminates Jesus as being the Messiah. Another is that "son" and "son in law" are not distinguished here. The probable truth is that Luke's geneology or matthew's is not correct. Maybe both. I'm sure they did not have access to records and just recorded that which had been handed down by oral tradition. The goal of the genology was to show Jesus as coming from the line of David, thus showing him as fitting the description of the Messiah. It should be pointed out that the expectation of the Messiah and who he would be was that he would be a Moses like figure.



Excellent research, thanks.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2013)

So I guess my reasoning for starting the thread is to talk about the number of similar stories that were told BEFORE the one of Jesus that had very similar plots. The less known stories that may not be linked to one of today's major religions, but were rumors at points in history.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So I guess my reasoning for starting the thread is to talk about the number of similar stories that were told BEFORE the one of Jesus that had very similar plots. The less known stories that may not be linked to one of today's major religions, but were rumors at points in history.


I have a book, which I can locate that has lots of stories that the author is claiming that Christianity copied. I tend to think that it was the other way around, but as a Christian, that is no surprise


----------



## mtnwoman (May 9, 2013)

Oh goody I git to say this one more time.

For thousands of years, no one knew what gravity was, or how man could fly, or drive a car or have a cellphone, yet everything that was needed for those things have always been available. Nothing was created regarding these things, by man, all the 'ingredients' have always been here. So why does anyone even doubt that artificial insemination has always been available, too, it's just that no one had developed it yet. No one except the greatest scientist of all, God.  I'd like to see one scientist create or deveope anything out of nothing...you don't think it's odd that we have all that at our disposal and we just so happen to have it on hand?


----------



## mtnwoman (May 9, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why was the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles  mysteriously vanished?



Probably the same spirit in Madelyn O'Hare caused it. Maybe a better project for her shoulda been let's keep violence out of the schools instead of prayers.

I believe the lineage was thru Mary, I'll have to find out why/where I found that info.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

About that virgin thing...


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh goody I git to say this one more time.
> 
> For thousands of years, no one knew what gravity was, or how man could fly, or drive a car or have a cellphone, yet everything that was needed for those things have always been available. Nothing was created regarding these things, by man, all the 'ingredients' have always been here. So why does anyone even doubt that artificial insemination has always been available, too, it's just that no one had developed it yet. No one except the greatest scientist of all, God.  I'd like to see one scientist create or deveope anything out of nothing...you don't think it's odd that we have all that at our disposal and we just so happen to have it on hand?



In the last 2000 years god hasn't played god much.... Not like that at least.... but the feasibility isn't what I'm concerned about... It's the idea that very similar stories were told for thousands of years before this one.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

I'm a quarter Jewish through my dad's side... Which I have been told by other full Jews that it doesn't county... I don't get to be chosen... 


But I guess at this point in history Jews are WRONG.. because Jesus is actually in fact the son of god, so we can't believe anything they say..


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> About that virgin thing...



The Revised Standard Version did the same thing sixty years ago.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun."


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

Too bad Matthew didn't have that translation when he wrote his story.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Too bad Matthew didn't have that translation when he wrote his story.



Matthew quoted the Septuagint which used the word "virgin".


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Matthew quoted the Septuagint which used the word "virgin".



Right. Which isn't the word used in the original Hebrew. The mistranslation did make it easy though to construct a story of a virgin birth that would sell with gentiles who already had heard or believed other myths about deities being born of virgins.


I wonder how many christians know the origins of the god of Abraham in religions that predate Judaism?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Right. Which isn't the word used in the original Hebrew.



The original Hebrew word was _translated into Greek _by seventy Jewish rabbis.  They chose the Greek word for "virgin".



atlashunter said:


> The mistranslation did make it easy though to construct a story of a virgin birth that would sell with gentiles who already had heard or believed other myths about deities being born of virgins.



So ... the Jewish rabbis purposefully mistranslated _one word in one verse_ in the hope that sometime in the future a bunch of gullible Gentiles would take the ball and run with it.  That's your theory?


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The original Hebrew word was _translated into Greek _by seventy Jewish rabbis.  They chose the Greek word for "virgin".



And you know this how?


http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/alma-virgin.html



> One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word almah appears in the Bible is in the Book of Proverbs.
> 
> The word “proverb” means “to be like,” thus Proverbs is a book of comparisons between common, concrete images and life’s most profound truths. Proverbs are simple, moral statements (or illustrations) that highlight and teach fundamental realities about life. In the following passage, King Solomon presents the following vivid analogy:
> Snake
> ...






> In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” does not indicate sexual purity, in the Hebrew languagethere is no relationship between the words almah and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin, he would have used the word betulah1 (×‘Ö°Ö¼×ª×•Ö¼×œÖ¸×”) not almah. The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.






> 1. In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word almah only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).




What is your theory? That the author of Isaiah used the Hebrew word which unequivocally means virgin five different times but decided not to use that word when intending to prophecy the virgin birth of the messiah?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> And you know this how?



That is the traditional view of the origin of the Septuagint.  That view has been disputed, and it's fine by me if you want to dispute it.

What is not in dispute is that: 

1)  the LXX is the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures,

2)  it was widely used in the ancient world, and 

3)  the translators used the Greek word for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.

The rabbi you link to above doesn't even mention the LXX.  Instead, he erroneously states:  "Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin' "and "Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah".

Matthew neither mistranslated nor crudely misquoted Isaiah.  He accurately quoted the LXX.




atlashunter said:


> What is your theory? That the author of Isaiah used the Hebrew word which unequivocally means virgin five different times but decided not to use that word when intending to prophecy the virgin birth of the messiah?



My theory is that the Jews had no problems with the LXX using "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 ... until the Christians starting using it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

Prior to the claims that the prophecy had been fulfilled I doubt there would have been much of a reason to raise a stink about a single mistranslated word. The point is, the original Hebrew didn't say what Matthew thought it did.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Because no one would believe it today... but since it happened 2000 years ago and the bible tells them so... and their parents tell them so... WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IT...



That's a lie


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> About that virgin thing...



Patently False!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Right. Which isn't the word used in the original Hebrew. The mistranslation did make it easy though to construct a story of a virgin birth that would sell with gentiles who already had heard or believed other myths about deities being born of virgins.
> 
> 
> I wonder how many christians know the origins of the god of Abraham in religions that predate Judaism?



There are none.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Prior to the claims that the prophecy had been fulfilled I doubt there would have been much of a reason to raise a stink about a single mistranslated word. The point is, the original Hebrew didn't say what Matthew thought it did.



Care to offer some proof to go along with that opinion


----------



## mtnwoman (May 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That is the traditional view of the origin of the Septuagint.  That view has been disputed, and it's fine by me if you want to dispute it.
> 
> What is not in dispute is that:
> 
> ...



Nice post!


----------



## mtnwoman (May 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a lie


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Care to offer some proof to go along with that opinion



See post 28.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Patently False!








SemperFiDawg said:


> There are none.



None what? Christians that know the origins of their deity?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The point is, the original Hebrew didn't say what Matthew thought it did.



My point is that Matthew had nothing to do with it.  He was merely quoting the standard OT text of the time.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> My point is that Matthew had nothing to do with it.  He was merely quoting the standard OT text of the time.



So what? Whether he mistranslated Isaiah himself or was working off of someone elses mistranslation isn't what matters. What matters is that he is claimed to be writing a true account of actual events. He claims a prophecy was fulfilled but it appears he got the prophecy wrong. Did Matthew fabricate a story of a virgin birth in an effort to claim prophecy was fulfilled? That seems quite possible considering the earlier gospel of Mark makes no mention of it. It's just one more mark of human fallibility on the bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> So what? Whether he mistranslated Isaiah himself or was working off of someone elses mistranslation isn't what matters.



You keep saying "mistranslation" as if that's a fact.  The LXX translation using "virgin" was perfectly fine with the Jews for the few hundred years before the church adopted it as well.  Read any history of the LXX, and one of the main reasons the Jews abandoned it is because it was popular in the early church.

Also, let's take a look at context which leaves no doubt, IMO.  Here are the two translations.  The NIV is first with the traditional rendering, and the NET is next with the alternate:  

_Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel._

How in the world is a young woman conceiving a sign?  That's like saying tomorrow's sunrise is a sign.  A virgin conceiving?  Now, _that's_ a sign.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 11, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> LOL, In my opinion, the whole story of the virgin birth was made up by Mary and Joseph to cover up the fact that they had premarital sex, which was a big no-no back in the day!  OR, she could have been abducted by aliens and impregnated to create a super human hybrid, later known as Jesus.  Either theory is just as plausible as an actual virgin birth in my opinion.



Bill Clinton got her pregnant. During questioning he said "define the word virgin." Google it if you doubt me!


----------



## centerpin fan (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Did Matthew fabricate a story of a virgin birth in an effort to claim prophecy was fulfilled? That seems quite possible considering the earlier gospel of Mark makes no mention of it.



Matthew is a very Jewish gospel.  It makes perfect sense to me that he would reference an OT prophecy that his audience would certainly be familiar with.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You keep saying "mistranslation" as if that's a fact.  The LXX translation using "virgin" was perfectly fine with the Jews for the few hundred years before the church adopted it as well.  Read any history of the LXX, and one of the main reasons the Jews abandoned it is because it was popular in the early church.
> 
> Also, let's take a look at context which leaves no doubt, IMO.  Here are the two translations.  The NIV is first with the traditional rendering, and the NET is next with the alternate:
> 
> ...



How many Hebrew speaking jews in the ancient world do you reckon used the septuagint instead of the Hebrew Torah? You're talking about one of a number or translations into a foreign language for use by non-Hebrew speakers. I'm sure if you go through the Septuagint with a fine tooth comb you will find other mistranslations that are of little if any theological importance. It would be like Revelations being translated into Hindi and having a single word mistranslated. It isn't until some group of Indian christians start saying Revelations has been fulfilled in a way differently than what most were expecting and relying on that mistranslation that every jot and tittle of those prophecies get scrutinized.

It says what it says. If you assume the author meant to say virgin based on context then you are left with the fact that the author knew and in other places used the word that unequivocally meant virgin but chose not to use it in this scripture. It is curious to me that anyone who genuinely believes this is the inspired work of a god would just assume the author mean to use a different word and plug it in to make it suit them.

Here is another possible understanding of the context you refer to:

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=23&c=7



> [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.
> 
> Therefore — Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign.
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> How many Hebrew speaking jews in the ancient world do you reckon used the septuagint instead of the Hebrew Torah?



It wasn't written for Hebrew-speaking Jews.  Greek was the international language of that day.  There were many Jews who understood Greek but not Hebrew.  




atlashunter said:


> You're talking about one of a number or translations into a foreign language for use by non-Hebrew speakers.



I'm talking about a translation into THE foreign language of that day.  The world was Greek long before it was Roman.




atlashunter said:


> Here is another possible understanding of the context you refer to:
> 
> http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=23&c=7



Those are John Wesley's notes, and he believed "virgin" was correct.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

Thank you for making my point centerpin. Few Greek speaking jews would have even known about the discrepency and those who were literate in Hebrew had little reason to concern themselves over a single mistranslated word in a Greek text prior to the advent of Christianity. Your defense that the jews went along with the translation until christianity came on the scene comes up short.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Thank you for making my point centerpin. Few Greek speaking jews would have even known about the discrepency and those who were literate in Hebrew had little reason to concern themselves over a single mistranslated word in a Greek text prior to the advent of Christianity. Your defense that the jews went along with the translation until christianity came on the scene comes up short.



You realize, of course, that Jews who did understand Hebrew translated it for the Jews who did not, right?   Greek is a very precise language, and they could have chosen the Greek word for "young woman", but they did not.

Let's list the Hebrew scholars who believe it's a mistranslation:

1)  You

2)  Jews who used the translation for hundreds of years before rejecting it because it was popular in the church.



Gotta get ready for church.  In the meantime, you can think up an answer to this:



centerpin fan said:


> How in the world is a young woman conceiving a sign?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You realize, of course, that Jews who did understand Hebrew translated it for the Jews who did not, right?   Greek is a very precise language, and they could have chosen the Greek word for "young woman", but they did not.
> 
> Let's list the Hebrew scholars who believe it's a mistranslation:
> 
> ...



Shall we assume that the translators who translated from Hebrew to Greek made not a single mistake? That would be quite a feat. At the risk of repeating myself one last time once the translation was done it would have been used for the most part by jews who wouldn't have known the difference and those who would have likely would have seen no reason to make an issue of it (and how do you know for sure there weren't some that did?) until there was a group on the scene claiming the prophecy had been fulfilled.

How about a defense of the translation itself beyond "well the jews didn't fix it for a few hundred years so it must be correct". You're well aware I'm sure of mistranslations and discrepencies among christian manuscripts that lasted for many hundreds of years. Does that make them all equally valid from a linguistic or theological standpoint?





centerpin fan said:


> Gotta get ready for church.  In the meantime, you can think up an answer to this:



Already gave one possible explanation from someone that accepted the virgin translation and yet whose explanation for why it was a sign had nothing to do with virgin birth.

If we assume the prophecy did come from God and God intended the prophecy to say virgin and knew the confusion and potential misunderstanding that would be caused by using the word almah instead of betulah which left no room for confusion, why was the decision made to use the word almah?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2013)

Been pondering this. Keep in mind the basis of the story and do not confuse Matthew 1 with this. The story is about an underdog that defeated his opposition against all odds because God was with him. Not that he was God among them. One thought, why would there be a prophesy that was not verifiable. No one would know if she were really a virgin. Just because the flag on the mail box is down does not mean that there is no mail in the box. It is only an outward sign for the mail man. If I recall, they wore particular clothing to show that one was a virgin. But does that mean that none were guilty of misrepresentation. That in that day there were no incest. So the idea of a unverifible prophesy is weak. On the other hand, it does not seem to be much of a sign that a young woman has a child.   A sign would indicate that something out of the ordinary have taken place. Or another thought that I have never seen could be that the sign is that within the period of a womans pregnacy, God would intervien and this underdog would defeat his opposition against all odds because God were with him. The time period of this being accomplished is the sign. Gotta ponder this some more


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2013)

The story begins with them not asking for a sign that God would help them. So the Lord says I will give you a sign anyway. Being such underdogs, they would realize that it would take a lifetime to reverse their position of weakness so God says that if it happens in 9 months then you will know how it was accomplished, not by your strength but by mine. Just thinking out loud. I should actually go read the text before I get way out in left field.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 13, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Shall we assume that the translators who translated from Hebrew to Greek made not a single mistake? That would be quite a feat. At the risk of repeating myself one last time once the translation was done it would have been used for the most part by jews who wouldn't have known the difference and those who would have likely would have seen no reason to make an issue of it (and how do you know for sure there weren't some that did?) until there was a group on the scene claiming the prophecy had been fulfilled.
> 
> How about a defense of the translation itself beyond "well the jews didn't fix it for a few hundred years so it must be correct". You're well aware I'm sure of mistranslations and discrepencies among christian manuscripts that lasted for many hundreds of years. Does that make them all equally valid from a linguistic or theological standpoint?



First, I would look at the history of Bible translation.  The Hebrew scholars used the word "virgin" in almost all cases.  You can argue that the translators were biased, but they are no more biased than the rabbi you quote above.

More info here:

_The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet._

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah

... and here:

http://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/the-ancient-versions-on-isaiah-7-14/






atlashunter said:


> Already gave one possible explanation from someone that accepted the virgin translation and yet whose explanation for why it was a sign had nothing to do with virgin birth.



You're missing the forest for the trees.  Wesley states that the birth itself is a sign.  He just adds additional commentary on how a future birth applied to the Israelites of that time.

Also, see the second link I posted above.  Justin Martyr makes the same argument that I have been making:

_"... that it would not be a divine sign if the woman would give birth in the natural way.  The sign is precisely that because the Messiah would be born in a supernatural way by a virgin."_




atlashunter said:


> ... why was the decision made to use the word almah?



Maybe Isaiah thought, as I do, that the context made the meaning obvious.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2013)

Skip to 33:23


----------



## centerpin fan (May 15, 2013)

He didn't impress me in post 28, and he doesn't impress me now.


----------

