Objection 4.3: Isaiah

[@junebug2782]

For those folks who do not believe that the Bible is God breathed, this point I will make will be a mute point because one would have to believe that the Holy spirit truly is the one who wrote scripture. but for those folks who do believe that the bible is God breathed, this point is one to consider. Although this word for "virgin" is seemingly under scrutiny in the context Dr. Brown speaks of.... what about Luke 1:34 where Mary herself says "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" .... Mary herself confirms this. why put one verse under such a microscope when there is another verse that confirms the meaning of the first one.

[@DarkBlood666]

the book of luke was written nearly 50 years after jesus's death. Just because the writer of luke, wrote, that mary claimed she was a virgin. Doesn't automatically forcefully change the definitions, or contexts of a verse written 780~ before hand. if I write a new gospel, and speak on marys behalf, without her consultation, and make her claim she was actually an alien with tentacles, and that she was high when she said the things she said in the new testament, does this new book mean it was true ? no.

[@0861USMC]

Mary didn't say that. A Greek writer said that. He wrote the story.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_* The Holy Bible is indeed God breathed.

[@jewishmgtowinthejungle1259]

Jews don't believe in the New Testament. You can't write a new book to try to change definition of previous words.

[@mrsrightways4872]

@@canadiankewldude There are mistakes by the translators and those who copy or print. N I V translation has lots of errors.

[@dominic5520]

PROVERBS 3:5,”LEAN NOT TO THINE UNDERSTANDING BUT IN ALL YOUR WAYS ACKNOWLEDGE THE LORD.”

[@nisimfalach]

היחידים שיודעים את אלוהי ישראל הוא עם ישראל הכל כתוב מפןרש תורת ישראל ״ אתם עדי נאום יהוה עבדי אשר בחרתי ״ גם בספר דברים פרק 29 פסיק 28. אם תרצה ללמוד דרכי אלוהי ישראל תלמד רק מתורת ישראל מעם ישראל אנשי הספר

[@NoghaStar]

@@nisimfalachאיך אתה מסביר את זה שלאורך כמעט כל התנ״ך בני ישראל עבדו אלילים? בני ישראל לא חסינים לחטא אל תחמיא לעצמך

[@Adonaymekonnen]

f it is dual prophecy who was born through virgin birth on the first fulfillment of the prophecy ?? If we say the word is not saying virgin it means young so Matthew is not right , or we christians are deceived

[@rennieraka8314]

@@Adonaymekonnen Its a deception. Whoever wrote Mathew was not really MatitYah (Mathew), they didnt understand Hebrew, that is why when writing this book in Bazentine (greek), prophecies were ripped out of context. Its not just this scripture, alot of scriptures in the New Testament are ripped out of context.

[@iamtheteapot7405]

@@nisimfalachWho do you think Jesus and Peter and Paul were? Ethiopians?

[@flimsyjimnz]

Mary stated she was a *virgin,* - “How can I [get pregnant], since I have not known a man?”

[@Wretched2JZ]

Yea but Jews reject the New Testament credibility being it was written so late. And stories differ from one gospel to the next.

[@RoseSharon7777]

The angel didn't tell her she was currently pregnant. He said she SHALL (future) conceive. That's how you find corruptions in the NT. It's full of inserted lies by the scribes to deceive you. Jer 8.8. Like Paul, John and others warned. Evil men who deceitfully handled the word of God. There was no prophecy anywhere in the bible about a miracle conception given as a sign to anyone. No one can witness a miracle conception therefore it can't be for a sign nor can anyone test or prove such a claim as God said to do. Establish the word of truth by 2 or 3 Witnesses.

[@FriendwithNoName7]

​@@Wretched2JZ No, it was written around 400 years after Malachi, Psalms was also finished just before the New Testament. New Testament writes rabbinical concepts such as the Sabbath walk long before the Talmud.

[@Wretched2JZ]

@@FriendwithNoName7 huh? That’s not right at all tho sir.. you can’t just lump it all in and say “New Testament “. The gospels were all written at different times by different anonymous authors! And Paul’s writing is dated before that even! Mark is the earlier a gospel and when you study that, you see altered and added endings. And lots of copying going on from one to the next. Along with a ton of contradictions! Paul loved to quote phantom “Old Testament “ verses that were never there to begin with too 😆

[@AxilRod72]

Simply making a claim is not proof

[@Sefton419]

He is conceding that it's not a prophecy about a virgin giving birth to God. He keeps referring to it as a "supernatural birth", shying away from the full Christian claim.

[@NancyGarcia-op2kg]

I know one thing everything will be clear when Yeshua returns

[@GodOfMySalvationIsYeshua]

By then, it will be too late, because he comes as judge. Those who rejected him will be without excuse.

[@RoseSharon7777]

He has already returned for those who know the word and can hear the fathers voice. The spirit of truth has already returned. Just like he wasn't recognized in the 1st century, he hasn't been recognized at his 2nd coming. The logos formed IN YOU is the hope of glory. You are supposed to be anointed (the Christ) by God as his witness and suffering servant. A kingly priest that's been given all power and authority to rule and judge over the nation's. Rev. 3:21, Rev. 21:7. Go look in the mirror and see if you can see the Father staring back at you. What do you think being resurrected from the dead is?

[@GeoffSh4rt]

He's already returned once when he allegedly rose from the dead. He achieved absolutely nothing the first time and absolutely nothing the second time. Why think it's going to be third time lucky?

[@iamtheteapot7405]

@@RoseSharon7777but to those who say look the Christ is here or there, do not listen. For every eye shall see Him coming in the clouds. *paraphrase

[@Sefton419]

You sound like you're trying to sell a used car without an engine.

[@awakentruth3360]

Bethula means virgin who has not slept with a man. Almar is a female who is at a age where she can become pregnant .. So Bethula is in relation to someone, who has not had sex yet, so if a female at the age, who is already reached her flower and is at the age of 22 as a example, then that woman is Bethula.

[@RoseSharon7777]

There was no miracle conception EVER prophecies in the bible given to king AHAZ as A SIGN. No one can test or prove it by 2 or 3 Witnesses as required.

[@Doaremon-bw7iz]

Almah is a Hebrew word that means a young woman who is ready for marriage. Doesn't mean she was not virgin.

[@KitKatbar200]

@@Doaremon-bw7izI mean it can but yeah that’s true

[@tookie36]

He didn’t even answer it. The only explanation was “bc it was in the Greek translation”

[@Jack-vy2vx]

Another possible manner in which Christians try to resolve the difficulties inherent in such a stance, is through the claim of a “dual prophecy”. A prophecy that has two applications, two fulfillments. 1. Why should we assume that there are two fulfillments of this prophecy ? There appears to be absolutely no reason to assume such an interpretation, other than, a will to insert Christian theology. 2. If dual prophecy were to have application, one could arbitrarily insert whatever he desires, wherever he wants. Can we honestly consider this mode of interpretation ? 3. As we said in note 1, there is no reason two apply dual prophecy. In fact, being that the context clearly refers to an event occurring in the now, this would preclude any suggestion of “another prophecy”. By applying the context, we encounter many challenges. There is no reason to believe in dual prophecy because there is absolutely no anchor upon which to base it on. The context doesn’t support this duality. How so? 4. If the intent is, as well, to a future prophecy, 700 years later, this is incongruent, for Ahaz requires only a sign relavent to him. It’s utterly superfluous to allude to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on general context) 5. Ahaz is currently surrounded by enemies he doesn’t need an allusion to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:2)I 6. God wants to mend Ahaz’s fear about impeding war, it’s utterly superfluous to mention a virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:4) 7. The sign is relevant to before when this child will distinguish between right and wrong, at that time Ahaz’s enemies will fall, there is no reason to allude to a virgin birth 700 hundreds in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:15-16) 8. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה, is rooted in the word עלם/alam, a primitive root signifying “strength and endurance” (similar to the Aramaic עלים), hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”(exodus 19:9), from the root עלם/alam, for endurance, strength, is rooted in עלם/alam. We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, rather it’s an expression of vigor, and, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely. 9. Furthermore, and very interestingly, if it’s a dual prophecy, what other virgin birth is being alluded to in Ahaz’s time? Isn’t there only one virgin birth? Only one Jesus ? All the more so, is this difficult, being that the main prophecy is undoubtedly for Ahaz, as clearly established contextually, this would imply that the principal “virgin birth” is relevant to Ahaz’s time. This last objection completely undermines the uniqueness of the Christian claim. It’s quite ironic, the answer they try to promote, actually creates the grounds to contradict Christianity at its core…..

[@dibarra5461]

Dual prophecy is not only applied in Christianity. It's applied in the very Hebrew scriptures. Like Jeremiah 31:15 where Jeremiah speaks of the mourning of Rachel about her children, but he also means the exile of the tribe of Benjamin by the Assyrians. If you read carefully the Hebrew scriptures, you'd see that there's a pattern in God's punishments and promises.

[@raveneye3088]

I completely agree with your points and it was Isaiah 7 that was the nail in the coffin for me with Christianity. This kind of reasoning is mental gymnastics of the most violent proportions on the intellect. I can’t fathom how 2 billion Christians find this explanation satisfying and it’s the only explanation they got. An explanation is not proof. It’s just an explanation and this explanation is so stretched it completely snaps.

[@dibarra5461]

@@raveneye3088 I see this in Isaiah 7. Not even Judaism agrees on who was this almah and this Immanuel who were supposed to be born in Ahaz time. It is never mentioned again, which is weird, because this was a promise from God, and God never backs down in His promises. The most fitting character for the child that was born and then the 2 enemy kings were killed was Isaiah's son, but the problem is Isaiah's wife wasn't an almah. In biblical context an almah is a young unmarried woman, therefore a virgin according to God's law. So many scholars agree that, like many times in the scriptures, God didn't fulfill the prophecy because Israel didn't listen to him. However God didn't forget His promise, and He was gonna fulfill it in a different time, and that's why Matthew, a jew, remembered this passage and concluded that this prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.

[@jayd4ever]

not all prophecies jews claim clearly say this is linked to the messiah

[@dibarra5461]

@@jayd4ever Many rabbis have said it is, many have said it's not. The point is that it's a lie to say that all of Judaism agrees that it's not a messianic prophecy.

[@jaqian]

And yet Matthew one of the Apostles clearly cites Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

[@IDMtv]

Read chapter 7 from the beginning all the way thru chapter 8

[@0861USMC]

The Greek writer of Mathew wrote this story 50 years after the crucifixion. The four Gospels are not authentic. All are Educated Greek writers.

[@jayd4ever]

@@0861USMC many Jews at that time started learning Greek espically christian jews after the church left israel toward syria and turkey and egypt

[@unmaskinglies1327]

@@jayd4ever which christian? second and 3rd century? the 1rst century christian were jewish! they called christian by the roman greek because they believed that thier leader is a fullfilment of thier jewish scriptures prophycies about Messiah who save them of invaders romans...Messiah in jewish scripture is a warrior, leverators...but god nor leteral son of god! niether a virgin birth! is not jewish! it is a roman pagan greek myth!

[@FriendwithNoName7]

​@@0861USMC Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@chad969]

Dr. Brown, why exactly is the initial fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 9:6 insufficient to explain what is meant by those verses? Why assume that there was ever intended to be a prophetic double meaning behind the text?

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

cuz he's an apologist. they lie

[@Jack-vy2vx]

Regarding Isaiah 7:14, the context is utterly irrelevant to some future prophecy about a virgin birth. The chapter must be read in its proper context. The chapter deals with various enemies’ threats against Judah, and the ensuing wars. Verses 1-10 discuss impending wars, and that Ahaz should not be afraid, as their plans won’t come to fruition. Verse 11 conveys that Ahaz should, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God..”. Ask a sign regarding this harm not befalling him. Verse 12 tells us that Ahaz decided not to ask and test God. Verse 13 has Isaiah insisting that he should ask. Verse 14 finally relates that the sign will be given anyways. And what’s the sign? According to the gospels, the correct understanding is that, “There will be a virgin birth a few hundred years down the line”. What about Ahaz’s concerns? Nah, God would rather tell him about some irrelevant virgin birth that will occur a few hundred years later. Ahaz shouldn’t be afraid of impending war because in a few hundred years Jesus is coming! This makes no coherent sense. Also, to make this clearer, it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16) This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong. Now, according to the the gospels, Ahaz’s enemies will only be dead a few hundred years later, some time before Jesus will distinguish between wrong and right, not only will they have disappeared long before this time, he, himself, will have also perished. This conveys nothing about his current predicament. In other words, the meaning of the verse would imply, “Ahaz don’t be afraid, actually, be very afraid. This is pure butchery. Or, perhaps, in order to make the context more relavent to the Christian interpretation, some could claim that Ahaz was concerned with the “Davidic dynasty”, that it shouldn’t perish, and that he was reassured by the sign of there being a virgin birth 700 years later, insinuating that the “Davidic line” will survive. 1. First off, there is absolutely no allusion in the text of Ahaz being concerned with the preservation of the “Davidic line”. Rather, the only matter that could be derived from the verses, according to their simple meaning, is fear of immanent danger, as expressed by the members of Ahaz’s brethren, Ahaz included. There is no altruistic concern. The verses speak of fear, not some type of consideration for the future. As it says, “And 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.” (Isaiah 7:2) Also, “And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint…”. (Isaiah 7:4) The verses undoubtedly and clearly convey “fear”, fear of enemy attack. This cannot be overlooked. At this point we could actually stop, however, purely for argument’s sake, let us conjure that this consideration was present, aside for the fear. We can’t obviate his “fear”, nevertheless, perhaps we could say that he was genuinely concerned with the crown being snatched from David? Now, on the other hand, we can’t say he was only concerned with the “Davidic line”, never mind the lack of it’s mention, contextually, from what the verses actually say, the fear element is emphasized, both from his perspective and from God’s response. And these “fear elements” would be quite superfluous if this were the only intention. 2. Now, even if this unfounded concern was true, the subject remains plagued with difficulties. Whether we say that he is “also concerned with the Davidic line”, or “only concerned”, what type of a sign is it if he can’t witness it? Every sign in the Bible is something the individual witnesses, and whereby comes to trust. A sign is suppose to create trust not be contingent upon trust, that defeats the purpose of a sign. The sign is rendered useless, if implemented for this purpose. 3. And, now, the question that naturally follows from our previous objection, wouldn’t the birth of someone in his own days be of much greater pertinence, and a true sign he can relate to ? If you would have to choose between one and the other, the choice is obvious. 4. Back to the “fear” element. Ahaz has enemies breathing down his neck, an immediate concern, the fact that the Davidic line survives 700 years later, does not in any way address the immediate need for protection. For it still doesn’t mean he will survive his enemies’ attacks, it just means the line will somehow survive. Granted, that he was also concerned for the Davidic line, according to this interpretation, we cannot remove the fact that the verses speak of his own terror, and even of God’s response telling him “not to fear”. This dread is not in any way being attended to with a sign 700 years later. (Based on the general context and response from God, Isaiah 7:1-14) 5. The verses also indicate that there is an immediate relevance with the sign and the impending threat. As it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16). This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong. The verse clearly reassures him regarding enemies that he now faces, and that they will perish before this child distinguishes between right and wrong. Now, if the matter is contingent upon Jesus’ birth, 700 years later, before he distinguishes between right and wrong, this would render his enemies perishing utterly impertinent. For the verse would then be saying, “Don’t worry your enemies won’t be destroyed for another 700 years! By that time, everyone will be long gone, himself included. The sign cannot be associated to Ahaz in a manner that deals with the future, the intent bound to the consideration of the “Davidic line”. (Based on Isaiah 7:14-17) 6. Furthermore, another very important example of how the sign must entirely be relevant to Ahaz. In verse 7 it is stated, “So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.” This is clearly referring to the plans of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, with their ally Efraim. They won’t succeed in harming him. A concern for the “Davidic line” is impertinent to his being harmed, being that they are not mutually exclusive; because he may be harmed, yet, the Davidic would still survive. Therefore, you are coerced to say, that when God sends him a sign, the sign will support the very thing God spoke about. This is the only concern God himself mentioned. Consequently, the sign can only be that which addresses this matter, and this matter only. Remember, the sign must corroborate him not getting harmed. The fact that he has a descendant born of a virgin 700 years later, in no way assures his immediate safety. He may perish, yet, have have descendants. The two have no pertinence. (Based on Isaiah 7:7 and 7:14) 7. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה. The root word being עלם, a primitive root signifying strength and endurance, hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”, (exodus 19:9); endurance is rooted in עלם. (This is unlike the root for betulah/בתולה, from the root בתל, a primitive root signifying “separate and or secluded”, etymologically related to the root badal/בדל, which conveys a similar meaning, namely, “separate and divide”. Each expressing, however, a different type of separation. One exclusively used to express chastity. We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, but rather strength and endurance, vigor, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.

[@midiacomica88]

Fascinating! Please enlighten me once more with etymologies... What about the word betulah? And when it comes to almah... I"ve read that is comes from "to conceal". Is there any truth to it? Thanks!

[@Jack-vy2vx]

@@midiacomica88 I will elaborate with pleasure. Absolutely, the root עלם/alam also conveys “concealment” (for example Leviticus 4:13; Dt 22:1) Nevertheless, albeit that some roots appear to have two completely disparate meanings, this is on account of our not fulling comprehending their “literal” meaning. In truth, the more literal significance of the root עלם/Alam is “to tie up or surround”. It has a similar cognate meaning with the root אלם/Alam, where the first root letter is an “Alef/א”, instead of an “Ayin/ע”, both expressing the idea of “tying up and surrounding” in different ways. (The Letters Alef and Ayin are both considered guttural letters, and can be interchangeable) Thus, in our case, when we’ve previously identified the root “Alam” to denote “strength, endurance, vigour”, as is clearly the case in Exodus 19:9, and, even so, we find that “Alam” also expresses “concealment”, as is lucidly conveyed in Leviticus 4:13, perforce, there is an underlying meaning, which is “to tie up and surround”. For that which is “concealed”, is also “bound up” like a package whose content is unknown, or like that which is bound or locked up somewhere unknown to man. And, so, too, that which is “strong, steady enduring” can be seen as “surrounded or bound”, protected and stable in an impenetrable and unshakable manner. Hence, the two verses and meanings find a resolution with a clearer understanding of the literal meaning. Regarding the root for Betulah, which is Batal/בתל, every single instance in which it is used in the Bible, it always, uniquely conveys, a “separation” in the realm of chastity. It’s mentioned approximately 50 times, and it never means anything else. As we said, its an etymological cognate of the root badal/בדל, which conveys a similar meaning, namely, “separate and divide”. Now, to illustrate how ridiculous the contention that Alma means “virgin”, i will provide but one example, among many: The word alma/עלמה for a “young girl” has a parallel word used to describe a young boy, elem/עלם. When Saul enquires after David, he is discussing the matter with Abner, and it states, “And the king said, "Find out whose son is this elem." (Samuel 17:56) This would accordingly be translated as: “And the King said, “Find out whose son is this (male) virgin”. Quite an outrageous and inappropriate question. Or, when Saul asks him directly, “ “Whose son are you, virgin boy?” Saul asked him. Does anyone want to seriously follow through with such an assertion, disgrace the Bible ?!

[@zeetemz8443]

God bless you for sharing this. Rabbi Tovia Singer has said a lot about this. Thanks for the clarification 👍

[@unmaskinglies1327]

rabbi tovia singer is honest!

[@ConsideringPhlebas]

@@unmaskinglies1327 He really isn't.

[@TBD3.0]

@@ConsideringPhlebas I agree

[@FriendwithNoName7]

​@@unmaskinglies1327 no

[@FriendwithNoName7]

Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@jvlp2046]

I am just BAFFLED/PUZZLED... Questions: 1. Why the Jewish Rabbis interpreted the Prophecy of Isaiah differently from the Christians Theologians?... 2. How do the Christian Rabbis/apologetics see clearly the interpretation of Prophet Isaiah but the Jewish rabbis did not see it? 2. Who has the FULL authority to interpret the Prophecy of Isaiah, the Jewish Scholars or Christian Scholars?... 3. Will Prophet Isaiah write something that contradicts the Jewish belief and interpretation?... 4. Why does Prophet Isaiah never explain his Prophecy, does he know what it was all about and why he wrote it but did not explain it to the Jews? 5. Do you mean to say, only AFTER the Christians were founded by Christ Jesus that Prophet Isaiah's Prophecy was interpreted CLEARLY and CORRECTLY different from what the Jews had interpreted before Christ Jesus arrived in this world? 6. If we go Go back in time to before Christ Jesus was born, would the Prophecy of Isaiah be the same interpretation as today?... the Jews back then should have understood those matters before Christ Jesus was born... why should be now different? 7. Is there any Public Debate between Jewish Rabbis and Christian Rabbis/Apologetics we could watch regarding this topic, the Isaiah Prophecy of the Virgin Maiden who gave Birth?

[@FriendwithNoName7]

You can watch Tovia Singer vs Micheal Brown debate, yes Rabbis of old would have seen it as a Messianic prophecy, remember that the New Testament came before the Talmud and it is th most ancient jewish theology we have. Rabbinical Judaism came long after and even they held to many of the same views as the Christians at first such as Isaiah 53 being Messianic or Psalm 22. Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@jamilbiotech91]

@@FriendwithNoName7so how many virgin births occurred? One or two?

[@benny-yj7pq]

@@jamilbiotech91 The Messiah is hidden in the Tanach. He is a hidden God (EL) (Isa 45:15), but revealed in the NT. The NT reveals the NEW COVENANT (Jer 31). The words of the Messiah Yeshua have to be believed, or the Jews, including Rabbis, are cut off (Deut 18) from the seed of Israel. They have still a religion, but cannot have a relationship with the living God, because this is only available through the New Covenant, which is Christ and to receive Him, is to receive His Father also. Therefore, He said, no one comes to the Father, but through Me (John 14:6ff). Now Isaiah gives this prophecy in a current event about King Ahaz and his enemies. The prophecy is about the suffering Messiah at His first coming and about the House of David and is written in future tense, Verse 13+14. The almah, which is a virgin of the House of David, bears the Son of Man, the Son of God, who suffers for our sins (Isa 53). The NT reveals that Mirjam did not know any man and the angel Gabriel tells her how she will get with child and that child will save Israel from their sins and shall be called Son of God. There is only one Messiah promised to King David and one miracle prophesied, the sign of the virgin birth. The Tanach does not reveal everything about the Messiah. Even the disciples of Yeshua had problems to believe His gospel, because they thought, the Messiah would redeem them from the Romans and bring about the restoration of Israel in their time. Also, His disciples had to wait on God to receive the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth. Yeshua taught them 40 days after His resurrection about His coming Kingdom and John got the revelation of who Yeshua is, the first and the last (Rev 2:8) and that He is the Word of God (Rev 19:13+15), who will come and redeem Israel and judge the nations.

[@benny-yj7pq]

@@jamilbiotech91 The Messiah is hidden in the Tanach. He is a hidden God (EL) (Isa 45:15), but revealed in the NT. The NT reveals the NEW COVENANT (Jer 31). The words of the Messiah Yeshua have to be believed, or the Jews, including Rabbis, are cut off (Deut 18) from the seed of Israel. They have still a religion, but cannot have a relationship with the living God, because this is only available through the New Covenant, which is Christ and to receive Him, is to receive His Father also. Therefore, He said, no one comes to the Father, but through Me (John 14:6ff). Now Isaiah gives this prophecy in a current event about King Ahaz and his enemies. The prophecy is about the suffering Messiah at His first coming and about the House of David and is written in future tense, Verse 13+14. The almah, which is a virgin of the House of David, bears the Son of Man, the Son of God, who suffers for our sins (Isa 53). The NT reveals that Mirjam did not know any man and the angel Gabriel tells her how she will get with child and that child will save Israel from their sins and shall be called Son of God. There is only one Messiah promised to King David and one miracle prophesied, the sign of the virgin birth. The Tanach does not reveal everything about the Messiah. Even the disciples of Yeshua had problems to believe His gospel, because they thought, the Messiah would redeem them from the Romans and bring about the restoration of Israel in their time. Also, His disciples had to wait on God to receive the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth. Yeshua taught them 40 days after His resurrection about His coming Kingdom and John got the revelation of who Yeshua is, the first and the last (Rev 2:8) and that He is the Word of God (Rev 19:13+15), who will come and redeem Israel and judge the nations.

[@TheZenGarden_]

Isaiah 43 *11 I, even I, Am YHWH; and beside Me there is NO saviour.*

[@TheZenGarden_]

@Gogi Benny Isaiah 45 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me. 22 Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I Am God, *and there is none else.*

[@TheZenGarden_]

@ Hosea 13 4 Yet I Am YHWH thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but Me: for there is NO saviour beside Me. "the son" = Exodus 4 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH, Israel (Deut.28:15-68) is My son, even My firstborn:

[@TheZenGarden_]

@ The "new testament" does not belong with the Tanakh. And the Quran's origin came from the same place "christianity" did, but by all means believe whatever you want.

[@someonethatisachristian]

Exactly. and so we have the trinity. Deuteronomy 6:4 for example, ECHAD is the word for one... it means unity in oneness. Elohim is a plural word. Christians have always understood God as the WORD / MEMRA of God. Check targum, it specifically says it was the WORD of God that litteraly WALKS (making sounds) with Adam and Eve in the garden. In Jeremiah 1, Jeremiah talks with God in the shape of a man named the WORD.

[@gk8356]

A SON IS BORN , A CHILD IS GIVEN TO US WHOSE NAME IS WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, MIGHTY GOD, ETERNAL FATHER AND PRINCE OF PEACE - ISIAH 9:6

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

You've got to be kidding. This is a prophecy of an imminent birth?? Jesus was born 700 years later. Helloooooooooo!

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@TJordan14 No sure what you are answering "no" to. I listened to Brown again and it amazes me what a liar he is. There's no messianic prophecy here. What in the world is he talking about? The word besulah doesn't necessarily mean virgin?? Oh no?? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just uninformed but this word is all over the place. Look in Judges 21:12 and 2 Samuel 13:2. He can't really believe what he's saying. Unless this guy is ignorant, he is obviously lying. And what about the following verses which show very clearly that the sign will come about when this boy is very young and Ahaz's troubles will be over. This is going to happen imminently. Look at 15-16. Is he just ignoring these verses? This is so simple!

[@stephensybenga6099]

@@nothingbutthetruth613 you are 100% correct, and I don't think Dr Brown can plead ignorance here, looks like deliberate lying to me. There's no messianic prophecy to be found here and the sign has nothing to do with how the child is conceived. Only those who will themselves to be deceived can fall prey to this false teaching. He is leading many astray with their consent.

[@johnnybrave7443]

@@nothingbutthetruth613 bethula can't mean a virgin in Esther chapter 2, Joel 1:8

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@johnnybrave7443 not sure what you're talking about. Did you look at Esther? What makes you think this can't be a virgin? Don't you think the king of most of the civilized world would be seeking the best possible? Do you really think he'd marry a girl that's not a virgin? Regardless, it doesn't say or indicate at all what it's refering to. Same thing with Joel. It doesn't say at all that this is not a virgin. And besides all that, even if besula doesn't always mean virgin, it usually does. However, alma never means virgin. That's the point.

[@johnnybrave7443]

@@nothingbutthetruth613Almah in the Bible is always used to refer to a young woman who is not married yet - a maiden, and maidens are considered as virgins unless proven otherwise. Makes good sense as to why the Jews who translated the Septuagint chose the word Parthenos which mostly if not always, means virgin.

[@raysherlock2324]

Thank God for the Holy Spirit I received it,no man can take it from me or no book can describe in words what happens when you receive the Holy Spirit it's a spiritual birth, Just like Jesus said, Jesus is the Way Truth and Life.

[@OmarOsman98]

You got a demon

[@FriendwithNoName7]

​@@OmarOsman98 If he has Holy Spirit, why say he has got a demon?

[@Historylover94]

The book of Acts clearly states how the Apostles and early Church received the Holy Spirit

[@FriendwithNoName7]

@@Historylover94 Trough Jesus Christ

[@Historylover94]

@@FriendwithNoName7 exactly and the sign or evidence provided was that each and every person in scripture that recieved the Holy Spirit all spoke in tongues, and there is no other sign given for it

[@freefree526]

With all due respect very convoluted discourse.

[@ts8960]

apologists just attempt to cast confusion and doubt in your brain rather than giving proper responses. Dr Brown has failed here.

[@ThePreacherman9]

Yeshua is God

[@baubljos103]

Isaiah 7:14 taken by Christians out of it's context and used to support their pre-conceived theology may superficially appear as support. But, there's numerous reasons to doubt Is 7:14 which Dr. Brown appears to have ignored. 1. Absurd that King Ahaz would be comforted by any birth - virgin or not - because the context shows that his concern was the survival of his kingdom. 2. Absurd that Ahaz would be comforted by a birth - even of a man-god - 700 years in the future because Ahaz was dealing with an immediate threat. 3. Ancient Judaic literature often referred to Israel as the "son", see Hosea 11:1 " “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Similarly, the "son" that Isaiah predicted was Israel. 4. In theory, if the Christian church has mis-used Isaiah 7:14 to support their Jesus/God/Virgin Birth agenda - then it stands to reason that the Jesus agenda does not have support in the NT, nor the OT which would explain why the Church had to falsify ancient scripture to support their theology. It also stands to reason that the same church would falsify other scripture.

[@jenex5608]

Dr Brown explained everything perfectly. in Matthew 1:23 Matthew was referencing the Greek Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures from the 5th BCE onwards before Christ, and most definitely before the Masoretic Text in which the modern tanakh uses. The Greek Septuagint uses the word virgin is isaiah 7:14, and was thought to be a virgin among the jews in that era. Not really a mis-translation to support false theology. If you are talking about changing and corrupting God's word how about we talk how the Jews corrupted Psalm 22:17(Psalm 22:16 in Christian Bible) in the tanakh "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet" the Jewish Masoretic Text edited in 1549 in which is where the hebrew bible comes from changes "pierced my hands" to "like a lion", changing the Hebrew "“כארו”(meaning to digging, refering digging into hand which when translated is piercing into hand" , to "כארי" (meaning lion) changing Vav to Yod. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion my hands and my feet Where the Greek Septuagint( which exited way before the masoretic text in which the tanakh is derived from ) says "digging my hands" and also the dead sea scrolls which predates the masoretic text by 1000 years. This has been looked into textual scholars and historians comparing various ancient manuscripts, and have all agreed the modern Jewish bible(torah, ketuvim and neevim) is different, and possible reason is they corrupted or changed it. Please explain this

[@baubljos103]

@@jenex5608 If you wanna go Greek - you'll find lots of stories about gods that have sex with women and create sem-gods: Alexander the great; Hercules; Buhda, Krishna; Hermes - the list goes on and on. It's a classic Greek device. When it was time to explain Jesus to the pagans - the church called him a semi-god born of a virgin - that way the pagans would accept him. But it's not Judaic. Isaiah did not write that. The word is actually "young woman". הָעַלְמָ֗ה BTW, Jesus's name is not "immanuel". Psalm 22:16. I understand that Christian church needed Old Testament support for their Jesus agenda, so they translated Psalm 22:16 to include "they pierced my hands and feet", and claim that the "piercing" is a prophecy about Jesus being crucified. But the Judaic Hebrew version is not "piercing". The Judaic Hebrew version is "...like a lion they are at my hands and feet". The Hebrew Judaic version does not support the Christian Jesus agenda - so the christian church had to change the translation to fit their theology. You are free to rely on your scholars. Go for it. Technically, doing so is a fallacy of logic called "appeal to authority". But - go ahead. This is the term: " כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י" I understand that it means "like a lion". It does not mean "pierced my hands and feet". Maybe the question you could ask is whether your "scholars and historians" spoke Hebrew, or whether they were Christian? Maybe the Christians should just forget about the Tenakh and use their own scriptures. Let the Jews have their own scripture.

[@jenex5608]

@@baubljos103 "If you wanna go Greek - you'll find lots of stories about gods that have sex with women and create sem-gods: Alexander the great; Hercules; Buhda, Krishna; Hermes" what does this prove exaclty? Need i also remind you that Jews also worshipped pagan gods under babylonian exile? the Greek Septuagint was translated by Jewish scribes during the hellenistic period. and was used and venerated by Rabbis, and Jews. This was one of the version of the old testament the Jews used before the destruction of the temple and the masoretic text. And its already been analyzed by scholars. The other version of the old testament is the dead sea scrolls which says the same thing "pierced my hands and feet" The name immanuel describes Jesus as God with us, read Isaiah 9:6. Second of all the greek septuagint was used by the vass majority of the jews before the destuction of the temple, and the dead sea scrolls that predates the masoretic text also uses כאר to mean to pierce. So this is a clear alteration. Here is a link better explaining Psalm www.ancient-hebrew.org/psalms/psalm-22-17-like-a-lion-or-they-pierced.htm Here is how it changed to כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י Bible such as the KJV translates from the first edition of the masoretic text before the edition Ben Chayyim edited a second version and the change of which is vac was added to כאר to make it look like its like a lion. The Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, has "like a lion" in the text of Psalm 22:16(17). However, Ben Chayyim in the Massorah Finalis of the fourth volume of the Second Rabbinical Bible states: "In some correct Codices I have found כארו as the Kethiv [= textual reading] and כארי as the Keri [= the official marginal reading];" (Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1896), p. 969). There are also some early witnesses to the reading “כארו”. A manuscript of Psalm 22 found at Nachal Hever (5/6Hev ­ Col. XI, frag. 9) supposedly from the 1st century has “כארו” (Tim Hegg, Studies in the Biblical Text, "Psalm 22:16 - "like a lion" or "they pierced"?"). The NIV 2010 footnote says "pierced" is the reading found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac". Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says “כארו” is the kethib, or marginal reading. So "כארו" is preserved as a minority reading in the Masoretic tradition. It has long been known that the LXX has “ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας” (they dug my hands and feet). The Vulgate also has “dig” (foderunt). Before the masoretic text ever existed the other variants of the old testament included "pierced" not "like a lion". I've given you various examples

[@baubljos103]

@@jenex5608 You are free to rely on Jeff Benner. But there's problems with your "pierced my hands" hypothesis. First, Read the full Psalm 22 chapter and you'll see that "lion" is mentioned twice, and would be 3 times if the "ari" is actually a lion. In other words the "lion" hypothesis fits best because the author mentioned "lion" in other verses of the same chapter. Second, the context shows that the author is describing the "lion" as a metaphor for an attack against the author. The author writes "Save me from the lion's mouth" in verse 21, and "13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion" in verse 13. Doubtful that a lion would "pierce" his "hands and feet". But it is very plausible that the lion would behave "like a lion" - because it is a lion. But your glorious scholar Benner - avoids the context within that chapter and dodges out of the chapter, out of the book, and out of the bible and into the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to defend his hypothesis. Third, the "pierce" hypothesis does not fit because the author uses other animal metaphors to describe his situation. He describes being "despised by the people" (people are animals); he describes "bulls have encompassed me" (bulls are animals); he describes "dogs have encompassed me" (dogs are animals); he describes "the horns of unicorns" (unicorns are animals); and as mentioned above the author describes "lions" which is also an animal. So, it stands to reason that the author would use the "lion" as a metaphor to describe the attack against him because it fits with all the other animals attacks, whereas getting "pierced hands" is not really comparable to an animal attack. Fourth, although I admire your argument, I think you failed to overcome the christian church corruption hypothesis. Namely, that the christian church would have a powerful interest in corrupting scriptures in order to promote their Jesus prophecy agenda. IN other words, the christian church was desperately in need of prophetic claims in favor of their Jesus:man/god. So - sticking the "pierced" hands claim into Psalms is a plausible route for what could be a corrupt christian church. The Isaiah 9 "child" is Israel - not Jesus. Ancient Judiac prophets frequently referred to Israel as a "son" or child. See for example Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a CHILD, then I loved HIM, and called by SON out of Egypt". So - essentially - Israel is the "child" and the "son" and a "him" - not Jesus. Christian church has a Jesus/God/Messiah agenda so they have brain-washed people into the false belief that Jesus was prophesied. But no - it was prophecy about Israel. Sorry! Please forgive me if I hurt your feelings. Isaiah 7:14 does not mention "Jesus". It refers to Immanuel but that's just a name. Question is : who does the name belong to? Is there any reason that Isaiah would tell Ahaz about Jesus in the 700 year future? No! Ahaz was King of Judea, and was in trouble because Israel tribes to the North had allied with other nations to attack Ahaz. So Ahaz needed relief right away - right then - not 700 years in the future. So Isaiah told Ahaz that Israel would survive - like a "son" and eat honey and butter. The survival would being right away - that's what in the context of Isaiah 7. So your Isaiah 7:14 "Jesus/Immanual" hypothesis is not supported by the history, nor by the context, nor by the metaphorical use of "son" "child" to describe Israel. Seems to me you've been tricked by the Christain church into false beliefs about ancient scripture. All you gotta do is read the whole chapter and you can see that the Church is a liar.

[@baubljos103]

@@jenex5608 Please accept my thanks to you for engaging on the Isaiah/Matthew/Virgin issue. Because your response lead me to do more research. I researched your "the Greek Septuagint... which was the Hebrew version of the scriptures" claim, and found 2 errors: 1. that the article you used ("the") is inappropriate because there's apparently many multiple versions of Greek Septuagint. So, you may have been more accurate to say "one of the many Greek Septuagint translations...." 2. Another problem with your claim about "the Greek Septuagint" as a guide for Isaiah, is that the original "Greek Septuagint" was only the 1st 5 books - of Moses - it did not include Isaiah. In other words the original Greek translation to the library of Alexandria was the Torah - which does not include Isaiah, nor does it accurately represent the "Hebrew scriptures" that you claim. Although it was scholarly and accepted - bla bla bla. So, apparently, you've taken at least 2 errors and wrapped them up in a "textual scholars" claim and then stuck a "all agreed" bow on it to proclaim the accuracy of your hypothesis. Thank you! I would not have looked into this corruption except for your claims. The question is : what word did the original Isaiah use? Was it it "young woman" or "virgin"?

[@GeoffSh4rt]

You say that the Hebrew word "betulah" only means virgin when used in a legal context. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Joel 1:8

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

he's full of malarky. apologists lie

[@benevolent6705]

Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the verses that follow. It anticipated no further opinion. "Then the Lord said to me, 'Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it [a]in ordinary letters: [b]Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey. 2 And [c]I will take to Myself faithful witnesses for testimony, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.” 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, 'Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry out ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” (Isiah 8:1-4)

[@someonethatisachristian]

so the sign to the house of David is, says you because you can't deal with the fact of the virgin birth, a woman becoming pregnant. Wow, what a sign! Here's lots of signs: www.naukrinama.com/stressbuster/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/6-26.jpg .. a sign of what? oh right, the sign of a boy named Bob Harry Nelson, and before he can sing the national anthem, Britain will invade Spain. Makes perfect sense... bravo 👏

[@chad969]

@@someonethatisachristian ," a woman becoming pregnant. Wow, what a sign! " A purported virgin birth centuries after king Ahaz died and the threat to Judah and Benjamin was eliminated. Wow, what a sign! Ahaz must have been watching from his grave thinking, "Finally! Now we will be saved from the northern armies!"

[@someonethatisachristian]

@@chad969 the sign is to the house of David

[@chad969]

@@someonethatisachristian It was for Ahaz and the house of David. But let's say I grant that the sign was only for the house of David. Based on the context, what was the sign supposed to indicate? The answer can be found in Isaiah 7:16-17. "for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, *the* *land* *of* *the* *two* *kings* *you* *dread* *will* *be* *laid* *waste.* 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah, *he* *will* *bring* *the* *king* *of* *Assyria.”* (Isaiah 7:16-17) The birth of Jesus didn't indicate anything like that since it happened hundreds of years later. Dr Brown even acknowledges that this verse had an initial fulfillment with some unknown figure. At the end of the day, the Christian case rests on a bald assertion that there's a prophetic double meaning behind the text of Isaiah 7:14.

[@someonethatisachristian]

@@chad969 No, Ahaz did not want a sign, so verse 13 says:"Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?" And then comes the sign. And what exactly is the significance of this sign acording to you? That a woman giving birth somehow shows God is with Judah?

[@malpercio123]

The sign was for the house of David, it's about Judahs survival through the syro-ephramite war. The birth of the messiah was a sign that God would keep His promise to David, and therefore Ahaz would not be destroyed by Syria and ephraim. In isaiah 8 we see the immediate fulfillment which was isaiah's son, whereas 9 discusses the birth of immanuel, the one to whom Israel belongs, and the one who is called the mighty God

[@nashashbel6922]

But Achaz didn't care about it. What he did ? He went to Tigleth Pileser asking for help to protect Judah , offering the Assyrian king gold and stuff ( 2 Kings 16) The result was positive as Assyria destroyed Damascus , killing Retzin and sent Damas to exile. The main point is the House of David.

[@ChristianGirlwhoLovesJesus]

Many people miss this - This is a double fullfilled prohesy, and its explained below. Note what ISAIAH 8:6-7 says, along with the meanings of all the children. 👇 The original sign of ISAIAH 7:14-16, they all *refused/REJECTED* - *ISAIAH 8:6* is clear that they refused the waters of Shiloh *(Immanuel/Messiah Genesis 49:10-11)* , therefore, *IF* they accepted the sign *(the waters of Shiloh/Messiah)* , those kings Ahaz feared would have been destroyed before the child (Immanuel) reached the age of 12 or 13, and God would have redeemed them, *BUT* because Ahaz chose to reject the sign *(Immanuel/Shiloh/Messiah)* and instead, hired the King of Assyriah, instead of trusting God's plan, God instead brought in a child named *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* which means *Quickly to the spoil/plunder* and brought upon them the Rivers of destruction instead the waters of Shiloh that go softly. Really pay attention to all the names of all 3 children - it's a prophesy. The apostles knew the prophesy very well. The child Immanuel is the Messiah - The waters of Shiloh - Ahaz and the people rejected him so they brought on their destruction - sound familiar? *NOW LETS SUMMARIZE* 👇 Pay attention to the names of the 3 children - why was it important to include Isaiah's son? *BECAUSE* there's a prophesy in all the kids names. See below. *ISAIAH 7:3* 3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and *SHEARJASHUB* thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; Prophesy #1 - *SHEARJASHUB* means *_(A REMNANT SHALL RETURN)_* *ISAIAH 7:14-16* 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* . Prophesy #2 - Immanuel means *_(GOD MANIFESTED IN FLESH - GOD WITH US)_* - waters of Shiloh rejected by his people *ISAIAH 8:3* 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* . Prophesy #3 *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* means *_(DESTRUCTION)_* - Because they rejected their Messiah, destruction came instead. *READ ISAIAH 8:6-7 - THIS SUMMARIZES WHAT I SAID* Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly *_(IMMANUEL)_* , and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks *_(MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ)_* *NOW PUT IT ALL TOGETHER* 1. Israel comes back from the 1st Exile - the remnant returned. *(SHEARJASHUB*) 2. They reject their Messiah who came in flesh. *(IMMANUEL/Shiloh ISAIAH 8:3)* 3. Rejection of their Messiah/Shiloh brought on their destruction. *(MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ)* YESHUAH was the Immanuel who was rejected. *BUT NOW - It's all going to happen again, because again; 👇 1. The nation of Israel is back in their land. 2. If they trust in their Messiah, he will return and heal their land. *Zechariah **12:10* - Messiah will return soon! Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah ❤

[@gabbicherry8231]

Love this!!! My professor was talking about this the other day and how it was not about Jesus. I knew it in my heart that he was wrong but I wanted to find out more. I have been doing research and I found documents from Pope John Paul II, I talked to an Archbishop, and now this video. God is good and keeps his promises. Thank you for this video!!!

[@emanueltawtah6561]

You found the wrong people

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Torah Muscle betulah is used for married women in joel 1:8 and deuteronomy 22 so you're telling lies

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Torah Muscle Really? do they dress in sackcloth for their husbands before wedding in your part of the world? sackcloth is a sign of mourning and grief of a woman obiously already married, which means betulah means a married woman mourning for her husband. Hebrew for husband here is baal, it means she is already married. So the correct translation is HUSBAND and NOT bridegroom. Alma on the other hand, is an unmarried woman. Nice try though 👌 We can't post links here but one for israel go trough all the 7 verses alma is used in the bible, and noone is married... unlike a betulah

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Troy Leaver STRONGS: From ba'al; a master; hence, a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense) -- + archer, + babbler, + bird, captain, chief man, + confederate, + have to do, + dreamer, those to whom it is due, + furious, those that are given to it, great, + hairy, he that hath it, have, + horseman, husband, lord, man, + married, master, person, + sworn, they of.

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Troy Leaver NET bible insists on using a text filled with errors (the critical text-based nestle aland), a text the church never accepted and fall in line with others rejecting biblical inerrancy. If you want a real bible, get one using textus receptus or the byzantine text.

[@timmyturner7494]

Early in the video you read straight from the Bible and said “THE alman”. At 5:30 you said “AN” Alman. Why?

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

CUZ APOLOGISTS LIE

[@emanueltawtah6561]

You are an upright liar🤥.. It is not a prophecy it is a sign big difference, that took place in the time of king Achaz himself... Seriously, after all these years, you still don't find the fulfilment.. 2kings 16: 5 Both Syria and Israel attack Judah... But can't defeat King Achaz (House of David was spared by Gd) . A sign is a visible thing that takes place at the exact given moment.. Don't preach your opinion share interactively.

[@methembethomastshuma9587]

Why does my bible in Isiah say virgin instead of young woman......was it changed......can i trust it.....i dont think i can

[@7amido12]

Because Isaiah 7:14 as well as Genesis 24:43 and I think exodus 2:8 had the word "Ha-almah" translated into "virgin" as opposed to "young woman". You simply have to consult hebrew translations rather than a straight up KJV wording

[@someonethatisachristian]

because its correct, alma means virgin... they insist the verse should use a word for a married woman, betulah, instead of alma if its to mean virgin which is a lie. betulah is used for married women in both joel 1:8 and deuteronomy 22

[@BenS-eu4es]

@@someonethatisachristian no it doesn't. Almah does not render virgin.

[@someonethatisachristian]

@@BenS-eu4es so you're a liar. are you proud of that? Alma is used 7 times in the bible, each time for a young unmarried woman, a virgin. All ancient non hebrew translations like septuagint or the syriac says it means virgin. 21st century liars claim it does not and that the word used for a married woman (betulah) should be used instead, but I don't care about them. Can you give us any reason why anyone should?

[@BenS-eu4es]

@@someonethatisachristian I'm correct. And got the scholars on my side too. The Septuagint has a Greek mistranslation of the word for young woman. The word for young women in the Greek could also mean virgin but that's not true for the Hebrew texts. Isaiah never prophesied a virgin birth. Christian have just taken another verse of out context. In its original reading its got nothing to do with an apocalyptic preacher several hundred years later. ttps://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

[@michaelyeboah7789]

so there's no specific word in Hebrew for virgin? come on

[@rubenh7106]

Michael Mccoy " If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would it be?

[@narminagasimova1952]

Ruben Herrera It cannot be a woman because Mose's sister could in no way be a woman when she offered her brother to pharaoh's daughter. She was too young to be called a young woman.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Do you know any other languages? English has many, many more words than most languages, especially ancient languages. To find such flexibility isn't surprising at all, and it's common for a number of ancient languages. The Latin word "virgo" even has a similar extent of meaning. Often it refers to a virgin, but other times, it can simply be translated "young maiden" without virginity being specifically in view.

[@cleanstarter7313]

Ruben Herrera the sign is 7:16. A visible knowable event that took place in Ahaz' life.

[@Nudnik1]

Michael Mccoy Betulah

[@KDeds21]

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.

[@benny-yj7pq]

In the birth, God Himself will give you (pl House of David) an ot (miracle), The (not a) almah will be with Child, and as reported in the NT, without knowing a man. This Son is God (EL) with us (Isa 9:6+10:21), the virgin birth of the Messiah.

[@ts8960]

Just because greek doesnt have a word to diffrentiate is proof that Matthew didnt know hebrew and quoted the inaccurate greek translation, hence crizTianuity is a fraud. God will never be imprecise regarding such significant matter a virjun birth is not a sign the sign is stated in the next verses, it wasnt a miraculous birth, and it was fulfilled in isaiah's lifetime, isaiah was clearly conveying it will be fulfilled in his generation, AND IT WAS. This is why crkstistians grasp at straws and say its a DUAL prophecy, because they admit it was already fulfilled

[@michaelyeboah7789]

you first said the birth of Immanuel isn't about jesus and when you got to Isaiah 7:14 you just read past the 'birth' statement like there's nothing important there to talk about there. talk about it for christians to know there's no prophesy about jesus "virgin birth" in the old testament as they say.

[@Nudnik1]

Michael Mccoy Cool true..

[@IAmJazzionCathcart]

Dr. Brown is my dude.

[@mlulekibb]

Jazzion Cathcart:---Suppose someone else calls your dad a dude? How about that?

[@Nightwing300]

mluleki bb that doesn't make sense

[@patasnamananaliksik6053]

your dude is a lier!

[@majesticrainmaker1460]

@@patasnamananaliksik6053 no ur rabbis are

[@jesussavesforever6264]

@@patasnamananaliksik6053 your "rabbis" lie.

[@tonydanza3393]

So Mr.Brown is saying to throw away Matthew Ch.1:23 ? as a Messianic prophecy? Or is he worried about the history of the linguistics? I'm sure, we highly doubt how the origin of the word had anything to do with how the prophecy is placed in both the Old and New Testament.

[@felixrivera1038]

He did not throw it away. He is addressing objections.

[@nick3720]

Haha he just waves away the verse about Dinah like it doesn't prove him wrong!! By this logic, there was TWO virgin births!!! One during the reign of ahaz AND Mary!!!

[@bel31670]

I agree with you about the 2 virgin birth, I am trying to find how Christian explain this and have found nothing...

[@johnathanwoods1223]

So true

[@kofiboat779]

@@bel31670 No two virgins here. He is a lying

[@bel31670]

@@kofiboat779 just like all other Christians they don’t use logic.. going by the churches interpretation there would be 2 virgin births.. So any Christian reading this please explain your opinion...

[@kofiboat779]

There is no virgin birth in Isaiah 7. Can you understand the Hebrew language? It is a young woman. ( Alma) Also, Isaiah 7 has not dual prophecy and the author of Matthew is lying. The virgin prophecy that the author of Matthew referred to is not true, it is not about prophecy, just another astonishing piece of rubbish from New Testament writers. Mark was the first Gospel to be written and the author of Mark didn't even know Jesus was born by virgin. Mary didn't even know according to Mark 3. The whole town had no clue Jesus was born of any special.

[@RoseSharon7777]

Isaiah 7 is a prophecy given as a sign to king Ahaz. So who was the miracle child born to a virgin 700 years before Jesus as a sign to king Ahaz? You can't just cherrypick verses our of context. If so then I can prove Peter was present in the garden of Eden.

[@FriendwithNoName7]

Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@RoseSharon7777]

@@FriendwithNoName7 Unmarried young women conceive everyday friend. Stop reading something into the scripture that isn't there. No one can witness a conception therefore its not a sign. The sign was the death of the 2 kings of the north.

[@stephenmark2722]

Context doesn't allow for Matthew's 'virgin birth fulfillment' narrative. It's either just that simple OR the author of Matthew had a level of understanding beyond the scope of everyone else. In the case of the latter, we are confronted with the realization that 'everyone else' must thereby give up the right to interpret scripture because they are quite obviously clueless. It's a wonderful paradox. By admitting that Matthew was inspired, you forfeit an opinion on the "how and why". Dr Brown overstepped his mark.

[@dyerseve07]

Wonderfully said.

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

Of course the apostles had levels of understanding beyond the scope of most other people. That’s why they were the disciples become apostles lol. ??? Saul of Tarsus is struck with a blinding light that takes away his vision, he has a revelation befall him to then go from being a central prosecutor of Christians to being one of the most central figures in all of Christianity. Read 1 Corinthians 12, they are quite clearly revealed things that at times, no men are allowed to ever utter. Does this mean that we aren’t capable of the comprehension of some of these things? Of course not, otherwise teachers would not exist, and God himself would not be able to communicate with us. Imagine, if what you said were true, then there would be no Bible to begin with because his understanding would simply overshadow our infantile protozoic capabilities, thus he would never even make the attempt to begin with. You have drawn some massive logical fallacies, and there is no paradox here. You are very confused on a theological basis.

[@Adonaymekonnen]

if it is dual prophecy who was born through virgin birth on the first fulfillment of the prophecy ?? If we say the word is not saying virgin it means young so Matthew is not right , or we christians are deceived

[@Enki35Productions]

That king that would be one of the greatest kings to sit on the throne of Judah was, Hezekiah. That is who it was talking about.

[@rubenh7106]

Enki35Productions " If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would it be?

[@עמיחיאלימלך]

Ruben Herrera How could a virgin birth be a sign?! Because to be a sign you supose to see it.......who saw that Mary was a virgin whan concived Jesus?! And the name of the Messiah was Yeshua(salvation in english)?!REALLY?!

[@janedojcinoski7544]

U silly girl

[@TruthSword7]

Trust me, Mary and Joseph knew it was a virgin birth (especially Mary herself)! Angels revealed it directly to Joseph, so they both knew. The Gospel writers, who were Jews themselves, recorded it and now we all know about it.

[@TruthSword7]

No, not necessarily. That is disputed. Romans 3:2 says "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." Some translations say "the very words of God." If Luke were a gentile, it would seem to contract this statement.

[@russell311000]

Most likely and probably aren't concrete words.

[@tookie36]

especially for a prophecy sent by god.... And god said " i'll probably send you some help. Most likely when you need it"

[@gabinocarreon2713]

The verse was interpreted by 70 Greek Jews who were separated to write the septugiant to see if they all agreed to the same interpretation. At the finish they all agreed on the interpretation which says it was a virgin birth. Jesus himself point out all the prophesy that refered to him. Mathew says the Lord spoke which is Jesus by the prophet a virgin.

[@Majobri]

The "70" (septuagint) was ONLY of the TORAH. The greek translation of the rest of the Tanakh was WAY AFTER NOT BY JEWS.

[@gabinocarreon2713]

@@Majobri New Testament was correctly translated by Jesus to his disciples and that was it's true meaning

[@Majobri]

@@gabinocarreon2713 I am talking about Isaiah 7 though. Maybe I misrepresented my case but your claim was that 70 Jews translated Isaiah 7 as virgin. That is FALSE because the 70 Jews translated ONLY THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES into greek, and they were FORCED to do so. No Jew ever saw Isaiah 7 as virgin. The book of matthew writes that it is speaking about a virgin which proves that matthew does NOT know Hebrew.

[@gabinocarreon2713]

@@Majobri Mathew is a Jew and Jesus is a Jew and they lived in Israel, so pretty sure they spoke Hebrew. Jesus taught the disciples all the prophecies that referred to himself, that's why it's in the new testament, which means it was correctly translated in its original meaning

[@Majobri]

@@gabinocarreon2713 Matthew didn’t write Matthew, we don’t know if he was even a Jew and if the stories are even true. Just because a Jew living in Israel says something to suites something doesn’t mean it’s write. EVERY OTHER JEW THAT TIME KNEW THAT ISAIAH 7 DID NOT TALK ABOUT A VIRGIN HAHAHAHA

[@someonethatisachristian]

betulah is used for married women in joel 1:8 and deuteronomy 22. Never alma which is used 7 times in the bible and always translated virgin in other languages like Greek or in the syriac

[@jacobspicer7670]

Betulah in those passages is in fact specifically referring to virgins, they just happen to be about married women who are still virgins. Joel 1:8 is talking about how a virgin wife would mourn if her husband died before they could know each other in bed. Deuteronomy 22 talks about proof of virginity in a new marriage.

[@someonethatisachristian]

@@jacobspicer7670 exactly... and Mary was not married, which is why her pregnancy bothered Joseph and others. maybe not today but back then this was serious. had they read Isaiah 7:14 they would know its a sign.

[@jacobspicer7670]

@@someonethatisachristian Well the problem is that you are saying betulah is not about sexual virginity. Betulah ONLY means a woman with sexual virginity. The word alma was used in isaiah 7 14 and is referring to a child that was born of a natural birth after the sign was given to ahaz. If it were a virgin birth, it would say that the woman in isaiah was a sexual virgin by using the word betulah. An almah, is simply a woman of the age of puberty to about her 20s or so, married or unmarried, virgin or not. The fact that marriages in biblical times were much younger shows how people can be misled to think these women would be implied virgins.

[@someonethatisachristian]

@@jacobspicer7670 no it doesn't... It means virgin, more specifically an unmarried virgin, unlike betulah

[@jacobspicer7670]

@@someonethatisachristian Every time the word Almah is used, it is never anything pertaining to sexual purity specifically, it just seems implied since it is referring to a young woman. However in Proverbs 30:18-20 we have more of a clue, in this context the word "almah" 18 There are three things that are concealed from me, and four that I do not know; יחשְׁלשָׁ֣ה הֵ֖מָּה נִפְלְא֣וּ מִמֶּ֑נִּי וְ֜אַרְבָּעָ֗ וְאַרְבָּעָ֗ה לֹ֣א יְדַעְתִּֽים: 19The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman. יטדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם֘ דֶּ֥רֶךְ נָחָ֗שׁ עֲלֵ֫י צ֥וּר דֶּֽרֶךְ־אֳנִיָּ֥ה בְלֶב־יָ֑ם וְדֶ֖רֶךְ גֶּ֣בֶר בְּעַלְמָֽה: 20So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and she says, "I have committed no sin." ככֵּ֤ן דֶּ֥רֶךְ אִשָּׁ֗ה מְנָ֫אָ֥פֶת אָ֖כְלָה וּמָ֣חֲתָה פִ֑יהָ וְ֜אָמְרָ֗ה לֹֽא־פָעַ֥לְתִּי אָֽוֶן: with the use of the word almah in this context, we can know that it does not imply sexual purity. The three examples given are examples of something not leaving any trace (eagle in the sky, snake slithering over a rock, ship on a sea) and then compares it to a woman who has sex and leaves no trace, which is a sign of a lack of virginity. The proof of virginity is bleeding and we know this from deuteronomy 22 where it specifically mentions proof of virginity. The "alma" who the man has his way with leaves no trace.

[@theforce10001]

And this is why a fish is the symbol of christianity, they always find a way to slither away from the truth. 😂😂😂

[@tonetone7693]

The Virgin Birth pt.1 To all biblical believers that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, and based off the Greek definition for “came together” which would be cohabit conjugally or of conjugal cohabitation, I interpret the phrase “before they came together” to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Hence the phrase “took unto him”. Examine Genesis 24:67 to see how the term “took” is used. So again, before Joseph and Mary were officially married (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof. Before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary was impregnated by Joseph. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were officially married. Again, Joseph and Mary were not officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they were not officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ did not come through a lineage of sinless beings. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents (read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). Joseph began thinking irrationally. This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in whatever sense of the phrase. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he was not willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could have had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could have easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could have said that he did not have sex with Mary and she would have been stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. But Joseph was a just man. So Joseph was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. This is the reason why Matthew decided to highlight that Joseph was a just man. Because a wicked man would have placed all the blame on Mary. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Wouldn’t that would mean that Mary's hymen would have still been intact? I would think so. If that's the case they could have easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual affair simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would have had sex, Mary would have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity) because her hymen would have broken and everyone would have assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Moving on. The text states that Jesus the Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren (Hebrews 2:16-17). Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being (existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained His fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father. But the flesh comes from the seed (sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he knew her not til she brought forth her firstborn son....",. In my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. I’m well aware that the phrase “knew her not” in that passage is a clear reference to Joseph not engaging in sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Here lies the problem. Some are struggling with what the author is actually trying to communicate because based off how that passage is worded, they have concluded that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus but rather only after. In my opinion, their coming to this false conclusion because the text doesn’t read knew her not “again”. Since the term “again” isn’t included in that particular passage, they’re assuming that Mary and Joseph did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus. Let me prove that the text does not have to read “and knew not again” in order to support my argument. In 1 Samuel 1 :5 the LORD shut up Hannah, the wife of Elkanah’s womb. 1 Samuel 1:2 says that Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah had children but Hannah did not. What does this prove? It proves that Elkanah was having sex with both of his wives. One was able to have children (Peninnah) and the other one was not (Hannah). 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah KNEW Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her”. The text says that Elkanah “knew” Hannah his wife. The text does not say that Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”. One would then assume, like in the case of Matt. 1:25 that this was the first time Elkanah had sex with his wife because the term “again” is excluded. But we’ve already determined that Elkanah and Hannah were having sexual relations in 1 Samuel 1:2. So why doesn’t the text say Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”? It’s doesn’t have to based off the context and the surrounding information that has been disclosed. So when we reexamine Matt. 1:25 one can’t assume that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus based off the exclusion of the term “again” or how that particular passage is worded. Question: If Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed? Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8. Or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father not stepfather. Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should have automatically understood that Jesus was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...",. But they did not have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there was not referring to a woman who had never had sex before. Why do I say this? Because Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. The immediate fulfillment was referring to Isaiah’s wife. Isaiah’s wife was the virgin being referred to in Is. 7:14 and the prophetess in Is. 8:3. Prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving we know that Isaiah already had a son with his wife. Proving that the term virgin in that context is not a reference to virginity. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I’ll conclude with a question. Can you produce one single passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah’s birth being or would be one that was uncommon to man or miraculous? Update: As of March 12, 2022, my position on what the phrase "put her away” is currently uncertain. There is a possibility that the phrase "put her away" can in fact be a reference to divorce.

[@hintsaa7835]

This guy does not make any seance. He’s saying probably in his words which means he’s not certain.

[@tookie36]

So much easier for Catholics who actually accept the Greek scriptures.

[@osvaldolopez9972]

Dr Brown you are not showing any evidence

[@ianjonas7380]

People will be arguing their case on this for years without really achieving anything other filling up KZbin with conjecture and interpretation. If god wanted people to truly know him he wouldn’t be giving signs or leaving a trail of ambiguities in a book.

[@michaelyeboah7789]

Immanuel was born in Isaiah 8:3. read it

[@jesusalfonzoperez9313]

Isaiah 7:16 is the sign, and it's confirmed in chapter 8:9-10

[@finding_aether]

Israelite Warriors Nonsense. It cannot be talking about Jesus unless you also want to claim Jesus also stopped the invasion of Syria and the Northern Kingdom. There is no virgin birth, Christians changed the scriptures. Lying scribes. The proof is in the museums, the history books. The truth will be well known soon and the church shall experience the biggest shame and be destroyed forever.

[@nick3720]

The sign was ...that at the time the said baby was mature enough to eat cream know good etc, god would destroy the invaders. That happened in Ahaz's time. Christians are not correct.

[@frankandstern8803]

Hezekiah. Isaiah 52 and 53 as well as Second Kings all linked. This is all about King Hezekiah. A very righteous King of Israel in the face of inevitable downfall of Judah and the last of the hold outs.

[@lionofthecherubim4486]

@@frankandstern8803 Wrong, Hezikiahs kingdom was not eternal, and he was already born by the time the prophecy was given.

[@colliric]

Dear people saying that there is no precedent in Judaism for two comings of the Messiah and that all Jews agree Messiah will only come once.... THEN EXPLAIN TO ME MESSIAH BEN YOSEF AND THE POPULAR TWO MESSIAHS THEOLOGY.... Fact is a lot of Jews believe "Messiah" will come in TWO FORMS OR TWO VERSIONS. Either as alternative Messiahs(one will come, other won't), as the same Messiah coming twice(at different times), or as two different Messiahs. You can't, can you?!!! You pretend to be ignorant about the fact your religion's theology clearly supports the possibility of two comings of Messiah.

[@ts8960]

This doesnt matter because those who believe in 2 seperate messiahs believe that they will come very soon right after another and will both have messianic worldwide signs of their presence. Regardless, pay attention here, lets say i will grant u the ckristian interpretation of JC coming twice is in fact correct and I will give benefit of doubt, there is still a huge problem: In zech 9:9, when it says messiah will arrive riding a donkey, it says literally the same sentence that nations will put down their war machines adn there will be worldwide peace. Your boy JC supposedly came on a donkey BUT DID NOT achieve worldwide peace, HENCE HE IS FULLY DISQUALFIED, FULL STOP. If messiah COMES ON A DONKEY, then that means he is coming to BRING PEACE. Doesnt matter if there are 2 comings 2 messiahs 1 messiah - none of that matters, if he comes on a donkey then its worldwide peace, something JC failed to do. Otherwise whats the significance of coming on a donkey, any1 can come riding a donkey. Obviously the significance is that its not an animal used for combat, its an animal used for work, which is why it says nations will put down war instruments the next sentence (back then there were no verses or chapters, it was one long scroll).

[@lasacrachiesacattolicadels3534]

Jesucristo resucitó de los muertos, amén 💒🙏🏼

[@Nelson1000Sonrisas]

*_Ja Ja Ja Ja_** * Jesús nunca comió crema y miel. Jesús comió pescado y pan y les dijo a sus discípulos que bebieran su sangre y comieran su carne_ **_ cosas puramente extrañas_*

[@Alvarezsnwl]

@@Nelson1000Sonrisas thats not what he said lol

[@Nelson1000Sonrisas]

@@Alvarezsnwl Juan 6:56-57 Reina-Valera 1960 "El que come mi carne y bebe mi sangre"...."el que me come"😂

[@Nelson1000Sonrisas]

@@Alvarezsnwl John 6:56-57 King James Version "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood"..."so he that eateth me"🤣

[@Alvarezsnwl]

@@Nelson1000Sonrisas A husband can beat and whip his wife if it prevents her from doing the job she was commanded to do (Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Halachot Ishot, Chapter 21 Halacha 10). The Rabbi (Rabbi Avraham Ben-David, Talmudic commentator) tries to sweeten the bitter pill and claims that it is enough to starve the woman until she is convinced.

[@gorancehobasic3727]

You can be a clown, you can be a preacher , but you can not be a clown preacher, like this clown preacher. Read the whole chapter

[@FriendwithNoName7]

Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@gorancehobasic3727]

@@FriendwithNoName7 it says ha'alma harah (young woman is with a child) not future tense "shall conceive". She was preagnant when Isaiah was speaking. This clown of a preacher must know this cos he said he speaks hebrew. And read the context , nothing about jesus in context

[@gorancehobasic3727]

And read contex, contex. Did you read context?

[@hedley939]

Amazing..brilliant..thank you.

[@patasnamananaliksik6053]

lier! lier! lier!

[@hedley939]

@@patasnamananaliksik6053 I recently purchased Dr Brown's books from Amazon..absolutely incredible..you should do the same 👍

[@patasnamananaliksik6053]

@@hedley939 Mr Brown is a lier! Rabbi Tovia Singer Debunks Christian Claim that Isaiah Prophecy of Virgin Birth is a 'Dual Prophecy' kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYeke51nnbuWhLM

[@webslinger527]

@@patasnamananaliksik6053 u do know the person in the video is a liar he lies constantly he’s been called out by countess youtubers

[@iainpattison903]

@@patasnamananaliksik6053 Why do you have to call Hedley a LIAR. Hedley is not saying that Jesus was not the Messiah, just as Dr. Brown is not saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Dr. Brown is just saying that this particular verse is not referring to Jesus, that's all.

[@cbradio9124]

So it means young woman. But it does not refer to a supernatural birth. Rather it describes that by the age that the child knows right from wrong then the kingdoms will complete their misson.

[@kennethtarlow]

It says Haalma. not alma. The Young Womena. A proper name!!!!

[@johnathanwoods1223]

They know.

[@designcore9184]

This the reason for the sign, sorry its ruination 16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

[@adrianbray2432]

NAILED IT!!!!!!!!

[@emanueltawtah6561]

Where?? In your dream???

[@ChristianGirlwhoLovesJesus]

​@@emanueltawtah6561Many people miss this - This is a double fullfilled prohesy, and its explained below. Note what ISAIAH 8:6-7 says, along with the meanings of all the children. 👇 The original sign of ISAIAH 7:14-16, they all *refused/REJECTED* - *ISAIAH 8:6* is clear that they refused the waters of Shiloh *(Immanuel/Messiah Genesis 49:10-11)* , therefore, *IF* they accepted the sign *(the waters of Shiloh/Messiah)* , those kings Ahaz feared would have been destroyed before the child (Immanuel) reached the age of 12 or 13, and God would have redeemed them, *BUT* because Ahaz chose to reject the sign *(Immanuel/Shiloh/Messiah)* and instead, hired the King of Assyriah, instead of trusting God's plan, God instead brought in a child named *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* which means *Quickly to the spoil/plunder* and brought upon them the Rivers of destruction instead the waters of Shiloh that go softly. Really pay attention to all the names of all 3 children - it's a prophesy. The apostles knew the prophesy very well. The child Immanuel is the Messiah - The waters of Shiloh - Ahaz and the people rejected him so they brought on their destruction - sound familiar? *NOW LETS SUMMARIZE* 👇 Pay attention to the names of the 3 children - why was it important to include Isaiah's son? *BECAUSE* there's a prophesy in all the kids names. See below. *ISAIAH 7:3* 3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and *SHEARJASHUB* thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; Prophesy #1 - *SHEARJASHUB* means *_(A REMNANT SHALL RETURN)_* *ISAIAH 7:14-16* 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* . Prophesy #2 - Immanuel means *_(GOD MANIFESTED IN FLESH - GOD WITH US)_* - waters of Shiloh rejected by his people *ISAIAH 8:3* 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* . Prophesy #3 *MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ* means *_(DESTRUCTION)_* - Because they rejected their Messiah, destruction came instead. *READ ISAIAH 8:6-7 - THIS SUMMARIZES WHAT I SAID* Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly *_(IMMANUEL)_* , and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks *_(MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ)_* *NOW PUT IT ALL TOGETHER* 1. Israel comes back from the 1st Exile - the remnant returned. *(SHEARJASHUB*) 2. They reject their Messiah who came in flesh. *(IMMANUEL/Shiloh ISAIAH 8:3)* 3. Rejection of their Messiah/Shiloh brought on their destruction. *(MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ)* YESHUAH was the Immanuel who was rejected. *BUT NOW - It's all going to happen again, because again; 👇 1. The nation of Israel is back in their land. 2. If they trust in their Messiah, he will return and heal their land. *Zechariah **12:10* - Messiah will return soon! Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah ❤

[@rg54321]

Not so Dr. Brown, For Joel 1.8, most english christian bibles explicitly translate the word "betulah" as "virgin". And the correct interpretation is the virgin girl who mourns over a man who was to be her husband ... You are fabricating your case for the meaning of the hebrew terms, and working hard at that, I can see. There is betula = 100% virgin throughout the Tanach, almah = young woman throughout the Tanach (and yes, a young woman may be a virgin, but when the term is used it is not meant to specifically refer to a virgin, and we would ask why the term betula wasn't used instead of almah if it was explicitly talking about jesus ...), and there is akara = barren, a woman who did not or could not have children. About the name Imanuel, nothing supernatural at all is denoted by that name. Many many names in the jewish bible include references to God, with nothing supernatural about those who have those names ... And jesus was simply not named Imanuel, That is the bottom line. And about the "Septuagint of Isaiah" which you mentioned, that is simply false, because the Setuagint was only a translation of the Torah, not the Neviim and Ktuvim ... You supremely fumbled with this one ......

[@examinetheWORD1]

Mr Brown, you added to the word your own story line. I think a sneaky squid spirit was involved in Isaiah 7. It is in the text without it actually saying it.

[@Cocreatewithus]

One other possibility for a virgin to concieve would be that she's getting ready to be married, and is a virgin at tbat time of the prophecy. Thus her first sexual experience would be with her brand new husband, and a child conceived at that time. Ok so, Ahaz was betrothed to a young woman named Abijah (an implied virgin). She conceived Hezekiah after getting married (which happened AFTER the sign was spoken). This sign would have to be a "young woman" relevant to Ahaz, otherwise this whole thing would have zero meaning. There is also the possibility of the "young woman" being Isaiah's wife, the prophetess, and the child their own son. We don't know if she was a "virgin", but she was a "young woman", apparently. But this child was referred to in chapter 8.

[@raveneye3088]

This is called MENTAL GYMNASTICS…

[@pabloandres6179]

This isnt kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqbTZqh7ibeebc0

[@pabloandres6179]

Check the video out you’ve been refuted you wicked dog

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

No it’s just using your brain and critically thinking

[@ts8960]

@@pabloandres6179 your video didnt prove anything. he just said that alma can be a betulah, but that is obvious and no one argued otherwise. Of course a "young woman" can be either a virjun or a non virjun

[@UUu-xl3gk]

​@@ts8960he didn't just say that. You are making a strawman because you are a liar.

[@jamilbiotech91]

Dr. Brown is so well read on Christianity and Jewish beliefs that he can easily manipulate Jewish scriptures to fit his belief. Answer this question. We’re there two virgin births or one?

[@Keyz-pz5xy]

Don't be deceived folks! Listen to Jews for Judaism on this verse, not this denier of truth

[@mlulekibb]

Keyz 1776:---I have and I don't understand why anyone would go town refuting the fact that I referred to a virgin as a young woman, or a maiden or a damsel. Are you that desperate?

[@josephinemullar7857]

I dislike how theologians theorise by symbolism and refuse to accept the written word to be as it is written. However as far as Isaiah 7:14 is prophetic of Matthew 1:22,23 where an alma was to give birth to a male child who would be called Immanuel meaning when translated 'With Us Is God'. As redeemer of sin our Saviour was never called Immanuel. As saviour of mankind's sinful nature that son born to the virgin Mary was always called Yaho'shua by Joseph his foster father and by Mary his mother and by John the Baptist and all who knew him. What theologians and preachers fail to understand is there was to be two births the first was to come as repurchase and to gather 144,000 followers who are without blemish who will rule with Immanuel over whole inhabited earth and make it a paradise like the Lord's prayer 'Thy kingdom come! Thy will be done as in heaven also upon earth Matt. 6:9. Rev. 7 and Rev.14 explain those who will rule are from the 12 tribes and are blameless. It is a lie that all of Christendom rise up to heaven to abide there with the angels at the time of death. I am not claiming there is not another dimension for the departed. That is an issue I don't know for sure. It was Almighty God who brought calamity upon haughty idolatrous Israel during the reign of king Ahaz read Isaiah 1:15 onwards. The reason the slaughter and subjugation of Israel was halted was to preserve the linage of Judah as promised by Almighty God so that my Mashiach would come in the linage of king David in his first coming. That is why Isaiah 8:8 reads "Up to the neck he will reach O Immanuel". Immanuel is the name given by his heavenly parent being the Firstborn of the Most High at the time when the male child was caught away to His Father and to his throne at the time of birth in the second coming. The woman whose dna is of the second birth is a descendent from the paternal High Priest linage which is in fulfilment of prophesy written by Paul in Hebrews 1:6 When he again brings His Firstborn into the inhabited earth he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him". These prophesies are all for fulfilment in our time and these prophesies have been fulfilled. As Yahuvavhey's anointed King and High Priest in the manner of Melchizedek it is true that in the second coming my Mashiach was to be born in the linage of High Priest Phinehas down to the Maccabees and down to my father who is of that paternal house. I was told by Yahuvavhey who chose a messenger or angel that I would be given these pronouncements and told to search for a person who would take this seriously but that is not the way with religionists they don't choose to consider the straight forward word of the Most High God. Religion has become big business today and is there anyone open to truth at all? They all speak some truth and a lot of what pleases them be it right or wrong it matters not a lot to them.

[@kuntagod1618]

This man is always lying.

[@kofiboat779]

He is lying big time. Is virgin a sign? Can it be seen? Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz who was facing attack. What is Jesus birth 700 yrs going to be of a help to Ahaz?

[@MichiMind]

@@kofiboat779 man you know nothing, Yeshua is The Son of God born of a virgin, who will restore Y'ISRAEL Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: Amos 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, said the LORD that does this. Amen Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not near: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. Numbers 24:18 And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. Amen Isaiah 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. And He was to come when Israel fell and Judah fell which both fell by 586bc Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings. And learn about the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, Messiah fufillment to a T www.evernote.com/shard/s421/sh/1b0cf640-cdf0-47b5-bf47-7f2f17fa5b97/17d44d57202c1a02a20e2652bd6847ab

[@kofiboat779]

@@MichiMind Use common sense and throw your Jesus glasses 👓 away. Read all in Numbers 24 and Amos 9, stop the cherry-picking in our Jewish Bible to justify your idol, Jesus. Judaism is true and Christianity false, but Christianity cannot be true and Judaism false because Tanakh is the Jewish Bible. Nothing you said is talking about Jesus. Isaiah 7:1-16. The Prophet was sent to King Ahaz 700 years before the so-called Jesus walk on earth. Ahaz was facing an imminent attack and Isaiah was sent by G-d to give the King assurance that G-d will save Judea. " A young woman is with a child, and before that child knows right from wrong, the nations that seek to destroy you will be no more" You even quoted Isaiah 7:16 but have no literature knowledge to understand. The child was called Immanuel because G-d is with Judea when they were facing an imminent attack. There is no virgin birth in Isaiah or anywhere in the Nevi'I'm. Virgin is not a sign, it can't be seen. A sign can be seen. G-d gave us a sign of Rainbow 🌈. It can be seen. What is Jesus been born 700 years later be of assurance to King Ahaz who was facing attack? Daniel 9 is not talking about Jesus. In the Jewish Bible, the word messiah apply to anointed King, prophet, and High priest. Daniel 9 is talking about Jews in Babylon, Cyrus the Messiah and the high priest who was cut off because of the war with Rome. If the anointed one will be cut off a week before the destruction of the Temple, it can't be Jesus. According to Christian Jesus was crucified in the year 30, the Temple was destroyed in the year 70. How many years in between? How many weeks? Five and a half weeks. This is Jewish history. It is not Christian history. Christianity has nothing in common with Judaism. The two religious differ on every theological issue. Everything you wrote has nothing to do with Jesus.

[@GOODMORNINGICHIGO4]

@@kofiboat779 I just came to your false Daniel 9 claim. According to jews the second temple stood 420 years from 350 bc to 70 ad. This create the 170 missing years chronoligy between the real history and jewish claims. According to jews the Persian empire had 3 kings over 52 years instead of 210 years with 15~ kings. The sad part is that some of this Persian enpire timeline is in the OT. Guess what? Ezra chapter 4 names 4 different kings one after another. The rest of the book of Ezra adds additional 3 kings. Also the false timeline creates further contradiction within the book of Ezra Nehemiah and Daniel. By the way Daniel 9 26 indicates a jump between the last week and the last group of 62 weeks. Also the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69 week, not the 7. And " נגיד הבא" refers to the last week, aka the second "prince" will be the prince who destroys the city an antimessiah. "והגביר" clearly refers to "נגיד הבא". דרל אגב עמנו אל הוא אלוהים בעצמו כי בפרק אחרי ישעיה פרק ח יהוה נקרא פעמיים עמנו אל. יש סך הכל 3 עמנו אל בתנך 2 על אלוהים ואחד על ילד הפלא של ישעיה ז.

[@kofiboat779]

@@GOODMORNINGICHIGO4 First do you understand the word, Messiah? When was Jesus crucified? When was the Temple destroyed? How many weeks are in between? How many weeks was the prophecy talking about? The prophecy in Daniel is talking about the anointed one being cut off from the holy sit. It is talking about the High Priest being cut off because of the war with Rome and not the pagan human sacrifice that you believe in

[@kofiboat779]

Common sense can tell everyone Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. Virgin is not a sign. It can't be seen. Isaiah was talking to Ahaz. What is Jesus born 700 yrs after going to help a king who was facing attack?

[@עמיחיאלימלך-מ8כ]

Isaiah 9;6(5 in jewish bible) a prophecy about King Hezekiah! see allso Micha 5;2(1 in jewish).

[@someonethatisachristian]

micah 5:2(1 in jewish) says he is from everlasting, only God is everlasting. And christians have always said Christ is God in flesh, the WORD of God you see speaking with Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1, or the angel of the Lord wrestling with Jacob, like your rabbis do to this day, wrestling with Christ in your own scriptures. Jesus Christ / Yeshua has put a chokehold on you in Micah 5:2(1 in hebrew) though: EVERLASTING, like in isaiah 9:6 "everlasting Father"... Who's everlasting? hmmmmm ....

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Stasis Field what every avid reader of scripture is aware of is the old testament use of typology. Hezekiah is the excuse for the unbelievers that reject God will make the verse out to be, I bet you will claim he is everlasting Father etc like Isaiah 9:6 says but who will take you seriously? Not me, for a christian we read the bible as it is, you have to force things on the text. It's a prophesy of Christ just like alma is the virgin in isaiah 7:14 or Daniel 9, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12:10 or Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion of Christ. check the dead sea scrolls, your majority masoretic text has an error that follows into the hebrew bible, the correct word in psalm 22:16 is "they pierced my hands and my feet".

[@someonethatisachristian]

@Stasis Field hezekiah means the Lord is my strength, not mighty God, EL GIBOR, liar

[@Alvarezsnwl]

See Isaiah 10:20-21 El gybor (might God) is a title used only for YHWH. Im Jewish too nice to meet u

[@tonetone7693]

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.8 The curse of Jeconiah (which was under the old covenant) is a futile argument because Jesus the Christ did not sit on the throne during His first advent. So the first time Jesus the Christ came, he did not violate the judgement that was placed on Jeconiah. If we read Acts 2:30-31 we can clearly see that king David understood that Jesus the Christ was going to rise from the dead with all power and authority and then He (Jesus) would be able to sit upon the throne (which would be under the new covenant where all sins, including past sins will be forgiven) without violating the judgment that TMH place upon Jeconiah.

[@Pcp-gp3cc]

God bless you

[@yamba-yambadekongo8611]

confusion. Number one Isaiah 7:14 is talking about two women and two children, se it again in Isaiah 9:6 these two are Kings. so Jesus was a Messiah of his people. Math 15:24, Math2:2/ you can change the book from A to Z. But it will only for you not any more for the people of the world. The time is over.

[@liletcanete4066]

hallelujah good job sir contenue until they will realise that all u saying is true,, Jesus is only Messiah.

[@remieres]

Isaiah, who lived late 800's to mid 700's BC. If you were to say to him (or anyone) at that time. "a sign that a young woman, would give birth to Immanuel". Then, how many "young maidens" gave birth, between Isaiah, to Yeshu/Jesus. This is why those who deny that this is a virgin in its immediate meaning of the word. Means to say that Isaiah, best be checking every 9 months, for the next messiah.

[@ts8960]

you have just disproven kristianity, not jeweldaism. the sign isnt that a young woman gives birth, the sign is described in the next verses. Also back then there were no chapters and verses, it was written on a long scroll. the sign is 7:16. A visible knowable event that took place in Ahaz' life. the sign was before the baby knows right from wrong, would eat honey (since honey is difficult to make in wartime) the two kings that were enemies of Israel would be destroyed. Thus it would prove the voice speaking to Isaiah is the voice of God.

[@michaelyeboah7789]

Dr Brown you are very good. in manipulating I mean

[@Justin-hs2kf]

Agreed! You could tell he was struggling while R. Singer does with ease and laughter because he's so in control!

[@bobirving6052]

T. singer's laughter and control does not make him honest or correct, it may show the opposite. Debate is not a good way to find truth, you just find who is better with words and confidence.

[@Nudnik1]

Michael Mccoy guy is a fraud funded by evangelical church.

[@noothername6199]

The New Covenant or Testament says ,Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born Matt 1:23 and the prophecy is about Him .and so is 9:6 and chapter 53 in fact the entire Tanakh is about Him..... Jesus taught his Disciples the prophecy's are all about Him in ACTS 8:30-35. The Jews idea of a Messiah comes from your Traditions Traditions Traditions handed down. SORRY but Gods WORD TRUMPS any tradition and Differs from ideas of a Messiah,.you have placed your traditions on a pedistole ,and God will judge . Jesus is prophesied in the entire Tanakh not just Isaiah .

[@howardrosen3736]

@@noothername6199, "G d's WORD" says nothing about "Jesus" in the Tenakh. G d does not communicate prophesy in Greek, learn and understand Hebrew When you see the con job of the New Testament, mistranslations, words taken out of context, deleted, inserted in the so called "New Testament" you will be shocked. Give it up NOOtherName.

[@zootallure4819]

It was a Hebrew metaphor for a time frame that would see the end of Ahaz's enemies. Not a virgin birth. Notice the maiden was described as pregnant already. Isaiah does use the word for virgin in other scriptures. It is not the word used in 7:14. Also, Messiah means anointed. Not savior. King Cyrus was anointed but never knew it. He was no savior either.

[@FriendwithNoName7]

Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@bethgonzales5077]

Revelation 3:9 [9]Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

[@aviel9998]

1. Linguistic Clarification: Hebrew has distinct words for women at various stages of life. "Almah" means a "young woman," with no direct reference to virginity. "Betulah" is the Hebrew word used explicitly for "virgin" and is consistently used for this purpose throughout the Bible. The fact that Isaiah 7:14 uses "almah" and not "betulah" is significant because if the intention was to highlight virginity, "betulah" would have been used. 2. Christian Apologetics Critique: Christian translations typically render "almah" as "young woman" in all other instances throughout the Hebrew Bible, except in Isaiah 7:14, where it is translated as "virgin" to fit the narrative of the virgin birth of Jesus. This inconsistency suggests that Matthew (in the New Testament) manipulated the Hebrew scripture to align with Christian theology. Isaiah never indicates that the child will be conceived in a supernatural way, and nothing in the word "almah" points to an immaculate conception. 3. Contextual Argument: Isaiah's prophecy was meant to be a sign for King Ahaz, relevant to his immediate situation, not a distant messianic prophecy. A "sign" is something observable. A virgin birth wouldn't be observable, especially amidst the turmoil Ahaz was facing. The birth described in Isaiah relates to a natural, immediate event-a child who would grow up in the time it took for Ahaz's enemies to be destroyed (Isaiah 7:15-16). 4. Immanuel’s Name: The prophecy states the child will be called Immanuel, meaning "God with us." However, in the New Testament, Jesus is never explicitly referred to as Immanuel, raising further questions about the connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the story of Jesus. בתולה - Virgin - Bethulah עלמה - Young woman - Almah

[@tonetone7693]

The Virgin Birth pt.4 My position on the virgin birth is once again this: Joseph is the earthly biological father of the Christ. If Joseph had nothing to do with Christ's birth, why is Joseph mentioned in both of Christ's genealogies? Why is Joseph referred to as the father(not stepfather) of Jesus by not only Mary(Luke 2:48) but by Philip(Jn. 1:45) and the Jews(Jn. 6:42) as well? Why is there a distinction being made in Hebrews 2:16 between the celestial(spiritual) and terrestrial(flesh)? Could it be that the author wants to inform his audience or his readers that the angels weren't created like man was created but Christ was? The text states that Jesus was made like unto His brethren. How was Jesus' brethren made? Jesus' brethren came into existence by way of a sexual act that transpired between a male and a female. If this is how Jesus' brethren were made, we can safely conclude that this is how Jesus himself obtain His fleshly body. Jesus' flesh was created from the seed of man(which Hebrews 2:16 seems to be alluding to). Reverting back to my point about Joseph being in Christ's genealogies. Let's examine Luke 3:23. If we removed the information within the parentheses, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. This is how parentheses work. So let's remove "as was supposed" from Luke 3:23 for a moment. Luke 3:23 reads, Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph. It reads differently doesn't it? It's becomes clear that Joseph is in fact Christ's earthly biological father when we read this passage this way doesn't it? Even if we don't remove the information within parentheses, we'll still come to the same conclusion when we define the word "supposed". According to dictionary.cambridge.org, the term "suppose" when defined means to think that something is likely to be true. Not only that, when you look at the synonyms for the term "suppose", you'll notice that one of the synonyms is "believe". Even when you look up the term "supposed" in the Greek you'll notice the strong's definition and in the biblical usage section, "supposed" is defined and used as follows: to deem or regard, think, suppose. Now let's examine the word "being" in Luke 3:23. "Being", simply put, in this context means that Jesus is that particular thing. That particular thing is Him being the Son of Joseph. Take a look how the Greek word for "being" is used in Matthew 1:19, Jn. 11:49; Acts 7:2 and Eph. 2:20. Look up the Greek word for "being" and examine each time it's being utilized. Now I'm quite sure you've heard some talk about there being a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew? If this is true(which it seems to be), and considering the fact that Matthew 1:23 is a prophecy of a virgin conceiving, that would mean the term "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 would have to have the same Hebrew meaning as the the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Why? Because in Isaiah 7:14 the term "virgin" there, from my understanding has absolutely nothing to do with virginity. Why do I say this? Because not only was Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about Mary conceiving, it was also a prophecy about Isaiah’s wife. And we know that Isaiah’s wife wasn’t a woman that never had sex before. Isaiah already had a son by his wife prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving (Isaiah 7:3). But yet Isaiah’s wife, who is the virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 is still referred to as a virgin. Proving that that term virgin in Isaiah 7:14 isn’t a reference to virginity. In conclusion, let's say I am in error and Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ. I still believe that Jesus is the Christ and He came in the flesh and He died for ours sins and ascended back into the heavens and will one day return to judge the living and the dead. If I believe this to be true and repent of my sins, it's highly unlikely that I'll be cast into the lake of fire. Now I'm assuming (correct me if I'm in error) you're defining the term "virgin" in both Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who has never had sexual relations with a man before. I on the other hand am defining the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 as a young woman of marriageable age, a young woman or a maiden. Either way, the prophecy of a virgin conceiving was fulfilled. I guess the question still remains: Virgin in what sense? You know my answer. Note: According to Isaiah 7:14 the child would be for a sign. Read Isaiah 8:18 and see what it says in regard to signs.

[@RoseSharon7777]

So if Jesus was the promised Son, then why does the OT say Ephraim is Gods firstborn? Christians believe Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. Cant be both.

[@FriendwithNoName7]

The OT sees many as sons of God, the Messiah is the one promised BEGOTTEN Son of God.

[@neehee941]

This has nothing to do with the jc. And Mathew is not a prophet. And who wrote the gospel according to Mathew

[@FriendwithNoName7]

Yeshayah 7:14 Orthodox Jewish Bible Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

[@jdaze1]

Who was the miracle child born as a sign to king ahaz? The virgin daughter of Sion is not a woman named Mary. Revelation 12 was a prophecy about a birth in the future (after it was given). Not about a birth 40 years earlier.

[@ts8960]

not a miracle child. A normal child, isaiah was conveying that it would happen very soon in his generation. The signs are stated in the next verses (there were no verses and chapters labled at the time, it was one long scroll) the kid will eat honey (honey is hard to produce at times of war ) and will tell right from wrong , and destruction of kingdoms. etc.

[@Nudnik1]

clearly says in Dead sea scrolls young woman ...in present tense also. No argument self evident and undeniable.

[@TruthSword7]

Dr. Brown has already responded to this. Stop spreading baseless conspiracy theories. The apostles died for their eyewitness testimony of Jesus. They had no motive to develop an elaborate hoax that would certainly get them killed, which they were. Men do not die for what they know to be a hoax.

[@Nudnik1]

Kanbei85 Baseless? What proof in world history outside the new testament Scriptures do you have to even prove JC existed? Zero.... No mention of JC or miracles in any historical record except the corrupted Josephus which Vatican retranslated. It is you who spread baseless conspiracy. explain heretication.info from actual historical records and living witnesses. Dr Clown is funded by evangelical church to trick uneducated Jews into worshipping idolatry. Stick you JC up your...

[@Nudnik1]

Kanbei85 stop exposing his lies? why you work for church also?

[@TruthSword7]

Yes, obviously I'm in on the conspiracy! Please read Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. The Christians are out to save the world by the gospel, not to try to concoct a strange hoax as your cult leaders have taught you.

[@sonoftheking1977]

@Kevin’s Class sorry thats not proof. Actually many ancient writers referred to themselves in the 3rd person even tho they were the ones penning the account so that falls flat on its face in terms of irrefutable proof.

[@ricardopadayachee4379]

5:18 you just read the correct translation that was not quoted by Matthew Matthew says in ch 1:23 " The virgin SHALL be with child , and WILL give birth to a son" In the original hebrew it says in Isaiah 7:14 , "the young woman IS with child, and IS ABOUT TO give birth to a son" .....which is what you have read. You have just proven that the prophecy and sign was already on its way to fulfillment, and is in the present tense not the future tense. The Christians will mistranslate according to Matthew, but thats bot what the Hebrew or even the Septuagint says. This is besides the fact that he mistranslates young woman into virgin. The sign was meant to reassure Ahaz that the Judah will be saved , what reassurance would he get from it being fulfilled 700 years later ?

[@Pencraft777]

What word does it use for virgin? If 66:8 proclaims the 14 May 1948, can you not see 7:14 points to Jesus.

[@zaharabardavid]

Please learn to read, write and speak Hebrew. The word "הָעַלְמָ֗ה" (woman) is the same "הָעַלְמָ֗ה" used for Adulterous "הָעַלְמָ֗ה" woman in Proverbs 30:20.

[@arielzaig7726]

Thank you for bringing the text that actually proves "עלמה" "Alama'" must be a virgin! first of all, see in your interpretation how you did not use the opposition which exist at verse 18. Furthermore verse 20 clearly illustrates that the women was lying about her condition. "18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: 19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid. 20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness." The word maid here in "alama". they are 3 things which the guy who gets the question (Solomon) understand and last thing which he does not. Clear opposition!!! Just like the eagle doesn't leave trace after flying in the sky, nor the ship has any trace on the sea where it passed, so does the serpent leaving any trace. At last, so does the man not leaving any trace sleeping with the "alama". If "alama" had any chance to be non virgin this riddle would have been trivial. King solomon for sure would have known the answer, but he does not. Afterwards he calls her an adulterous and tells she is a liar! ("she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.""). I am pretty sure most rabbis even admit verse 20 shows she is lying. "יח שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵמָּה, נִפְלְאוּ מִמֶּנִּי; וארבע (וְאַרְבָּעָה), לֹא יְדַעְתִּים. יט דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר; דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה. כ כֵּן, דֶּרֶךְ אִשָּׁה-- מְנָאָפֶת: אָכְלָה, וּמָחֲתָה פִיהָ; וְאָמְרָה, לֹא-פָעַלְתִּי אָוֶן." לרוב הפרושים מפרשים את הקטע הזה כהוכחה שעלמה לא יכולה להיות בתולה, אך האמת היא שהם תמיד מתעלמים מהתוכן המלא של החידה, והניגוד הקיים בפסוק 18 בין 3 הדוגמאות לאישה העלמה. פסוק 18- יש 3 דברים שאני מבין ודבר רביעי מנוגד אליהם שאני לא מבין!!! פסוק 19- יש 3 דברים שאני מבין: איך נשר לא משאיר סימן בשמיים איפה שהוא עף, איך נחש לא משאיר סימן איפה שהוא זוחל, ואיך אנייה לא משאירה סימן איפה שהיא עברה בים. בסוף יש גבר ששוכב עם אישה ולא משאיר סימן איתה. פסוק 20- הוא מכנה אותה אישה נואפת, ומוסיף שהי אכלה ומחתה פיה ואמרה שלא עשתה עון. אפילו רש"י מפרש את האלגוריה לאכילה באופן בוטה לכך שהיא משקרת. אם האופציה שעלמה יכולה להיות בתולה היית קיימת, אזי מקבל החידה (המלך שלמה) היה מבין מיידית את הפתרון, והניגוד בפסוק 18 (שאף פעם אתם לא מתייחסים אליו) לא היה קיים. אם אומרים לך שגבר שכב עם אישה, ולא ירד לה דם אתה ישר מנחש שהיא לא בתולה! אפילו בחתונות של החרדים בודקים האם היא מדממת בפעם הראשונה שהם שוכבים!

[@rachelcohen683]

@@arielzaig7726 אתה מדבר עברית?

[@abbasalizada7809]

Interesting. So Isaiah's wife also give birth via a virgin birth? I wounder why God is not clear concerning such things. Historically speaking, Jesus was given the virgin birth in order to rise its status in the pagan world since he was nothing more than a carpenter who claimed to be the messiah. Jesus is not the first person to be born of a virgin woman. Dr. Brown please don't read NT theology into the Tanakhic text. Thank You. Jesus cannot be the messiah. Sorry.

[@tonetone7693]

The Virgin Birth pt.3 I believe that there is so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because so many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). John 1:13 is a great example of what "of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" means. Another example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. This was the will of the flesh (John 1:13). Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man (mankind) who is flesh (Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". In regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that a virgin(young woman) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.

[@KeniGid]

Here's my 2-cent: We find a lot of similarities between the lives of many old testament heroes and Jesus Christ. E.g. Joseph the one who was handed over to a foreign tribe and who turned out to be their saviour and in lord after all like he dreamed (the sharing of which hastened their attack on him). Melchizedek being another one (check out how the authors of the new testament book of Hebrew relates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Christ). I can't remember all the other 'foreshadows of Christ' in the old testament right now or go into any more detail (long day...). Suffice to say, while one might argue that if one looks hard enough one might find parallels in bible stories and characters in virtually every body's life, you won't find many (if any) as easy to neatly piece together as Christ and the old testament foreshadows. More remarkable is the fact that they all fit quite nicely into the life of one man; Jesus Christ. According to Luke 24:7 Christ himself claims that the entire old testament points to him: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself". Read the whole chapter for full context. All these to say Isaiah 7:14 could also be a foreshadowing of Christ with an immediate application as well as a future and ultimate application. For the Jew who argues "when Jesus saves the Jews and the whole world like Joseph saved his family (and the middle east at the time), as it were..., from starvation, then I will believe He is the messiah ", I'd say it's always better to be wise in foresight than hindsight. Don't jeopardise your future to prejudice and intransigence. c.f. 2 Kings 7:19

[@KeniGid]

If still in doubt as to validity of the "foreshadow" exegesis applied by Matthew (in Matthew 1:23) re: Isaiah 7:14, check out Hosea 12:10.

[@skwozies3083]

There is a story of a young prince who went for a walk and he stumbles upon an arrow in a tree and it was a perfect bullseye. Then gets down the road and another perfect bullseye, and another and another... Finally he stumbles upon a man sitting beneath a tree with a Bow and Arrow in hand and he asks him if he was the archer who shot those other arrows. The man answers yes, and the prince is amazed. He says there is not an archer in his fathers army who is as good of a shot as this man. The man begins to laugh uncontrollably at the prince. Feeling a bit incensed the Prince Demands to know why he is laughing at him. The man explains "well first I shoot the arrow and then I draw a target around it".

[@stephenmark2722]

The objection stands. Isaiah does not prophecy a virgin birth. The sign is not the method of conception. Period.

[@bobbylobby840]

Your a fool!

[@designcore9184]

Why am i being told to disappoint myself. Isnt 7.14 concluded in 8.1-8 when this emanuel is now one of the children with isiah as he says he has them with him. 8.18 clearly defines he has the signs children still with him...

[@noahremnek3615]

Isaiah 8:4 explains who this would be.

[@tonetone7693]

I provided a ten part explanation to why I disagree with the orthodox doctrine on the “Virgin Birth”. Check them out. Feel free to respond.

[@RichardSorel-r1c]

These types of interpretations are kept alive because of Genesis 3:15 (the proto evangelium)

[@jmsmzrz]

You are a minister of the gospel, correct? Do you know that Yashua has a totally different gospel than the one you follow, that is designed by Saul of Tarsus?

[@carmelo1509]

Dr, Brown, I hear your pain. Trying to justify a lie is harder than admitting the truth. Now you are actually more honest than other apologists. I give you that. Most do not even recognize the context of the story of Immanuel and the young woman. You acknowledge that the birth of Immanuel occurred more than 700 years before the birth of Jesus. And you should have stopped right there. If Immanuel was born 700 years before Jesus, Immanuel was not Jesus. You could have made it very simple by acknowledging this very logic mathematical equation. You would have been my hero. But you decided to muddle the issue by trying to tie in to other passages. Whether the author of Matthew had other passages in mind, it is the Immanuel one that he referred to in 1:23. And that's the one about God siding WITH Judah, WITH the bad king Ahaz, and AGAINST Syria and the ten northern tribes of Israel. Matthew knew this had nothing to do with any messiah, let alone a future carpenter that Isaiah had no way of knowing about. The author of Matthew lied. As he lied with all his other references to the Tanakh. The first apologist to coke clean and admit this will be my hero. Sorry it isn't you.

[@yayafitini]

Guess how i learned about this virgin controversy , a friend told me please just go online and look for the meaning of virgin in Hebrew , holy shit lol

[@tonetone7693]

The Virgin Birth pt.2 The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is considered to be an essential belief for biblical believers. It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus was born (Jn. 7:43) but not about "how" Jesus was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary and Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would have interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews did not bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because (in my opinion) they did not interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. I believe they understood the term “virgin “to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't. I don’t believe that the people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous (in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews did not think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this is not the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would have been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.

[@tonetone7693]

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.9 In reference to Matthew 1:18-20, some assert that Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful. If Mary was unfaithful (which Joseph would have assumed because the angel hadn’t appeared to him yet), do you honestly believe that Joseph would not have been upset when he found out that his soon to be wife was impregnated by someone else? I’ll answer that for you. Of course he would have been. And yet there’s not one single passage that illustrates how upset Joseph was with Mary because of her unfaithfulness. It appears that Joseph was unbothered by Mary’s unfaithfulness. Question. If you found out that your fiancé slept with another man and she got pregnant by that man, how would you react? Wouldn’t you be beyond angry? The fact that Joseph didn’t get upset with Mary about what occurred speaks volumes. It proves that Joseph could not have thought that someone else had gotten her pregnant. If someone else would have gotten Mary pregnant, Joseph would have been outraged but he wasn’t. This is not a baseless argument. It actually seems to be additional proof that validates the notion that Joseph could have been or was in fact the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ.

[@tonetone7693]

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.7 Let’s examine Luke 3:23. But first let’s begin here. Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense. With that being said let’s read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It reads, "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph...". It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained within parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph. Defined the term "being" in Luke 3:23 and then examine how it’s used throughout the Bible (New Testament). Question. Was the phrase "as was supposed" in the original text? I don’t think it was. But correct me if I’m wrong. I recently was told that it was. This may be true when considering that the phrase “as was supposed” isn’t in italics.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Isaiah 7:14 is not talking about Jesus' "birth" at all. First of all, there is a difference between conception and birth. It's an important difference but we'll leave that aside for now. Matthew was noticing the similarity between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. If we take our eye off of Mary's experience then we'll miss what Matthew is citing. Isaiah was not prophesying Jesus but Matthew connected the dots between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. That's all. Furthermore, the word in Isaiah 7:14 is indeed the word for "virgin". The Old Testament in use during the first century was written in Greek - translated more than 200 years before Jesus was born. The much much later Masoretic Text, used to give us a Hebrew Old Testament was written a thousand years AFTER Jesus. We know what things were called in the Old Testament because the New Testament verifies these things. For example, the Masoretic Text leaves a question whether the Red Sea was called the Red Sea or was it called "the Sea of Reeds"? The New Testament doesn't raise that question because it cites passages from the Greek Old Testament that clearly uses the Greek word for the color Red. Isaiah 7:14 definitely uses the word "virgin" and Moses definitely crossed the "Red Sea". No more confusion.

[@tonetone7693]

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.6 In regards to Luke 1:34 when Mary posed the question, “how shall this be seeing I know not a man?”. At that specific moment in time Mary never had sexual relations with a man before. Thats an obvious fact. But did she remain that way until after the birth of Jesus the Christ? By now one should know my answer. Let’s consider another point that I believe needs to be examined. Luke 1:27 states, “to a virgin espoused to a man named was Joseph…”. When we read Luke 1:34 with Luke 1:27 in mind, it seems to me that at that point Mary did not know that she was espoused to Joseph. Because if she did know, once the angel had revealed to her that she was going to bring forth the Christ, Mary would have automatically assumed or came to the conclusion that her and Joseph would eventually have sex and this is how what the angel said would come to pass. But instead Mary asked how shall this be seeing I know not a man? Mary posed this question because she was obviously unaware of her engagement to Joseph. I truly believe that this was an arranged marriage, one of which Mary was not privy to. Had Mary known that she was espoused to Joseph, I personally don't believe that she would have posed that question. See when people read Luke 1:34 they overlook the fact that Mary was unaware of her espousal to Joseph and therefore coming to a false conclusion on said topic.

[@pw7953]

Combine this with the Daniels prophecy telling us when the Messia was to appear that day has come and gone.

[@Elvengem]

Almah were set apart sanvtified religious order of virgins and sometimes were bethrothed virgins ,different from the Beulah virgins.

[@sinpilot3195]

You are wrong, nothing about taken Ahaz place as king

[@Nudnik1]

also not in future tense. Same as Isaiah 9:6. Church modified to virgin and future.

[@Nudnik1]

Verify dead Sea scrolls in hebrew in context of entire book of Isaiah. This is about Hezekiah not a man god human sacrifice for sin 700 years in future. so stupid.

[@TruthSword7]

Hezekiah did not fulfill those grand prophecies. So stupid! Read the text for what it really says and open your eyes.

[@TruthSword7]

Did you not say you wanted to end the discussion? Yet here you are back trolling again! No human king has ever fulfilled the grand promises of Isaiah. To say otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest about what the text says- something you are obviously more than willing to do. Immanuel will establish a kingdom that will last FOREVER in peace and righteousness.

[@TruthSword7]

" someone fulfilled this verse perfectly." Anyone can see that is a lie. Did that person die and have their reign end? Yes. That means they did NOT fulfill the promises made here, since the text clearly says the kingdom will be WITHOUT END!

[@TruthSword7]

"Why can't without end mean during his reign?" Simply because that is the OPPOSITE of what "without end" would mean. Without end means it will not end. "During his reign" (which is not the text) means it WILL end. Also, it says his REIGN will not end, either! Where does the Bible say Messiah must die? Psalm 22. My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Isaiah 53. He (Jesus) is crushed for our (Israel and everyone else) iniquities and wounded for our transgressions.