Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Virgin Birth" Questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Why would Hashem need to part the Jordan that Elisha should cross on dry ground?
    What's the most convenient way to dodge a question?

    Survey said: "Ask a question without ever actually answering the previous question."

    It would seem that at base the repeated violations of the covenant made it necessary for the Law of Moses to be replaced - and is that not what was being taught in Israel so long ago ... that the Messiah would annul the Law of Moses. (I'm not sure of exact details of 1st Century teachings on this matter beyond that the Messiah was expected to establish a new covenant.)
    I didn’t ask a question on why you believed the Law of Moses needed replaced or whether there is an indication in the Hebrew bible that it would be, that is a discussion for another thread. I asked a question about the "virgin" birth. If you can’t stay on topic you may want to excuse yourself from the conversation.

    It only says that the virgin will be with child and that her pregnancy will be a sign from God. Beyond the simple fact that the pregnancy must be a sign from God, it seems there is no empirical need for the mother to be a virgin. However, with regard to the New Testament, the messiah was the Memra become flesh - so it would be more a matter of not no need to have been swyving, rather than needing to be a virgin. According to rumour, there are 120 signs in total that attend the advent of the Messiah - this is only one of them.
    Actually the Hebrew bible doesn’t say virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and no serious Hebrew scholar would say that it does unless they are trying to prove a theological point. Even Dr. Michael L Brown (christian apologist) wouldn’t and doesn’t make that claim in his book series and he is a PhD in NELC, which is what I am working on my Masters and eventual Doctorate in. The Hebrew word עלמה doesn’t take the meaning. In languages words have meaning and in Hebrew we have words to express specific meanings unlike English which has no problem assigning true meaning according to context. for example we have different verb to express "to know" each expressing a specific type of "knowing" the words are להכיר and לדעת . I'll let you guess what each expresses. The same is with עלמה as it expresses specifically that the person is roughly a teenager and only defines an age range. That’s it! It isn’t a "sexual" word unlike the word בתולה which is a “sexual” word with “sexual” connotations even in poetic expressions and in allegory within the bible.

    The word עלמה has usage of the masculine singular עלם in 1 Samuel 17:56. Are you going to try and argue that Saul was calling David a “virgin?”

    I believe that the Biblical Letter to the Hebrews of the New Testament might have more meaning to Jewish people than to other races. It may be that the letter provides more information than I can appreciate that would give you a better answer.
    The book of Hebrews is not a biblical book in Judaism. So referencing it would be irrelevant to me in the sense that I didn’t request a discussion on the NT or its books unless referencing specifically the portions that reference the “virgin birth.”
    אברהם אבן עזרא

    Avraham Ibn Ezra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
      What's the most convenient way to dodge a question?
      Dodge? Hashem is not known to have brought people back from the dead, part rivers etc. only when it is needed. The question's presupposition is kind of iffy - which was the point of my question.

      I didn’t ask a question on why you believed the Law of Moses needed replaced or whether there is an indication in the Hebrew bible that it would be, that is a discussion for another thread. I asked a question about the "virgin" birth. If you can’t stay on topic you may want to excuse yourself from the conversation.
      The subject is a virgin pregnancy, a sign from God. Signs from God are relevant.

      Actually the Hebrew bible doesn’t say virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and no serious Hebrew scholar would say that it does unless they are trying to prove a theological point. Even Dr. Michael L Brown (christian apologist) wouldn’t and doesn’t make that claim in his book series and he is a PhD in NELC, which is what I am working on my Masters and eventual Doctorate in. The Hebrew word עלמה doesn’t take the meaning. In languages words have meaning and in Hebrew we have words to express specific meanings unlike English which has no problem assigning true meaning according to context. for example we have different verb to express "to know" each expressing a specific type of "knowing" the words are להכיר and לדעת . I'll let you guess what each expresses. The same is with עלמה as it expresses specifically that the person is roughly a teenager and only defines an age range. That’s it! It isn’t a "sexual" word unlike the word בתולה which is a “sexual” word with “sexual” connotations even in poetic expressions and in allegory within the bible.
      Indeed the Hebrew Bible says that the Lord himself will give a sign - the almah will be with child. What sign from the Lord would be involved if the young woman in question had been swyving? The pregnancy will be a sign from the Lord - so - a virgin is "needed" to fulfil the relevant prophecy.

      The word עלמה has usage of the masculine singular עלם in 1 Samuel 17:56. Are you going to try and argue that Saul was calling David a “virgin?”
      According to the dictionary, "elem" is a pubescent male. You're saying that almah is a pubescent female - In ancient Israel, was a young woman normally referred to as an almah after her wedding night? ... I don't know, maybe she was.




      The book of Hebrews is not a biblical book in Judaism. So referencing it would be irrelevant to me in the sense that I didn’t request a discussion on the NT or its books unless referencing specifically the portions that reference the “virgin birth.”
      The book of Hebrews does give an insight to the thinking of Jews in the first century. However, so be it.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • What's the most convenient way to dodge a question?

        Survey said: "Ask a question without ever actually answering the previous question."
        What's the most convenient way to dodge a rebuttal?

        Survey said: Avoid the issue and switch to ad hominems.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          What's the most convenient way to dodge a rebuttal?

          Survey said: Avoid the issue and switch to ad hominems.
          Please enlighten us and show exactly where I attacked you personally in detail. Calling out your dodge of the main question in the OP is not an ad hominem. Attempting to answer questions with a question is a DODGE. Not only that you seemed to create your own strawman argument by literally distorting the intent of the question by asking your own version and then answering it.
          אברהם אבן עזרא

          Avraham Ibn Ezra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Dodge? Hashem is not known to have brought people back from the dead, part rivers etc. only when it is needed. The question's presupposition is kind of iffy - which was the point of my question.
            then you must be fond of Red Herrings too.

            The subject is a virgin pregnancy, a sign from God. Signs from God are relevant.
            See Above.


            Indeed the Hebrew Bible says that the Lord himself will give a sign - the almah will be with child. What sign from the Lord would be involved if the young woman in question had been swyving? The pregnancy will be a sign from the Lord - so - a virgin is "needed" to fulfil the relevant prophecy.
            Perhaps the pregnancy is only part of the prophecy. Maybe you and many others miss the intent of the prophet and his prophecy. But that isnt the question I asked in the OP. So this is a red herring we are trying to argue.

            According to the dictionary, "elem" is a pubescent male. You're saying that almah is a pubescent female - In ancient Israel, was a young woman normally referred to as an almah after her wedding night? ... I don't know, maybe she was.
            I'm impressed you know how to read a Hebrew dictionary, probably strongs concordinance. Thanks for proving my point about what the words mean. Yes, the masculine and feminine Noun have the same connotation for different genders. There isnt really a masculine form of בתולה because only women are considered "virgins" due to the nature of sexual intercourse and what it entails. Hypothetically there could be a בתול considering the modern definitions and usages of "virgin" for males.

            What a person is referred to after their wedding night is irrelevant. Hebrew has specific words to denote specific ideas about a person or things. A woman is called a בעלה if there is a betrothal for marriage or there is a marriage but no consumation. After the marriage and consumation she would be called אישה. Like I stated before and will continue to reiterate, Hebrew has specific words to denote specific things. Perhaps that concept is lost on you because your head is firmly stuck in the English usage?


            The book of Hebrews does give an insight to the thinking of Jews in the first century. However, so be it.
            Like I said you must love red herrings. This has nothing to do with the OP or its central question. If I wanted to discuss the book of Hebrews it would have been included in the OP.
            Last edited by Avraham Ibn Ezra; 08-28-2014, 07:18 AM.
            אברהם אבן עזרא

            Avraham Ibn Ezra

            Comment


            • Natural birth, the parents are both human. In a "virgin" birth, there is either only one parent, or another parent not human, where the mother remains chaste.

              G-d's need is His in purposes. [Not that G-d needs anything, or even a creation.] It was G-d's need in the virgin birth to show, the one born of the human mother is also His. [John 1:1,2, 10, 14.] Showing forth other things as well. Matthew giving Joseph's line, showed that while Joseph had legal right to David's throne, being a descendant of Solomon, yet G-d promised none of Jeconiah's descendants would sit on David's throne.

              ". . . So said the LORD: Inscribe this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah." - Jeremiah 22:30 Tanakh

              Understand your agreeing with this is not necessary. The only thing you need to understand, is as a Christian, this is how I see this. Please feel at liberty to state your objections.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                What's the most convenient way to dodge a question?

                Survey said: "Ask a question without ever actually answering the previous question."



                I didn’t ask a question on why you believed the Law of Moses needed replaced or whether there is an indication in the Hebrew bible that it would be, that is a discussion for another thread. I asked a question about the "virgin" birth. If you can’t stay on topic you may want to excuse yourself from the conversation.



                Actually the Hebrew bible doesn’t say virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and no serious Hebrew scholar would say that it does unless they are trying to prove a theological point. Even Dr. Michael L Brown (christian apologist) wouldn’t and doesn’t make that claim in his book series and he is a PhD in NELC, which is what I am working on my Masters and eventual Doctorate in. The Hebrew word עלמה doesn’t take the meaning. In languages words have meaning and in Hebrew we have words to express specific meanings unlike English which has no problem assigning true meaning according to context. for example we have different verb to express "to know" each expressing a specific type of "knowing" the words are להכיר and לדעת . I'll let you guess what each expresses. The same is with עלמה as it expresses specifically that the person is roughly a teenager and only defines an age range. That’s it! It isn’t a "sexual" word unlike the word בתולה which is a “sexual” word with “sexual” connotations even in poetic expressions and in allegory within the bible.

                The word עלמה has usage of the masculine singular עלם in 1 Samuel 17:56. Are you going to try and argue that Saul was calling David a “virgin?”



                The book of Hebrews is not a biblical book in Judaism. So referencing it would be irrelevant to me in the sense that I didn’t request a discussion on the NT or its books unless referencing specifically the portions that reference the “virgin birth.”
                Avraham Ibn Ezra,

                I'm rather stumped about something you wrote,"In languages words have meaning and in Hebrew we have words to express specific meanings unlike English which has no problem assigning true meaning according to context. for example we have different verb to express "to know" each expressing a specific type of "knowing" the words are להכיר and לדעת ."

                So....in Genesis, Who is G‑d talking to when he says, "Let us create man in our image"? If G‑d is the One and Only, why does he refer to Himself in plural form?" As we see in the next chapter (verse 7), "And the L-rd G‑d formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul." He says that G‑d was referring to the earth from which man was actually formed. In Sirach, 33:10 "And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth" (7 Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.)-

                The comment back to you is that man was formed from the earth. Again, looking at Genesis 2:8 And HaShem G-d planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed." Should you say, however, it is already written "and He created man, etc." (Gen. 1:27), I note that one of the thirty-two rules stated by R. Eliezer b. R. Jose of Galilee in his baraitha on interpreting the Torsays: when a general statement is followed by a detailed account, the latter is a particularization of the former. "And He created man" is a general statement, but it does not explain whence man was created or what God did to him. So the text repeats and explains these things: "And the Lord God formed man, ... and He made to grow for him the garden of Eden, ... and He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him." Hearing this one might think it is a different account, but it is nothing but the details of the former general statement.

                In the New Testament attest that Jesus was with G-d at the very beginning which would mean that he was not formed from the earth. John 1, "2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Another scriptural passage: "The Lord made me the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was formed, before the establishment of the earth…When he made the heavens, I was already there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep.

                So isn't it a question of the "Virgin" birth attesting upon the fact that Jesus wasn't created from the earth - but came from G-d's dwelling (Even basically, to say that, What was created from the earth returns back to the earth...and what is spirit returns back to the heavens (Sirach 40:11 Everything that's from earth; returns to the earth; everything that's from water returns to the sea. ) and, "Apocrypha: Sirach Chapter 171 The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it again." .....On this last sentence you would have to get into the resurrection.

                30 For all things cannot be in men, because the son of man is not immortal. 31 What is brighter than the sun? yet the light thereof faileth; and flesh and blood will imagine evil. 32 He vieweth the power of the height of heaven; and all men are but earth and ashes.

                Reference:
                Daf Parashat Hashavua:
                http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/bereshit/arend.html
                D'var Torah: Bereshit:
                http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/dt/dt_bereshit.html
                Last edited by mitzi; 10-14-2014, 07:09 PM.

                Comment


                • Here's my interpretation of things:

                  Jeremiah 33:17 For so said the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel.

                  2 Chronicles 7:17-18 As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, and do according to all that I commanded you, and you keep My statutes and My ordinances. I shall set up the throne of your kingdom as I decreed to your father David, saying: You shall never lack a man ruling in Israel.

                  God promised David he would always have a son on the throne. Solomon received the same promise but it was conditional that he not follow other gods, he did, and lost the promise.

                  1 Kings 11:4 And it was at the time of Solomon's old age, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not whole with the Lord, His God, like the heart of David his father.

                  However David still had the promise, but after centuries with no king the only way for David to always have a son from his own bowels on the throne was to have his own son resurrected to be king, having an unbroken lineage to fulfill the promise.

                  Solmon's older brother died for David's sin in taking Bathsheba and sending Uriah into battle. He had the Messianic promise first. Thus it makes sense that he would be the one resurrected to die for sins of the whole world, not just David's.

                  One problem in just resurrecting him outright would be that he would be a mamzer still being born from an adulterous union, from an adulteress. But born from a virgin would clear the status and also offer a prophetic distinction between his righteous kingdom of "virgin" Israel vs. Solomon's kingdom of "harlot" Israel.

                  In reality Mary's lineage is never given except for alluding that she may be a Levite, and the NT lineages don't matter anyway since David's promise wouldn't be filled by adoption or after so many generations of non-kings. The human body and nature of Jesus had to be formed somehow, and resurrection is a perfectly biblical means of how this was accomplished.

                  In my view Jesus was born a man completely filled with God's presence so that he is God as well as Son of David, which is an accepted idea at least by some Hasidic Jews, though of course not as pertaining to Jesus. The idea is also referenced in the Tanach:

                  Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

                  Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

                  Where Moses was like God and Aaron his prophet, and David's seed would be like God. I know this strays from the virgin birth topic but I thought it worthwhile to comment on the divinity question as to how he can be of David and also God.

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X