Let us discuss something different.

Greetings All, and Katherine.

I wanted to comment on the thread in general and thought this would be the best place to interject.

Katherine wrote: bmzsp wrote: I am sorry for the mistake but you could have found out easily what I was referring to!. Please read Isaiah 7:14 in the Jewish scripture and then read Isaiah 7:14 in the OT of the Christian Bible. Hope to hear from you as to why the changes were made to the Jewish text which was there far before even the Christian Bible was compiled. BR BMZ Yes, I knew perfectly well which verse you were referring to. lol The Jewish Scriptures translated from the Greek were translated by Jews.  Do you think they made a mistake translating their own scriptures?

This would be a misconception, making your question a "complex question" (a question that assumes as its bases an unproven or erroneous belief). When one states the word, "Septuagint", the actual connotation would be the five books of Moses. That is the actual Septuagint. The book you are speaking of would not have been included in that.

Katherine wrote: Am I mistaken?  I thought that Muslims believed that Jesus was born of a virgin?  Are you denying that?

Thats a good point Katherine. But, we must keep in mind the difference between a belief, and an evidence for the belief. It is not uncommon for Christians in the west to take an indignant attitude when they encounter a Muslim in a discussion who speaks about Jesus. For most Christians, they feel they are the true followers of Jesus and because their name sake carries the name of their leader, that if anyone has any authority on who and what Jesus was, they are the one.

As a Muslims, when I examine the Christian evidences for their beliefs, I find most of them to be tentative at best, and fallacious at worst. The exmaple being discussed now is one such evidece that is held by the Church to be one of their strong proofs for the case of Jesus and their beliefs about him. My rejection of this evidence as proof does not deny my belief in the virgin birth, but it does reinforce my skepticism of Christianity. My skepticism is not base upon any derogatory view of your faith, but upon the foundations on which it is built, such as this proof "verse".

Katherine wrote:   Since you brought Isaiah 53 up.  What do you think about what I said about this Chapter? This particular Chapter was almost unamimously considered Messianic in first century Judaism.  You will find that Jews today deny this and consider this Chapter to refer to the  nation of Israel, but there are reasons why this cannot be. This particular Chapter has brought many, many Jews to believe that Jesus was, indeed, their Messiah, their King Messiah.

Your first statement is simply without any solid bases. Isaiah 53 is not widely denied as Messianic, and it is not widely denied as being Israel, but it is widely denied to be Jesus, which I would concur.

For now, I want to cover Isaiah 7:1-16

Below is a paste of appropriate verses needed for the discussion from the JPS, which I dislike if quoting the TANACH, but it suffices for now. I will make comments that explain the context of the verse, the setting, and then provide points that show this is not a prophecy, or a dual prophecy, and given the setting and conext, has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or the late second temple. 

 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it.

In 732 BCE, we find the Davidic throne under the threat of war from the two warring kingdoms of the North. The Kingdom of Syria and the Kindgom of Israel are trying to destroy the Kingdom of the South and have layed siege to the city of Jerusalem. King Ahaz is about to loose everything, and it should be mentioned that King Ahaz is not a "man of Gd", which will allow this chapter to make sense.

The threat of the Davidic throne is reinforced below.

7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind.

7:3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: 'Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field;

7:4 and say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah.

7:5 Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying:

7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel;

7:7 thus saith the Lord GOD: it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

7:8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people;

7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not have faith, surely ye shall not be established.'

These verses further reinforce the position that the context of this verse is about a war, and now Gd reassures that the agression of the two northern kingdoms will fail. Keep in mind that so far, nothing is given in the context of this chapter that has anything to do with late second temple or Jesus.

7:10 And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:

7:11 'Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'

7:12 But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the Lord.'

7:13 And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?

7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Ahaz, who is not a great man of Gd, feels intimidated to ask Gd for a sign. Asking for a sign, not a miracle, as the sign will be a symbo, of Gd's Words of reassurance about the failure of King Ahaz's enemies. This sign would mark the downfall.

If this sign were the virgin birth of Jesus centuries later, then what sign of reassurance would this be to a people that were under siege and ready to be destroyed? In other words, what would King Ahaz, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem care about an event that would happen long after they were dead, how would the virign birth of Jesus be relevant to a people who are about to be conquered and killed?  

7:15 Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

7:16 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.

This goes on to tell us how the sign will be relevant to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. BY the time the child, who is a sign, reaches the age of knowing right from wrong, the two kingdoms will be vanquished and defeated. This came to pass. The armies were killed in the night.

So if this is strictly interpreted as the virign birth of Jesus, then what relevancy does eating curds and honey have to do with Jesus? When did he eat them? What two northern kingdoms were destoryed when Jesus reached puberty?

If this is a "dual prophecy", then what in the verse tells you it is such, and how would the birth of Jesus be unique given that now we have a second virgin birth?

(I do not believe the verse tells us of a virgin birth because the verse tells us that there will be a sign and the point of the sign is by the time the child reaches a certain age, so whether or not the child was born of a virgin would not have mattered in this scenerio)

Peace