Does Almah=Betulah or not ?

Since: Mar 07

netanya

#21 Oct 7, 2008
Yankee Doodle wrote:
Hello Aviva
Perhaps you could tell us where The Jews get this idea of a "coming" Messiah from.
After all, every Messianic verse posted here has, according to you, been mis-translated.
So kindly inform us ignorant Christians about the basis of the Messianic hope in Judaism. From what I can see, there is NO basis for the Jews expecting a Messiah.
Please inform,
Thanks
The reality is that the
messianic agenda, as described in the Hebrew Bible, consists of a mere handful of
significant items, which are to be completed during the reign of (mashi'ah), the
promised Jewish Messiah.
The messiah will usher in the messianic era, as foretold in the Hebrew Bible, and preside over the people of Israel as their king, sitting on the throne of King David and execute and successfully complete the messianic agenda a described in the Hebrew Bible, within one lifetime. The messiah will have attributes that must include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
1. Be the seed (a direct descendant) of King David, through King
Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5,
30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24-25; I Kgs 8:15-20; I Chron 17:11-15, 22:9-10, 28:3-7).
2. Be a spiritual and military/political leader (e.g., Is 2:3, 11:2; Dan 7:14)
3. Be married and have children during his term ( Ezek 46:16-18)

The messiah will be expected to bring about certain
conditions as part of his sovereignty, though some will commence prior to
his being identified as the Messiah. These must include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following:
1. Arrival of Elijah the Prophet (e.g., Mal 3:23-24 )
2. Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem (e.g., Is. 33:20; Ezek 37:26-28, and Ezekiel chapters 40-48)
3. In-gathering of Jewish exiles to Israel (e.g., Is 11:12; Jer 16:15, 23:3; Ez 37:21-22; Zech 10:6-10)
4. Reunification of Judah and Israel into one people (e.g., Ezek 37:16-22; Is. 11:13)
5. World peace (e.g., Is 2:4, 11:6-8; Mich 4:3-4)
6. Universal knowledge of G-d (e.g., Is 11:9; Jer 16:19,20, 31:33(34); Zech 8:23, 14:9)
7. Resurrection of the dead (e.g., Is 26:19; Ez. 37:12-13; Dan 12:2)
Yankee Doodle

Saint Louis, MO

#23 Oct 30, 2008
Hey Aviva!

Does God have a Son?

The Tanach says HE does!

Proverb 30:

4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!

“a disinherited son of cain”

Since: Apr 08

NoVa

#24 Oct 31, 2008
I thought we were all sons and daughters of G-d.

And aren't angels considered "b'nei elohim" as well?

What did you have in mind Yankee Doodle?

Since: Mar 07

netanya

#25 Nov 1, 2008
Yankee Doodle wrote:
Hey Aviva!
Does God have a Son?
The Tanach says HE does!
Proverb 30:
4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!
"Does God have a Son?"
i assume that by 'Son', as opposed to 'son' you are referring to a son of G-d who is also a G-d? if so, then the answer is 'no!'. Shema yisroel, Hashem elohanu, Hashem echad.
Hashem has many names but there is only one Hashem. as to him son...try reading exodus 4:22 "This is what the Lord says "Israel is my firstborn son..". how do you explain john 3:16 in light of exodus 4:22?
of course, the writer of matthew, whoever he/they might have been, had his say in matt. 2:15 "...and so was fulfilled what the Lord had said thru the prophet: "Out of Egypt have I called my son.". matthew wants us to believe that the prophet was speaking of jesus. however, in order to accomplish this deception, he had to cut off the first half of that verse he was quoting from. why? because anyone reading the entire verse would understand immediately that this verse is not speaking about jsus at all. take the time to read Hosea 11:1 in its entirety..."When ISRAEL was a child, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son"
so you want to know the name of G-d's firstborn son? it's ISRAEL!

Since: Dec 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#26 Mar 10, 2009
A fraud. What you cannot do...

You cannot translate the word almah to young woman 6 times and then translate the same word almah into the word virgin when it is used a 7th time.

Sorry, folks.

Since: Dec 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#27 Mar 10, 2009
Sorry I forgot one more thing.

If you take the time to read ancient history, there are many kings and pharaoh that were born from a "god" and a human virgin woman.

So the story of the birth of Jesus is not unique in any way.

“a disinherited son of cain”

Since: Apr 08

NoVa

#28 Mar 11, 2009
Not to mention Mashiach was to be a descendant of David, not G-d.
Michael

United States

#29 May 25, 2009
Mattai wrote:
Yeah, those crazy Jews! They've only held on to their language/traditions for a few thousand years! What would they know about any of those books and prophecies?
Obviously the Christians, who are fluent in Hebrew and can trace their teachers back to Moses, have the correct interpritation!
Oh wait...
I see this type of comment so often and I wonder if anyone ever challenges the slick sarcasm. Was Matthew a Jew? Did he know Hebrew, Greek, even how the scriptures were taught 2000 years ago? He is one who ties these prophecies to the events of his day.

Was John the Baptist a Jew? He is one (along with Matthew, the other gospel writers, and Jesus Himself) who says he is fulfilling Isaiah and Malachai by announcing Jesus. Did he have enough knowledge of the language, of scripture and of prophecy to satisfy you?

What about Saul/Paul? Of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee, taught by Gamaliel, did he know of the same things Matthew and John the Baptist were saying? Was his understanding of scripture, Hebrew and prophecy "satisfactory"? Would you so pompously challenge him also? Would he be worthy of debate with you, or instead would he only receive derision?

What about the others, Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, James and his brother John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas and the rest. Were these men Jews, familiar with the language, the teachings, and able to discern as well as you?

Was Jesus a Jew? Called "Rabbi" by so many, allowed to teach in the Synagogues, brought the scroll of Isaiah to read, present in the section of the Temple where Gentiles were forbidden, convicted by a Jewish "trial" and tortured to death at the behest of the chief of priests. Was He a Jew? Was His understanding and knowledge at least close to yours? When He taught others from Moses on, how they spoke of Him and their hearts burned within them, were they Jews capable of discerning how the Tanakh was taught in that day and able to fairly judge what they heard as well as you?

So then, who should we believe now? You, 2000 years later with at most a study of the languages and no credentials, or these men, men who used the language, studied scripture at the time, credentials far beyond even your imagination including miracles never seen before or since, and men who each were moved by God?

You would do well to cut the sarcasm, stop trying to deflect truth by pretending it is Christians interpreting Moses and the prophets, and look at what is before you with a fresh eye and an open heart.

I hope you will!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!!!
Truth

Mexico

#30 Jun 2, 2009
Mattai wrote:
Yeah, those crazy Jews! They've only held on to their language/traditions for a few thousand years! What would they know about any of those books and prophecies?
Obviously the Christians, who are fluent in Hebrew and can trace their teachers back to Moses, have the correct interpritation!
Oh wait...
(Matt 22:29 [KJV])
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Michael

Riverside, CA

#31 Jun 2, 2009
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
(Matt 22:29 [KJV])
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Indeed, and were you willing to quote the entire incident, He was speaking to Sadducees who, as did many of the Pharisees (and in agreement with scripture), rejected Him. He was explaining the resurrection, which they thought was folly. He was continuing to confirm His identity, teaching not (like the Rabbis) what someone else said, but truth directly from Himself and no other. And this He also said:

And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Matt. 16:16-17

The thing that I notice most, however, is you did not answer my question. You ridiculed "Christians" and their understanding of the Tanakh, yet in truth you are ridiculing each of the Jews I listed. Were they "Jewish" enough to understand the scriptures and the prophecies? Are you saying, for example, that you know the languages, the scriptures and the prophecies better than Saul?
Michael

Riverside, CA

#32 Jun 2, 2009
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, and were you willing to quote the entire incident, He was speaking to Sadducees who, as did many of the Pharisees (and in agreement with scripture), rejected Him. He was explaining the resurrection, which they thought was folly. He was continuing to confirm His identity, teaching not (like the Rabbis) what someone else said, but truth directly from Himself and no other. And this He also said:
And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Matt. 16:16-17
The thing that I notice most, however, is you did not answer my question. You ridiculed "Christians" and their understanding of the Tanakh, yet in truth you are ridiculing each of the Jews I listed. Were they "Jewish" enough to understand the scriptures and the prophecies? Are you saying, for example, that you know the languages, the scriptures and the prophecies better than Saul?
"Truth,"

My apologies!(never get old like me!) I saw "Mattai" in your quote and misunderstood who was posting. I do not know your perspective or the point you were trying to make, but I do know you were not the one ridiculing those who find reasons to recongize the authority of the Jews I mentioned... I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and hope to hear from Mattai soon...

“a disinherited son of cain”

Since: Apr 08

NoVa

#33 Jun 12, 2009
Michael wrote:
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and hope to hear from Mattai soon...
You shall hear from me after Shabbos my friend.

Since: Dec 09

Whitecourt, Canada

#34 Dec 2, 2009
To add to this thread is the Rabbinic dictum that states if nara is spelled without the het it means the woman is a virgin. In the case if Dinah we see that the translators of the GS were consistent with the tradition to translate nara as virgin. We must also keep in mind that the GS was translated by Jews for Jews before there was an argument over this passage. What motivation would they have had to "mistranslate this passage" Conversely what motivation is there for critsizing this "translation/midrash " Obviously this is an event which narrows down the candidates for Messiah quite a bit. In answer to an earlier declaration, maybe by another person, it isn't even a miracle today for a virgin to be with child. Any woman can have a fertilized egg implanted in her womb, leaving her hymen intact and women today are having surgeries to have the hymen restored. As most Jews today would agree the Messiah need not be born of a virgin, I don't see the big deal here. What motivation would early writers have to make this claim. Certainly not to make it easier to believe in Yeshua. Maybe it's there to seperate the men from the boys, so to speak.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#35 Dec 19, 2009
Levi wrote:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a "virgin" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
YISHEYAH 7:14
Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the "young woman" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I humbly ask. is there any place in the Tanakh where a virgin is also considered a young woman?
----------

A virgin cannot conceive; or she is not a virgin. Just use a little logic, that's all. Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Israel if you read Amos 5:2. The virgin Israel is fallen. In Isaiah she gives
birth to Judah. See verses 15,22; 8:8. In Amos 5:2 Israel is fallen
by the hands of Assyria.
Michael

Diamond Bar, CA

#36 Dec 19, 2009
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
A virgin cannot conceive; or she is not a virgin. Just use a little logic, that's all. Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Israel if you read Amos 5:2. The virgin Israel is fallen. In Isaiah she gives
birth to Judah. See verses 15,22; 8:8. In Amos 5:2 Israel is fallen
by the hands of Assyria.
You have a very small "god." Do you believe these: Parting the Red Sea? Water from a rock? Manna from heaven? Saved from death by looking at a brass serpent? Walls falling simply because of men obediently marching in a circle? The sun moving backwards? I could go on and on as you know.

No, anything but a virgin conceiving would be no sign at all!

Since Israel, in G_d's eyes has been a fornicator from the beginning, it seems strange to deny the power of God and proclaim Israel a "virgin" just to avoid the obvious.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#37 Dec 19, 2009
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a very small "god." Do you believe these: Parting the Red Sea? Water from a rock? Manna from heaven? Saved from death by looking at a brass serpent? Walls falling simply because of men obediently marching in a circle? The sun moving backwards? I could go on and on as you know.
No, anything but a virgin conceiving would be no sign at all!
Since Israel, in G_d's eyes has been a fornicator from the beginning, it seems strange to deny the power of God and proclaim Israel a "virgin" just to avoid the obvious.
----------

Do you know the meaning of "anthropomorphy?" That's what you and all Christians make of God: An anthropomorphic Being for looking at all in the Bible literally.

But that's not what you are concerned about. You, like any other anti-Jewish fella, enjoy playing the easy old game to keep the sins of Israel fresh even if they have been forgiven by God thousands of years ago. You might not like Jeremiah 46:28, where it says that of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them; but of Israel He will only chastise as we deserve.

How is that now for being Israel a fornicator since the beginning? Kind of sour isn't it? I think you should let God act like God and not play yourself the one as far as Israel is concerned.

Listen Michael, God can everything, even have a virgin give birth and still remain virgin, but He did not do that. Why, because you have decided that so it should be the way you understand? Wake up
and smell the coffee. That's Century 21. The 16th Century is long
gone.
Michael

Diamond Bar, CA

#38 Dec 19, 2009
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Do you know the meaning of "anthropomorphy?" That's what you and all Christians make of God: An anthropomorphic Being for looking at all in the Bible literally.
But that's not what you are concerned about. You, like any other anti-Jewish fella, enjoy playing the easy old game to keep the sins of Israel fresh even if they have been forgiven by God thousands of years ago. You might not like Jeremiah 46:28, where it says that of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them; but of Israel He will only chastise as we deserve.
How is that now for being Israel a fornicator since the beginning? Kind of sour isn't it? I think you should let God act like God and not play yourself the one as far as Israel is concerned.
Listen Michael, God can everything, even have a virgin give birth and still remain virgin, but He did not do that. Why, because you have decided that so it should be the way you understand? Wake up
and smell the coffee. That's Century 21. The 16th Century is long
gone.
First, I apologize for giving you the feeling I am "anti-Jewish." I don't know how to love Israel more than I do, I never want to give you or anyone else any other impression. My only point centered on the statement that the only way a woman could give birth was not to be a virgin. It seemed, and it still seems, inexplicable that someone might believe God could created man from the dust of the ground, but not create the Messiah's body inside a virgin's womb. If the prophecy meant "a young maiden," that would be self-contradictory as it would be no sign at all. So, just like you misjudge me, you misjudge your own scriptures and your own prophets.

Isaiah 40:3 spoke of someone who would announce the coming of YHWH, of Elohiym. John, the first prophet in 400 years claimed to be that "voice" and pointed to Jesus as its fulfillment. Jesus then asked those who opposed Him where John's authority came from. I might ask you the same question, but whether or not you "wake up and smell the coffee," I am thankful that your G_d, our G_d, has a perfect plan for Israel and will never stop loving them. Thank you for sharing your Messiah with us.(Isa. 49:6) I, far more than most, needed Him.

Grace and peace...

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#39 Dec 31, 2009
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I apologize for giving you the feeling I am "anti-Jewish." I don't know how to love Israel more than I do, I never want to give you or anyone else any other impression. My only point centered on the statement that the only way a woman could give birth was not to be a virgin. It seemed, and it still seems, inexplicable that someone might believe God could created man from the dust of the ground, but not create the Messiah's body inside a virgin's womb. If the prophecy meant "a young maiden," that would be self-contradictory as it would be no sign at all. So, just like you misjudge me, you misjudge your own scriptures and your own prophets.
Isaiah 40:3 spoke of someone who would announce the coming of YHWH, of Elohiym. John, the first prophet in 400 years claimed to be that "voice" and pointed to Jesus as its fulfillment. Jesus then asked those who opposed Him where John's authority came from. I might ask you the same question, but whether or not you "wake up and smell the coffee," I am thankful that your G_d, our G_d, has a perfect plan for Israel and will never stop loving them. Thank you for sharing your Messiah with us.(Isa. 49:6) I, far more than most, needed Him.
Grace and peace...
----------

The point is: If you are talking about Jesus, who told you that God
created the Messiah's body in the womb of a virgin, Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels 50+ years after Jesus had been gone?
Have mercy! Where is it written? Can you show me without assuming? No, you cannot. All you guys are expert at is to read the Tanakh and assume that it applies to Jesus.

The same question goes for your claiming that John claimed that Jesus was the one. Well, he was not. The gospel writers were the ones who put up the claim. People who had a very poor knowledge of what being Jewish is, considering that none of them was a Jewish person. They had been all disciples of Paul, sharing the same struggle to promote the Christianity that Paul started in Antioch.(Acts 11:26)
Bruce

Santa Clara, CA

#40 Dec 31, 2009
Respectfully, I say that this argument is redundant, as it is already addressed in the thread "Does Yeshua=Imanuel.

prayerfully,
Bruce

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#41 Jan 1, 2010
Bruce wrote:
Respectfully, I say that this argument is redundant, as it is already addressed in the thread "Does Yeshua=Imanuel.
prayerfully,
Bruce
But it hasn't been resolved yet. Your argument is not convincing. One thing does not equal another based on the meaning of names. You have got to do much better than that. You are teaching based on assumptions. Sorry!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Messianic Judaism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
All Major Denominations Corrupted By Paganism Jun 15 Bruce 1
News Hanukkah With the Jews for Jesus (Mar '15) Feb '17 Messianic114 42
Two House Theology (Jul '10) Feb '17 nijjhar 12
Two Comings Of HaMoshiach Clearly Supported In ... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 5
The Dangers Of Radiationism (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 1
The curse of chiliasm (Jul '16) Jul '16 leon fortayne 6
Messianic group meeting in Arkansas (Apr '16) Apr '16 Dahlia Moriah 1
More from around the web