Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrew Israelite questions
#21
(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: Isaiah then has a son, and before this child can speak, the plunder of Assyria will be no more, but not until Assyria exiles Zevulun, Naftali, and the rest of the Northern Kingdom.

Now you're saying Immanul is Isaiah the Prophets son? He never says my wife.

(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: The word 'the' never automatically means
a prior personal connection when used to speak of an individual."
The Torah doesn’t say either of them "knew" her, but Isaiah referred to her as "the" young woman, which is an indication they are both cognizant of this young woman. If it wasn’t someone they were aware of, why say "the" young woman? Why not "a" young woman?

If I said "the Hebrews" it doesn't mean I've met every single one of the Hebrews. If I said the "mailman" it doesn't mean I've met him. Same with "the young woman".

(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: In reference to your last point, I present to you Gen 43:3, where the word "the" ("the man") clearly indicates prior knowledge or mention; conversely, Judges 13:2 tells of "a man of Tzora," but because he’s not mentioned before, we can’t say "the" man.
What does "the" mean according to you?

Genesis 42 is speaking in general, we see the man is the Lord of the country.

29 And they came to Jacob their father into the land of Canaan, and told him all that befell unto them; saying,

30 The man, who is the lord of the land, spoke roughly to us, and took us for spies of the country.
#22
(01-22-2013, 01:34 PM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: "...a definition of a word can be used in description…
You can't say they 'met' each other prior, it isn't written…"
This is a telling juxtaposition. First you say that although the word "virgin" is absent in Num 31, we know they were because of a descriptive clause ("had not known a man"). Then you insist Isaiah and Ahaz could not have known this woman because it doesn’t say explicitly they met her, despite the use of the descriptive clause "the." Well, which is it? Can descriptive clauses work or no?

"The" isn't a descriptive clause, "the" is a definite article (used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped. We see a noun is a person, place or thing. In this case young woman is a person, and the is used generically. That is grammar. One single word in no way can be considered a descriptive clause.

(01-22-2013, 01:34 PM)benyosef Wrote: You are also mistaking my position. I did not say that "anytime the Torah wants to speak of a virgin, it’ll only use this word," what I was always saying is that whenever the Torah uses the word "betula," it can only mean "virgin," and whenever the Torah uses the word "almah," always refers to youth, never explicitly to sexual experience.

If she were a young woman of child bearing age and she wasn't betrothed, then she had to be a virgin. Because God would not allow a woman to bear a Holy child who was an adulterer. Or raped. It isn't mentioned this young woman had a husband, yet she will give birth.
#23
(01-22-2013, 01:34 PM)benyosef Wrote: MJ: "[Jews can’t marry virgins based on] Deut 22:17…Ex. 22…"
Wouldn’t it be great if you could provide verses that show Jewish men are obligated to only marry virgins, instead of giving cases of rapists and seducers? If such a rule existed, Lev. 21:7, which bars kohanim from marrying non-virgins, would be pointless, for such a rule would apply to everybody.

I did not say "can't" marry virgins" that is a complete misquote. I said they have to marry virgins based on Deuteronomy 22:17 and Exodus 22.

Deuteronomy 22: Even a "Maid" was a virgin. It doens't use the word betulah. "I found her not a maid" then later we find maid meant virgin.
The below has absolutely nothing to do with rape!!

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
יד. וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם
רָע וְאָמַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב
אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים:

Where is betulah in the above?

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forward the tokens of the damsel's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel's father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates her;

17 And, look, he has given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not your daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Nothing to do with rape. Verse 19 describes a penalty for defaming a virgin of Israel not a virgin of Levi.
#24
The word "the" does not indicate that the parties have actually met, but speaks of a noun known to the parties involved. To use your mailman example, when you say "the mailman," I can assume you are speaking of the one who delivers your mail; I cannot logically assume you are referring to one not yet born, or you would have said something else.

It is clear from your question about whether or not "betulah" is in Deut 22:14 that you do not read Hebrew. How do I know? The last word in the verse, בְּתוּלִים, is the word "betulah" with a suffix indicating plurality (since the husband is claiming the absence of *signs* of virginity).

Both of these issues have drawn us away from the main point: When Isaiah spoke of the woman who would bear a son and name him Immanuel, he was speaking of a young woman he and Ahaz and were aware of. It doesn’t say who she was, so any guess other than a young woman would be mere guesswork or "commentary." Why would Matthew feel the need to change "the young woman" to "a virgin," thus altering the words of G-D? Why take only a few words of a verse, which is of itself only part of the full prophecy, and declaring these words, but nothing else, is somehow a Messianic prophecy?

MessianicJew Wrote:Immanul is Isaiah[s] son? He never says my wife.

Read the text. In ch. 8 Isaiah was with his wife ("the prophetess") and G-D tells him to name the son Maher Shalal Chash Baz, and before this child can speak, the Assyrians will invade. There are some opinions that, indeed, the woman in question was Isaiah’s wife, but since that’s not in the text, it’s not important for us right now. But seriously, it seems, based on your questions, you are skimming the texts. Take a breather and read it though.

MessianicJew Wrote:I said they have to marry virgins based on Deut 22:17 and Ex 22.

There is no verse whatsoever obligating Jews to marry virgins. The only Jews who have such a rule are the males of the priestly class. Everyone else can marry non-virgins like widows, divorcees, etc.

So then, what is the big deal with Deut 22 and Ex 22? To someone unfamiliar with Jewish marriage documents, this can be confusing. In the marriage contract, the husband promises that in event of divorce, she receives money from his holdings/estate. If she is a virgin at the time of marriage, it is usually set at 200 units of currency (although he can certainly add if he wishes); if not, usually 100 units. This is what Ex 22 means when it speaks of the bride price for virgins. When Deut 22 speaks of a man trying to accuse his wife of not being a virgin, he is trying to argue that the contract was falsified.
#25
(10-01-2010, 12:34 PM)TheKenster33 Wrote: *QUESTION TO ALL CHRISTIANS* ...Do u actually believe that the Most High would commit "adultery" with a man's wife and make that child the "messiah"??????????????????? ...smells like bacon to me...
I believe there is nothing impure of the intentions of YHVH. Sarah was beyond childbearing age, and barren. YHVH fulfilled His promise to Abraham and gave miraculous conception by the Power of the Holy Spirit to bear within her womb;Israel

You should not speak, and profane against YHVH

Also YHVH gave to Israel the Meshiach; That the blod of YHVH would cleasne the seed of David, and give heir to the Rightfull King of Israel; That G-D's Son would bring atonement to the iniquities of Israel;[Isaiah 53] You know, the death of the righteous atones? Only YHVH is righteouss, and only YHVH may give that righteousness, and innocence of Himself, so that Israel would be given Grace from the broken Torah, to fulfill His Covenant with Abraham. His Name was Yeshua Jesus.



I can take you even a step farther than G-D just creating a Messiah. He made a man without a women, and then gave birth to a woman from the mans rib. Imagine that? That's where you came from!
You bring offense to yourself by your own words.
#26
(01-14-2013, 03:47 PM)benyosef Wrote: Context in Isaiah 7, 8, and 9 shows Isaiah was not speaking of the Messiah: The word "messiah" is absent, the prophecy spoke of and occurred in Biblical times, and even applying the chapter to Jesus' time leads to many odd questions, such as "who were the two kings surrounding Jerusalem during Jesus' birth in either 6 BCE (according to Mat) or 4 CE (according to Luk) who would be gone by the time Jesus knew to choose good from evil, as explicitly foretold in Isaiah 7?"

Matthew says "the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (1:23)." The verse in Isaiah reads, "the young woman is pregnant, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."
The differences are immense. According to Matthew, the woman is not yet expecting, but Isaiah says she already is. Matthew says "they" will call him Immanuel, and so Joseph should name him Jesus; Isaiah says "she" will name him Immanuel, and she indeed named him Immanuel, as a sign to the Kingdom of Judah that G-D will be with them and will be safe from the Assyrian siege.

benyosef wrote: "It is possible to be a young woman and not a virgin without being promiscuous..."
Actually if you examine the original Hebrew scriptures written hundreds of years before Jesus ever walked the earth, Isaiah 7:14 was not young woman , but virgin.The disciple Matthew recorded the scripture accurately.

I accepted alma for many years, being taught from modern Hebrew teachings, and revisions of oral Torah &Talmud, influenced from the 2nd. Temple period. As well as another was; excluding the woman for determining birthright to eliminate Jesus as heir to David's Throne, seeing the Father was only YHVH and did not count for Jewishness.,Although in irony in todays Jewish determination of being Jewish; If a childs mother is Jewish and the father is gentile; the child is Jewish, though if the Father is Jewish and the mother gentile, the child is gentile.

Why did Ishmael not have birthright to Israel being firstborn, and Abraham s son? Why the the child determined by the mother Sarah; seeing Abraham was the father to both?

Isaiah 7:14 , though was partially fulfiled in the days of Ahaz, but seeing the mother of Immanuel is virgin, it eliminates the father being Isaiah,seeing Isaiah already had sons and was married, and certainly didn't commit adultery with a virgin, but instead logic points to YHVH as the Father. I guess YHVH doesn't really care if you think He is Jewish or not!. Surely the prophesy is unfulfilled seeing todays headlines are about the same enemy then at the borders of Israel ready to unleash the whole middle east upon Israel;

Here's a link;
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=13018

History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme!; Mark Twain
#27
It's really beyond common sense as well to think Isaiahas the Father of Immanuel ,seeing Immanuel is ; G-D with us. YHVH being the author of righteousness, and none righteous but He.
Isaiah in the following verses connects Immanuel to Isaiah 9:6 both being YHVH who brigs forth righteousness,, yet does not attribute righteousness to Himself, or his seed,nor being the one to give the atonement of Israel's iniquities [Isaiah 53] of Himself, or to Israel; In fact as read in ;

But "we are all"as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and" we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away Isaiah 64:6
All of us; like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 53:6

So who is this unknown stranger that Israel gives credit to themselves as being the one righteouss?I think it could be Immanuel.!.........Jesus is the only one I know of that was G-D's Son , and son of Mary ; being the descendant of David,on his Mothers side; on the side of Nathan the rightfull heir of the throne of David . Could it be Jesus was who Isaiah was speaking of?

So Judaic believers believe G-D made a man without a woman, and then made a woman from the rib of the mans chest, and then made a 90 year old barren woman give birth by miraculous conception to become the nation of Israel. But of course ; Jesus birth was proposterous!

Isaiah did say;WE ALL,Have gone astray, NOT ;YOU ALL
#28
Azriel, I don’t know which versions of Isa 7 you’ve seen, but every Hebrew copy I’ve read, whether from Jews or Christians, has the word "alma." You say Matthew recorded the text accurately, yet he appears to be the earliest source for such a translation. Even if "alma" means "virgin," and indeed that's what Isaiah meant to say, the text reads "ha’alma," meaning, "the alma," in reference to a woman both he and Ahaz knew (otherwise he would have simply said "almah," without the definite article "the"), and not a random woman 700 years into the future.

But even if we were to say all this, it still could not be speaking of Jesus or the Messiah, because this child’s birth was not the sign:

Isa 7:14-16> the L-RD Himself will give you a sign: the young woman is pregnant, will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 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.

We see the woman is already pregnant, so it’s not a future event. Further, the child’s name was Immanuel, which means "G-D is with us," not that his essence was G-D. There are many names which contain G-D and a description of Him, such as Elijah ("G-D G-D"), Josiah ("G-D is salvation"), and Ishmael ("G-D hears"). Although Israel’s enemies are now amassing at her borders, and have been doing so since at least 1948, Isaiah was speaking of the two kings whom Ahaz personally feared, i.e. Pekah and Rezin. Looking through Isa 7 and II Kings 15 and 16, we see that all of Isaiah’s prophecy came to fruition in Biblical times, and is not a "dual prophecy."

You say Jesus descended from David on Mary’s side, the rightful heir via Nathan. However, G-D says the Davidic line of kings must travel through Solomon: 2 Sam 7:12-16> I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever...

Since Luke’s genealogy goes through David’s son Nathan, anyone in Luke’s line is disqualified from sitting on David’s throne, even though they descend from David.

Luk 1:27 says Joseph was from Judah, but says nothing of Mary, nor is Mary’s name in either of Jesus’ lineages. Why do you think she is from Judah?

Although Jewishness comes from the mother, tribal affiliation follows the father: Num 1:18> they recited their ancestry by families, by their fathers’ houses…

Why didn’t Ishmael have birthright? Only because of G-D’s promise to Avraham: Gen 17:19> G-D said, No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him...
#29
(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: The House of David are scared for Aram and Ephraim have teamed-up. Isaiah takes his son to tell Ahaz that the siege will not succeed. The sign? The woman is pregnant, will deliver a boy, and will name him Immanuel (G-D is with us). Before the child can choose good from evil, the land of the besieging kings will be abandoned.

Isaiah then has a son, and before this child can speak, the plunder of Assyria will be no more, but not until Assyria exiles Zevulun, Naftali, and the rest of the Northern Kingdom.

And yet, there wasn't a son named Immanuel.

(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: Where is the Messiah here? These are all contemporaneous matters. If you were to say this all speaks of Jesus, then who were the kings killed between Jesus’ birth and Jesus knowing good from evil? You claim Herod is one, but A. he wasn’t besieging Jerusalem, B. who is the second?, and C. according to Luke, Jesus was born after Herod died. Why would Isaiah give Ahaz a sign about Ahaz outliving the siege if the sign would occur centuries after their deaths?

The thing is, Matthew didn't say it "all" speaks of Christ, only one portion.

(01-22-2013, 01:31 PM)benyosef Wrote: Why did Matthew make even "minor" edits? Why wasn’t G-D’s Word good enough as is?

Take the time to print the edit you claim is there, because Apostle Matthew points to one are in Isaiah. And it is word for word when I read it.
#30
(01-27-2013, 08:20 PM)benyosef Wrote: The word "the" does not indicate that the parties have actually met, but speaks of a noun known to the parties involved. To use your mailman example, when you say "the mailman," I can assume you are speaking of the one who delivers your mail; I cannot logically assume you are referring to one not yet born, or you would have said something else.

You are saying "the" means you met the person previously. If I said the mailman, it doesn't mean I've previously met him. So you are trying to say the young woman was previously met, however, "the" doesn't always mean you've previously met someone.

(01-27-2013, 08:20 PM)benyosef Wrote: It is clear from your question about whether or not "betulah" is in Deut 22:14 that you do not read Hebrew. How do I know? The last word in the verse, בְּתוּלִים, is the word "betulah" with a suffix indicating plurality (since the husband is claiming the absence of *signs* of virginity).

I don't read Hebrew fluently, and I was comparing the English use of the word maid over what you're claiming in English Betulah meant, and then asked you to point out the word betulah in the Hebrew is within Deuteronomy. Because Rashi commentary for Song of Solomon 1 says the word means virgin.

(01-27-2013, 08:20 PM)benyosef Wrote: Both of these issues have drawn us away from the main point: When Isaiah spoke of the woman who would bear a son and name him Immanuel, he was speaking of a young woman he and Ahaz and were aware of. It doesn’t say who she was, so any guess other than a young woman would be mere guesswork or "commentary." Why would Matthew feel the need to change "the young woman" to "a virgin," thus altering the words of G-D? Why take only a few words of a verse, which is of itself only part of the full prophecy, and declaring these words, but nothing else, is somehow a Messianic prophecy?

Then you're back to assuming they previously met her. In any case you are trying to be Hebrew dictionary of which it is impossible, a Hebrew dictionary from the time of Jesus does not exist.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)