messianic prophecies

Originally posted by FMF
So then I will pose my question again: wasn't Matthew writing after Jesus' death and contributing to the efforts to create literature for a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism?

and i will rephrase my answer, Matthew wrote his Gospel for Hellenised christians, if you
think that it construes to mean that he was contributing to the efforts to create
literature for a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism then
that is your affair.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you take the meaning 'a young woman who is of marriageable age' then it would make perfectly logical sense that she was not a virgin. it all depends on the translation you choose to apply. your logic is not sound, it only works in the fixed way you choose to look at it.

why did the christian bible retain the translation as 'virgin'. why not stic ...[text shortened]... is being close-minded and blinkered, which is about right, youve even admitted it yourself.

actually my Bible states maiden, will i quote it again,

(Isaiah 7:14) . . .Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The
maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and
she will certainly call his name Immanuel.

why again is it a noticeable sign that a normal young women of marriageable age
gives birth should be construed as a sign, you have not said, nor can you, for its a
nonsense, the only conceivable way that the verse can be construed as any kind of
sign is if the young women is a virgin and gives birth, otherwise, it happens every
day and is fairly mundane , isnt it. It must be a hard pill to swallow, but take your
medicine and you will be fine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and i will rephrase my answer, Matthew wrote his Gospel for Hellenised christians, if you
think that it construes to mean that he was contributing to the efforts to create
literature for a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism then
that is your affair.

You don't agree that Christianity was a religion that broke away from Judaism?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually my Bible states maiden, will i quote it again,

(Isaiah 7:14) . . .Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The
maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and
she will certainly call his name Immanuel.

why again is it a noticeable sign that a normal young women of marriageable ...[text shortened]... ne , isnt it. It must be a hard pill to swallow, but take your
medicine and you will be fine.

looking at you earlier list - 1,3,21,24,25,31 and 34 could all be said to be every day events. dont you think?

Originally posted by FMF
You don't agree that Christianity was a religion that broke away from Judaism?

It appears to me that the whole Judaic system was of a temporary nature, filled with
archetypes. Paul himself helps us understand that the whole of the Law was merely,
what he termed, 'a tutor leading to the Christ', that the Jewish system with its temple
and emphasis on blood sacrifice for atonement was really an environment conducive to
the realisation and culmination of acceptance of the messiah and the realisation of a
spiritual vision as opposed to a merely mundane one. So it seems to me to be a
realisation, a culmination, a fulfilment rather than a breakaway, although it is true to
say that many aspects did become redundant.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
looking at you earlier list - 1,3,21,24,25,31 and 34 could all be said to be every day events. dont you think?

no, strangely enough i dont and anyway your point is moot because the messiah would
need to fulfil all of these, not one or two in isolation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So it seems to me to be a
realisation, a culmination, a fulfilment rather than a breakaway, although it is true to
say that many aspects did become redundant.

But Judaism and Jews remained, and they are still going strong, while Christianity forged its own path, creating its own literature, and leaving Judaism behind. This is surely a clear case of a breakaway religion?

Originally posted by FMF
But Judaism and Jews remained, and they are still going strong, while Christianity forged its own path, creating its own literature, and leaving Judaism behind. This is surely a clear case of a breakaway religion?

actually it didn't survive as it was, they have no temple, no priesthood, no high priest,
nada, they cannot possibly find a messiah ever because all records of lineage have
been destroyed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually it didn't survive as it was, they have no temple, no priesthood, no high priest,
nada, they cannot possibly find a messiah ever because all records of lineage have
been destroyed.

So it changed. Religions change. I hardly think you can be claiming that Judaism doesn't exist anymore. So you don't agree that Christianity was a religion that broke away from Judaism?

Originally posted by FMF
So it changed. Religions change. I hardly think you can be claiming that Judaism doesn't exist anymore. So you don't agree that Christianity was a religion that broke away from Judaism?

It doesn't exist in any where near the same way as it did before, it never recovered
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. I have given reasons why i think its more
accurate to state that Christianity was a culminations or a fulfilment of Judaism, rather
than a breakaway.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...its more accurate to state that Christianity was a culminations or a fulfilment of Judaism...

Wouldn't it have had to have been embraced by Judaism for this to be true? Didn't the fact that the followers of Judaism did not see Jesus as the culmination or fulfillment of their religion, mean that Christianity had to go its own separate way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that is what i have written, is it not, what trouble are you having understanding the
fact? The translation of the verse into Greek by Matthew, a Hebrew, clearly
demonstrates that it is understood to be made with reference to a virgin, that is why he
used the Greek term for a virgin, but sure, you can ignore all of that , it will not negate
the facts.

We agree that the Hebrew word for virgin used extensively throughout the OT is not used at Isaiah 7:14. Good.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually my Bible states maiden, will i quote it again,

(Isaiah 7:14) . . .Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The
maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and
she will certainly call his name Immanuel.

why again is it a noticeable sign that a normal young women of marriageable ...[text shortened]... ne , isnt it. It must be a hard pill to swallow, but take your
medicine and you will be fine.

you are basing your logic on the theory that the prophecy wasnt exciting enough, it need to be give a sun-newspaper style make-over to make it more appealing to the masses 'virgin gives birth' when it could clearly have been made to clarify that the messiah wouldnt be born to an older mother and therefore have elder siblings. it could in fact be another around the houses biblical way of saying he would be the first born.

if the j.w church turned around tomorrow and said after further consideration they now think mary was not a virgin, would you change your opinion or stick to your guns?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We agree that the Hebrew word for virgin used extensively throughout the OT is not used at Isaiah 7:14. Good.

used according to you, fifty times, proving nada!

Originally posted by FMF
Wouldn't it have had to have been embraced by Judaism for this to be true? Didn't the fact that the followers of Judaism did not see Jesus as the culmination or fulfillment of their religion, mean that Christianity had to go its own separate way?

who can say what they thought, its useless to speculate, suffice to say, the majority
never got the point of Judaism, for if they had, they would have embraced the messiah.