Objection 4.3: Isaiah  

PROVERBS 3:5,”LEAN NOT TO THINE UNDERSTANDING BUT IN ALL YOUR WAYS ACKNOWLEDGE THE LORD.”

For those folks who do not believe that the Bible is God breathed, this point I will make will be a mute point because one would have to believe that the Holy spirit truly is the one who wrote scripture. but for those folks who do believe that the bible is God breathed, this point is one to consider. Although this word for "virgin" is seemingly under scrutiny in the context Dr. Brown speaks of.... what about Luke 1:34 where Mary herself says "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" .... Mary herself confirms this. why put one verse under such a microscope when there is another verse that confirms the meaning of the first one.

Mary stated she was a *virgin,* - “How can I [get pregnant], since I have not known a man?”

I know one thing everything will be clear when Yeshua returns

Another possible manner in which Christians try to resolve the difficulties inherent in such a stance, is through the claim of a “dual prophecy”. A prophecy that has two applications, two fulfillments. 1. Why should we assume that there are two fulfillments of this prophecy ? There appears to be absolutely no reason to assume such an interpretation, other than, a will to insert Christian theology. 2. If dual prophecy were to have application, one could arbitrarily insert whatever he desires, wherever he wants. Can we honestly consider this mode of interpretation ? 3. As we said in note 1, there is no reason two apply dual prophecy. In fact, being that the context clearly refers to an event occurring in the now, this would preclude any suggestion of “another prophecy”. By applying the context, we encounter many challenges. There is no reason to believe in dual prophecy because there is absolutely no anchor upon which to base it on. The context doesn’t support this duality. How so? 4. If the intent is, as well, to a future prophecy, 700 years later, this is incongruent, for Ahaz requires only a sign relavent to him. It’s utterly superfluous to allude to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on general context) 5. Ahaz is currently surrounded by enemies he doesn’t need an allusion to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:2)I 6. God wants to mend Ahaz’s fear about impeding war, it’s utterly superfluous to mention a virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:4) 7. The sign is relevant to before when this child will distinguish between right and wrong, at that time Ahaz’s enemies will fall, there is no reason to allude to a virgin birth 700 hundreds in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:15-16) 8. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה, is rooted in the word עלם/alam, a primitive root signifying “strength and endurance” (similar to the Aramaic עלים), hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”(exodus 19:9), from the root עלם/alam, for endurance, strength, is rooted in עלם/alam. We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, rather it’s an expression of vigor, and, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely. 9. Furthermore, and very interestingly, if it’s a dual prophecy, what other virgin birth is being alluded to in Ahaz’s time? Isn’t there only one virgin birth? Only one Jesus ? All the more so, is this difficult, being that the main prophecy is undoubtedly for Ahaz, as clearly established contextually, this would imply that the principal “virgin birth” is relevant to Ahaz’s time. This last objection completely undermines the uniqueness of the Christian claim. It’s quite ironic, the answer they try to promote, actually creates the grounds to contradict Christianity at its core…..

Bethula means virgin who has not slept with a man. Almar is a female who is at a age where she can become pregnant .. So Bethula is in relation to someone, who has not had sex yet, so if a female at the age, who is already reached her flower and is at the age of 22 as a example, then that woman is Bethula.

And yet Matthew one of the Apostles clearly cites Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

Dr. Brown, why exactly is the initial fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 9:6 insufficient to explain what is meant by those verses? Why assume that there was ever intended to be a prophetic double meaning behind the text?

Isaiah 43 *11 I, even I, Am YHWH; and beside Me there is NO saviour.*

With all due respect very convoluted discourse.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.8 The curse of Jeconiah (which was under the old covenant) is a futile argument because Jesus the Christ did not sit on the throne during His first advent. So the first time Jesus the Christ came, he did not violate the judgement that was placed on Jeconiah. If we read Acts 2:30-31 we can clearly see that king David understood that Jesus the Christ was going to rise from the dead with all power and authority and then He (Jesus) would be able to sit upon the throne (which would be under the new covenant where all sins, including past sins will be forgiven) without violating the judgment that TMH place upon Jeconiah.

Not so Dr. Brown, For Joel 1.8, most english christian bibles explicitly translate the word "betulah" as "virgin". And the correct interpretation is the virgin girl who mourns over a man who was to be her husband ... You are fabricating your case for the meaning of the hebrew terms, and working hard at that, I can see. There is betula = 100% virgin throughout the Tanach, almah = young woman throughout the Tanach (and yes, a young woman may be a virgin, but when the term is used it is not meant to specifically refer to a virgin, and we would ask why the term betula wasn't used instead of almah if it was explicitly talking about jesus ...), and there is akara = barren, a woman who did not or could not have children. About the name Imanuel, nothing supernatural at all is denoted by that name. Many many names in the jewish bible include references to God, with nothing supernatural about those who have those names ... And jesus was simply not named Imanuel, That is the bottom line. And about the "Septuagint of Isaiah" which you mentioned, that is simply false, because the Setuagint was only a translation of the Torah, not the Neviim and Ktuvim ... You supremely fumbled with this one ......

Thank God for the Holy Spirit I received it,no man can take it from me or no book can describe in words what happens when you receive the Holy Spirit it's a spiritual birth, Just like Jesus said, Jesus is the Way Truth and Life.

God bless you for sharing this. Rabbi Tovia Singer has said a lot about this. Thanks for the clarification 👍

So Mr.Brown is saying to throw away Matthew Ch.1:23 ? as a Messianic prophecy? Or is he worried about the history of the linguistics? I'm sure, we highly doubt how the origin of the word had anything to do with how the prophecy is placed in both the Old and New Testament.

What word does it use for virgin? If 66:8 proclaims the 14 May 1948, can you not see 7:14 points to Jesus.

Dr. Brown is my dude.

Regarding Isaiah 7:14, the context is utterly irrelevant to some future prophecy about a virgin birth. The chapter must be read in its proper context. The chapter deals with various enemies’ threats against Judah, and the ensuing wars. Verses 1-10 discuss impending wars, and that Ahaz should not be afraid, as their plans won’t come to fruition. Verse 11 conveys that Ahaz should, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God..”. Ask a sign regarding this harm not befalling him. Verse 12 tells us that Ahaz decided not to ask and test God. Verse 13 has Isaiah insisting that he should ask. Verse 14 finally relates that the sign will be given anyways. And what’s the sign? According to the gospels, the correct understanding is that, “There will be a virgin birth a few hundred years down the line”. What about Ahaz’s concerns? Nah, God would rather tell him about some irrelevant virgin birth that will occur a few hundred years later. Ahaz shouldn’t be afraid of impending war because in a few hundred years Jesus is coming! This makes no coherent sense. Also, to make this clearer, it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16) This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong. Now, according to the the gospels, Ahaz’s enemies will only be dead a few hundred years later, some time before Jesus will distinguish between wrong and right, not only will they have disappeared long before this time, he, himself, will have also perished. This conveys nothing about his current predicament. In other words, the meaning of the verse would imply, “Ahaz don’t be afraid, actually, be very afraid. This is pure butchery. Or, perhaps, in order to make the context more relavent to the Christian interpretation, some could claim that Ahaz was concerned with the “Davidic dynasty”, that it shouldn’t perish, and that he was reassured by the sign of there being a virgin birth 700 years later, insinuating that the “Davidic line” will survive. 1. First off, there is absolutely no allusion in the text of Ahaz being concerned with the preservation of the “Davidic line”. Rather, the only matter that could be derived from the verses, according to their simple meaning, is fear of immanent danger, as expressed by the members of Ahaz’s brethren, Ahaz included. There is no altruistic concern. The verses speak of fear, not some type of consideration for the future. As it says, “And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.” (Isaiah 7:2) Also, “And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint…”. (Isaiah 7:4) The verses undoubtedly and clearly convey “fear”, fear of enemy attack. This cannot be overlooked. At this point we could actually stop, however, purely for argument’s sake, let us conjure that this consideration was present, aside for the fear. We can’t obviate his “fear”, nevertheless, perhaps we could say that he was genuinely concerned with the crown being snatched from David? Now, on the other hand, we can’t say he was only concerned with the “Davidic line”, never mind the lack of it’s mention, contextually, from what the verses actually say, the fear element is emphasized, both from his perspective and from God’s response. And these “fear elements” would be quite superfluous if this were the only intention. 2. Now, even if this unfounded concern was true, the subject remains plagued with difficulties. Whether we say that he is “also concerned with the Davidic line”, or “only concerned”, what type of a sign is it if he can’t witness it? Every sign in the Bible is something the individual witnesses, and whereby comes to trust. A sign is suppose to create trust not be contingent upon trust, that defeats the purpose of a sign. The sign is rendered useless, if implemented for this purpose. 3. And, now, the question that naturally follows from our previous objection, wouldn’t the birth of someone in his own days be of much greater pertinence, and a true sign he can relate to ? If you would have to choose between one and the other, the choice is obvious. 4. Back to the “fear” element. Ahaz has enemies breathing down his neck, an immediate concern, the fact that the Davidic line survives 700 years later, does not in any way address the immediate need for protection. For it still doesn’t mean he will survive his enemies’ attacks, it just means the line will somehow survive. Granted, that he was also concerned for the Davidic line, according to this interpretation, we cannot remove the fact that the verses speak of his own terror, and even of God’s response telling him “not to fear”. This dread is not in any way being attended to with a sign 700 years later. (Based on the general context and response from God, Isaiah 7:1-14) 5. The verses also indicate that there is an immediate relevance with the sign and the impending threat. As it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16). This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong. The verse clearly reassures him regarding enemies that he now faces, and that they will perish before this child distinguishes between right and wrong. Now, if the matter is contingent upon Jesus’ birth, 700 years later, before he distinguishes between right and wrong, this would render his enemies perishing utterly impertinent. For the verse would then be saying, “Don’t worry your enemies won’t be destroyed for another 700 years! By that time, everyone will be long gone, himself included. The sign cannot be associated to Ahaz in a manner that deals with the future, the intent bound to the consideration of the “Davidic line”. (Based on Isaiah 7:14-17) 6. Furthermore, another very important example of how the sign must entirely be relevant to Ahaz. In verse 7 it is stated, “So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.” This is clearly referring to the plans of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, with their ally Efraim. They won’t succeed in harming him. A concern for the “Davidic line” is impertinent to his being harmed, being that they are not mutually exclusive; because he may be harmed, yet, the Davidic would still survive. Therefore, you are coerced to say, that when God sends him a sign, the sign will support the very thing God spoke about. This is the only concern God himself mentioned. Consequently, the sign can only be that which addresses this matter, and this matter only. Remember, the sign must corroborate him not getting harmed. The fact that he has a descendant born of a virgin 700 years later, in no way assures his immediate safety. He may perish, yet, have have descendants. The two have no pertinence. (Based on Isaiah 7:7 and 7:14) 7. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה. The root word being עלם, a primitive root signifying strength and endurance, hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”, (exodus 19:9); endurance is rooted in עלם. (This is unlike the root for betulah/בתולה, from the root בתל, a primitive root signifying “separate and or secluded”, etymologically related to the root badal/בדל, which conveys a similar meaning, namely, “separate and divide”. Each expressing, however, a different type of separation. One exclusively used to express chastity. We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, but rather strength and endurance, vigor, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.

your right just like john 14;14 is not prayer acts 3;6

This the reason for the sign, sorry its ruination 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.

Love this!!! My professor was talking about this the other day and how it was not about Jesus. I knew it in my heart that he was wrong but I wanted to find out more. I have been doing research and I found documents from Pope John Paul II, I talked to an Archbishop, and now this video. God is good and keeps his promises. Thank you for this video!!!

This guy does not make any seance. He’s saying probably in his words which means he’s not certain.

If Jesus is Messiah, how could he die for our sin as a Sacrifice when in Deuteronomy 24:16, it says the Fathers can't die for the sons and the sons cant die for the Fathers but everyone will pay for their own sin!? Nobody can pay for your sin that's TORAH LAW.

People will be arguing their case on this for years without really achieving anything other filling up RU-vid with conjecture and interpretation. If god wanted people to truly know him he wouldn’t be giving signs or leaving a trail of ambiguities in a book.

Context doesn't allow for Matthew's 'virgin birth fulfillment' narrative. It's either just that simple OR the author of Matthew had a level of understanding beyond the scope of everyone else. In the case of the latter, we are confronted with the realization that 'everyone else' must thereby give up the right to interpret scripture because they are quite obviously clueless. It's a wonderful paradox. By admitting that Matthew was inspired, you forfeit an opinion on the "how and why". Dr Brown overstepped his mark.

Haha he just waves away the verse about Dinah like it doesn't prove him wrong!! By this logic, there was TWO virgin births!!! One during the reign of ahaz AND Mary!!!

if it is dual prophecy who was born through virgin birth on the first fulfillment of the prophecy ?? If we say the word is not saying virgin it means young so Matthew is not right , or we christians are deceived

You say that the Hebrew word "betulah" only means virgin when used in a legal context. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Joel 1:8

Amazing..brilliant..thank you.

Dr Brown you are not showing any evidence

What for Isaiah mentioned virgin birth if not fulfilled?

Most likely and probably aren't concrete words.

Mr Brown, you added to the word your own story line. I think a sneaky squid spirit was involved in Isaiah 7. It is in the text without it actually saying it.

The verse was interpreted by 70 Greek Jews who were separated to write the septugiant to see if they all agreed to the same interpretation. At the finish they all agreed on the interpretation which says it was a virgin birth. Jesus himself point out all the prophesy that refered to him. Mathew says the Lord spoke which is Jesus by the prophet a virgin.

Where in the biblical text does it explicitly state that the birth of Jesus the Christ would be miraculous?

I provided a ten part explanation to why I disagree with the orthodox doctrine on the “Virgin Birth”. Check them out. Feel free to respond.

Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the verses that follow. It anticipated no further opinion. "Then the Lord said to me, 'Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it [a]in ordinary letters: [b]Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey. 2 And [c]I will take to Myself faithful witnesses for testimony, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.” 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, 'Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry out ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” (Isiah 8:1-4)

God bless you

So it means young woman. But it does not refer to a supernatural birth. Rather it describes that by the age that the child knows right from wrong then the kingdoms will complete their misson.

Early in the video you read straight from the Bible and said “THE alman”. At 5:30 you said “AN” Alman. Why?

so there's no specific word in Hebrew for virgin? come on

That king that would be one of the greatest kings to sit on the throne of Judah was, Hezekiah. That is who it was talking about.

The sign was for the house of David, it's about Judahs survival through the syro-ephramite war. The birth of the messiah was a sign that God would keep His promise to David, and therefore Ahaz would not be destroyed by Syria and ephraim. In isaiah 8 we see the immediate fulfillment which was isaiah's son, whereas 9 discusses the birth of immanuel, the one to whom Israel belongs, and the one who is called the mighty God

You are a minister of the gospel, correct? Do you know that Yashua has a totally different gospel than the one you follow, that is designed by Saul of Tarsus?

you first said the birth of Immanuel isn't about jesus and when you got to Isaiah 7:14 you just read past the 'birth' statement like there's nothing important there to talk about there. talk about it for christians to know there's no prophesy about jesus "virgin birth" in the old testament as they say.

It says Haalma. not alma. The Young Womena. A proper name!!!!

Why am i being told to disappoint myself. Isnt 7.14 concluded in 8.1-8 when this emanuel is now one of the children with isiah as he says he has them with him. 8.18 clearly defines he has the signs children still with him...

I came here after watching him being so vocal about the context 😂😂

Jesucristo resucitó de los muertos, amén 💒🙏🏼

Isaiah 9;6(5 in jewish bible) a prophecy about King Hezekiah! see allso Micha 5;2(1 in jewish).

These types of interpretations are kept alive because of Genesis 3:15 (the proto evangelium)

Isaiah 7:14 taken by Christians out of it's context and used to support their pre-conceived theology may superficially appear as support. But, there's numerous reasons to doubt Is 7:14 which Dr. Brown appears to have ignored. 1. Absurd that King Ahaz would be comforted by any birth - virgin or not - because the context shows that his concern was the survival of his kingdom. 2. Absurd that Ahaz would be comforted by a birth - even of a man-god - 700 years in the future because Ahaz was dealing with an immediate threat. 3. Ancient Judaic literature often referred to Israel as the "son", see Hosea 11:1 " “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Similarly, the "son" that Isaiah predicted was Israel. 4. In theory, if the Christian church has mis-used Isaiah 7:14 to support their Jesus/God/Virgin Birth agenda - then it stands to reason that the Jesus agenda does not have support in the NT, nor the OT which would explain why the Church had to falsify ancient scripture to support their theology. It also stands to reason that the same church would falsify other scripture.

NAILED IT!!!!!!!!

Isaiah 7:14 is not talking about Jesus' "birth" at all. First of all, there is a difference between conception and birth. It's an important difference but we'll leave that aside for now. Matthew was noticing the similarity between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. If we take our eye off of Mary's experience then we'll miss what Matthew is citing. Isaiah was not prophesying Jesus but Matthew connected the dots between what happened to Mary and what the Prophet Isaiah wrote. That's all. Furthermore, the word in Isaiah 7:14 is indeed the word for "virgin". The Old Testament in use during the first century was written in Greek - translated more than 200 years before Jesus was born. The much much later Masoretic Text, used to give us a Hebrew Old Testament was written a thousand years AFTER Jesus. We know what things were called in the Old Testament because the New Testament verifies these things. For example, the Masoretic Text leaves a question whether the Red Sea was called the Red Sea or was it called "the Sea of Reeds"? The New Testament doesn't raise that question because it cites passages from the Greek Old Testament that clearly uses the Greek word for the color Red. Isaiah 7:14 definitely uses the word "virgin" and Moses definitely crossed the "Red Sea". No more confusion.

Who is Ahaz king of Judah?and what did God promised him?who was exiled?Ahaz = Hezekiah

You've got to be kidding. This is a prophecy of an imminent birth?? Jesus was born 700 years later. Helloooooooooo!

Immanuel was born in Isaiah 8:3. read it

Guess how i learned about this virgin controversy , a friend told me please just go online and look for the meaning of virgin in Hebrew , holy shit lol

The Virgin Birth pt.2 The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is considered to be an essential belief for biblical believers. It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus was born (Jn. 7:43) but not about "how" Jesus was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary and Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would have interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews did not bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because (in my opinion) they did not interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. I believe they understood the term “virgin “to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't. I don’t believe that the people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous (in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews did not think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this is not the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would have been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.

You are an upright liar🤥.. It is not a prophecy it is a sign big difference, that took place in the time of king Achaz himself... Seriously, after all these years, you still don't find the fulfilment.. 2kings 16: 5 Both Syria and Israel attack Judah... But can't defeat King Achaz (House of David was spared by Gd) . A sign is a visible thing that takes place at the exact given moment.. Don't preach your opinion share interactively.

And this is why a fish is the symbol of christianity, they always find a way to slither away from the truth. 😂😂😂

Isaiah 7 is a prophecy given as a sign to king Ahaz. So who was the miracle child born to a virgin 700 years before Jesus as a sign to king Ahaz? You can't just cherrypick verses our of context. If so then I can prove Peter was present in the garden of Eden.

What's most interesting to me here is that Parthenos doesn't necesarily mean virgin, and is an accurate translation of Alma. This means, the disciples did in fact have an accurate understanding of the prophecy at their time and were under no compulsion to fabricate the virgin birth as unbelievers claim they were. The virgin birth did fullfill the prophesy, but Isaiah didn't specify virginity as a requirement. The prophesy was of sign from God in a miraculous birth to a young woman.

This is called MENTAL GYMNASTICS…

hallelujah good job sir contenue until they will realise that all u saying is true,, Jesus is only Messiah.

It's about Isaiah's son

Common sense can tell everyone Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. Virgin is not a sign. It can't be seen. Isaiah was talking to Ahaz. What is Jesus born 700 yrs after going to help a king who was facing attack?

Don't be deceived folks! Listen to Jews for Judaism on this verse, not this denier of truth

Dr Brown you are very good. in manipulating I mean

The Virgin Birth pt.3 I believe that there is so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because so many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). John 1:13 is a great example of what "of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" means. Another example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. This was the will of the flesh (John 1:13). Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man (mankind) who is flesh (Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". In regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that a virgin(young woman) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.

The Virgin Birth pt.1 To all biblical believers that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, and based off the Greek definition for “came together” which would be cohabit conjugally or of conjugal cohabitation, I interpret the phrase “before they came together” to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Hence the phrase “took unto him”. Examine Genesis 24:67 to see how the term “took” is used. So again, before Joseph and Mary were officially married (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof. Before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary was impregnated by Joseph. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were officially married. Again, Joseph and Mary were not officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they were not officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ did not come through a lineage of sinless beings. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents (read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). Joseph began thinking irrationally. This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in whatever sense of the phrase. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he was not willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could have had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could have easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could have said that he did not have sex with Mary and she would have been stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. But Joseph was a just man. So Joseph was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. This is the reason why Matthew decided to highlight that Joseph was a just man. Because a wicked man would have placed all the blame on Mary. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Wouldn’t that would mean that Mary's hymen would have still been intact? I would think so. If that's the case they could have easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual affair simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would have had sex, Mary would have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity) because her hymen would have broken and everyone would have assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Moving on. The text states that Jesus the Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren (Hebrews 2:16-17). Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being (existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained His fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father. But the flesh comes from the seed (sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he knew her not til she brought forth her firstborn son....",. In my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. I’m well aware that the phrase “knew her not” in that passage is a clear reference to Joseph not engaging in sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Here lies the problem. Some are struggling with what the author is actually trying to communicate because based off how that passage is worded, they have concluded that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus but rather only after. In my opinion, their coming to this false conclusion because the text doesn’t read knew her not “again”. Since the term “again” isn’t included in that particular passage, they’re assuming that Mary and Joseph did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus. Let me prove that the text does not have to read “and knew not again” in order to support my argument. In 1 Samuel 1 :5 the LORD shut up Hannah, the wife of Elkanah’s womb. 1 Samuel 1:2 says that Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah had children but Hannah did not. What does this prove? It proves that Elkanah was having sex with both of his wives. One was able to have children (Peninnah) and the other one was not (Hannah). 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah KNEW Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her”. The text says that Elkanah “knew” Hannah his wife. The text does not say that Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”. One would then assume, like in the case of Matt. 1:25 that this was the first time Elkanah had sex with his wife because the term “again” is excluded. But we’ve already determined that Elkanah and Hannah were having sexual relations in 1 Samuel 1:2. So why doesn’t the text say Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”? It’s doesn’t have to based off the context and the surrounding information that has been disclosed. So when we reexamine Matt. 1:25 one can’t assume that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus based off the exclusion of the term “again” or how that particular passage is worded. Question: If Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed? Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8. Or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father not stepfather. Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should have automatically understood that Jesus was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...",. But they did not have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there was not referring to a woman who had never had sex before. Why do I say this? Because Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. The immediate fulfillment was referring to Isaiah’s wife. Isaiah’s wife was the virgin being referred to in Is. 7:14 and the prophetess in Is. 8:3. Prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving we know that Isaiah already had a son with his wife. Proving that the term virgin in that context is not a reference to virginity. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I’ll conclude with a question. Can you produce one single passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah’s birth being or would be one that was uncommon to man or miraculous? Update: As of March 12, 2022, my position on what the phrase "put her away” is currently uncertain. There is a possibility that the phrase "put her away" can in fact be a reference to divorce.

This man is always lying.

The promise GOD made to King David in 2 Sam 7

You forgot the most important part Isaiah Chapter 8 where the sign child is revealed as his own when it states '' he went into the prophetess and she conceived and bear a child '' Isaiahs wife was the young Jewish girl who got pregnant

Dear people saying that there is no precedent in Judaism for two comings of the Messiah and that all Jews agree Messiah will only come once.... THEN EXPLAIN TO ME MESSIAH BEN YOSEF AND THE POPULAR TWO MESSIAHS THEOLOGY.... Fact is a lot of Jews believe "Messiah" will come in TWO FORMS OR TWO VERSIONS. Either as alternative Messiahs(one will come, other won't), as the same Messiah coming twice(at different times), or as two different Messiahs. You can't, can you?!!! You pretend to be ignorant about the fact your religion's theology clearly supports the possibility of two comings of Messiah.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.9 In reference to Matthew 1:18-20, some assert that Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful. If Mary was unfaithful (which Joseph would have assumed because the angel hadn’t appeared to him yet), do you honestly believe that Joseph would not have been upset when he found out that his soon to be wife was impregnated by someone else? I’ll answer that for you. Of course he would have been. And yet there’s not one single passage that illustrates how upset Joseph was with Mary because of her unfaithfulness. It appears that Joseph was unbothered by Mary’s unfaithfulness. Question. If you found out that your fiancé slept with another man and she got pregnant by that man, how would you react? Wouldn’t you be beyond angry? The fact that Joseph didn’t get upset with Mary about what occurred speaks volumes. It proves that Joseph could not have thought that someone else had gotten her pregnant. If someone else would have gotten Mary pregnant, Joseph would have been outraged but he wasn’t. This is not a baseless argument. It actually seems to be additional proof that validates the notion that Joseph could have been or was in fact the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ.

One other possibility for a virgin to concieve would be that she's getting ready to be married, and is a virgin at tbat time of the prophecy. Thus her first sexual experience would be with her brand new husband, and a child conceived at that time. Ok so, Ahaz was betrothed to a young woman named Abijah (an implied virgin). She conceived Hezekiah after getting married (which happened AFTER the sign was spoken). This sign would have to be a "young woman" relevant to Ahaz, otherwise this whole thing would have zero meaning. There is also the possibility of the "young woman" being Isaiah's wife, the prophetess, and the child their own son. We don't know if she was a "virgin", but she was a "young woman", apparently. But this child was referred to in chapter 8.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.7 Let’s examine Luke 3:23. But first let’s begin here. Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense. With that being said let’s read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It reads, "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph...". It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained within parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph. Defined the term "being" in Luke 3:23 and then examine how it’s used throughout the Bible (New Testament). Question. Was the phrase "as was supposed" in the original text? I don’t think it was. But correct me if I’m wrong. I recently was told that it was. This may be true when considering that the phrase “as was supposed” isn’t in italics.

Who was the miracle child born as a sign to king ahaz? The virgin daughter of Sion is not a woman named Mary. Revelation 12 was a prophecy about a birth in the future (after it was given). Not about a birth 40 years earlier.

Revelation 3:9 [9]Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Dr. Brown, isn't Immanuel a very unique name in the Bible and isn't God possibly referring to the greatest sign in the Bible as well, in this Isaiah scripture portion? And is Matthew wrong? Just a suggestion, take a look at a teaching by Ben Burton found here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QzasQe6m0VA.html . Could be helpful. Also, I don't think you're going to convince unbelieving Jews who are twice unbelieving, meaning they can't be convinced by anything, with intellectual arguments, etc.

This has nothing to do with the jc. And Mathew is not a prophet. And who wrote the gospel according to Mathew

I am just BAFFLED/PUZZLED... Questions: 1. Why the Jewish Rabbis interpreted the Prophecy of Isaiah differently from the Christians Theologians?... 2. How do the Christian Rabbis/apologetics see clearly the interpretation of Prophet Isaiah but the Jewish rabbis did not see it? 2. Who has the FULL authority to interpret the Prophecy of Isaiah, the Jewish Scholars or Christian Scholars?... 3. Will Prophet Isaiah write something that contradicts the Jewish belief and interpretation?... 4. Why does Prophet Isaiah never explain his Prophecy, does he know what it was all about and why he wrote it but did not explain it to the Jews? 5. Do you mean to say, only AFTER the Christians were founded by Christ Jesus that Prophet Isaiah's Prophecy was interpreted CLEARLY and CORRECTLY different from what the Jews had interpreted before Christ Jesus arrived in this world? 6. If we go Go back in time to before Christ Jesus was born, would the Prophecy of Isaiah be the same interpretation as today?... the Jews back then should have understood those matters before Christ Jesus was born... why should be now different? 7. Is there any Public Debate between Jewish Rabbis and Christian Rabbis/Apologetics we could watch regarding this topic, the Isaiah Prophecy of the Virgin Maiden who gave Birth?

If Immanuel was already born, or would be born shortly after this prophecy, that would contradict Isaiah's statement in verse 8. That is, "within 65 years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people." Now compare that statement with the prophecy of Immanuel, to get a sense of the time frame. "He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted." Isaiah 7:15‭-‬16 How long did it take for these lands to be deserted? A few years? Well, at the very least it was 65 years, and in reality, the 65 years marks the early end of the possible time period. Because, by the time the prophecy is fulfilled everything is said to become overgrown with thorns and briers, and sheep and cattle begin to inhabit where there were vineyards. Quite likely this is much longer than 65 years. The prophecy actually states that these kings and nations(Syria and Israel) will disappear before Immanuel comes, or at least before he has come of age. If you take Isaiah 9 as an extension of this prophecy, assyria is no longer a presence in the Northern parts of israel because they are apparently free of oppression. "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." Isaiah 9:1 This leads directly into the arrival of the Messiah, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 So by the time the Messiah would come, his kingdom definitely extended into the region of Galilee. In chapter 10 the prophet tells the people of Judah not to be afraid of Assyria, "For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their(in the context this is Assyria) destruction." Isaiah 10:25 And still the prophecy is not done, but extends even further into the future, saying that of the people of Israel, "only a remnant of them will return." Isaiah 10:22 That is only after Assyria has swept through, and then after all this has happened, out of the remnant some time in the future, "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit." Isaiah 11:1 Because of all this, it can't be one of Isaiah's sons. Nor could it have been Hezekiah, because he never ruled the region of Galilee or Samaria. The timeframe of prophecy in chapter 7 would include assyria having already come and removed much of the inhabitants of Israel. He will "eat curds and honey" because all the vineyards would already be gone by then. This could have happened anywhere from 65 years to centuries in the future.

Topic: Virgin Birth pt.6 In regards to Luke 1:34 when Mary posed the question, “how shall this be seeing I know not a man?”. At that specific moment in time Mary never had sexual relations with a man before. Thats an obvious fact. But did she remain that way until after the birth of Jesus the Christ? By now one should know my answer. Let’s consider another point that I believe needs to be examined. Luke 1:27 states, “to a virgin espoused to a man named was Joseph…”. When we read Luke 1:34 with Luke 1:27 in mind, it seems to me that at that point Mary did not know that she was espoused to Joseph. Because if she did know, once the angel had revealed to her that she was going to bring forth the Christ, Mary would have automatically assumed or came to the conclusion that her and Joseph would eventually have sex and this is how what the angel said would come to pass. But instead Mary asked how shall this be seeing I know not a man? Mary posed this question because she was obviously unaware of her engagement to Joseph. I truly believe that this was an arranged marriage, one of which Mary was not privy to. Had Mary known that she was espoused to Joseph, I personally don't believe that she would have posed that question. See when people read Luke 1:34 they overlook the fact that Mary was unaware of her espousal to Joseph and therefore coming to a false conclusion on said topic.

confusion. Number one Isaiah 7:14 is talking about two women and two children, se it again in Isaiah 9:6 these two are Kings. so Jesus was a Messiah of his people. Math 15:24, Math2:2/ you can change the book from A to Z. But it will only for you not any more for the people of the world. The time is over.

betulah is used for married women in joel 1:8 and deuteronomy 22. Never alma which is used 7 times in the bible and always translated virgin in other languages like Greek or in the syriac

I'm also convinced that we can use more accurate detail by going into Genesis 24:16 and verse 43.

How can Yeshua be from virgen Mary and be from the seed of David because that a women does not have seed the man is the one he has the seed

Here's my 2-cent: We find a lot of similarities between the lives of many old testament heroes and Jesus Christ. E.g. Joseph the one who was handed over to a foreign tribe and who turned out to be their saviour and in lord after all like he dreamed (the sharing of which hastened their attack on him). Melchizedek being another one (check out how the authors of the new testament book of Hebrew relates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Christ). I can't remember all the other 'foreshadows of Christ' in the old testament right now or go into any more detail (long day...). Suffice to say, while one might argue that if one looks hard enough one might find parallels in bible stories and characters in virtually every body's life, you won't find many (if any) as easy to neatly piece together as Christ and the old testament foreshadows. More remarkable is the fact that they all fit quite nicely into the life of one man; Jesus Christ. According to Luke 24:7 Christ himself claims that the entire old testament points to him: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself". Read the whole chapter for full context. All these to say Isaiah 7:14 could also be a foreshadowing of Christ with an immediate application as well as a future and ultimate application. For the Jew who argues "when Jesus saves the Jews and the whole world like Joseph saved his family (and the middle east at the time), as it were..., from starvation, then I will believe He is the messiah ", I'd say it's always better to be wise in foresight than hindsight. Don't jeopardise your future to prejudice and intransigence. c.f. 2 Kings 7:19

The objection stands. Isaiah does not prophecy a virgin birth. The sign is not the method of conception. Period.

This is called total denial and grotesque invention.

So if Jesus was the promised Son, then why does the OT say Ephraim is Gods firstborn? Christians believe Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. Cant be both.

Good stuff!

It does in the septuagint

The Virgin Birth pt.4 My position on the virgin birth is once again this: Joseph is the earthly biological father of the Christ. If Joseph had nothing to do with Christ's birth, why is Joseph mentioned in both of Christ's genealogies? Why is Joseph referred to as the father(not stepfather) of Jesus by not only Mary(Luke 2:48) but by Philip(Jn. 1:45) and the Jews(Jn. 6:42) as well? Why is there a distinction being made in Hebrews 2:16 between the celestial(spiritual) and terrestrial(flesh)? Could it be that the author wants to inform his audience or his readers that the angels weren't created like man was created but Christ was? The text states that Jesus was made like unto His brethren. How was Jesus' brethren made? Jesus' brethren came into existence by way of a sexual act that transpired between a male and a female. If this is how Jesus' brethren were made, we can safely conclude that this is how Jesus himself obtain His fleshly body. Jesus' flesh was created from the seed of man(which Hebrews 2:16 seems to be alluding to). Reverting back to my point about Joseph being in Christ's genealogies. Let's examine Luke 3:23. If we removed the information within the parentheses, the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. This is how parentheses work. So let's remove "as was supposed" from Luke 3:23 for a moment. Luke 3:23 reads, Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph. It reads differently doesn't it? It's becomes clear that Joseph is in fact Christ's earthly biological father when we read this passage this way doesn't it? Even if we don't remove the information within parentheses, we'll still come to the same conclusion when we define the word "supposed". According to dictionary.cambridge.org, the term "suppose" when defined means to think that something is likely to be true. Not only that, when you look at the synonyms for the term "suppose", you'll notice that one of the synonyms is "believe". Even when you look up the term "supposed" in the Greek you'll notice the strong's definition and in the biblical usage section, "supposed" is defined and used as follows: to deem or regard, think, suppose. Now let's examine the word "being" in Luke 3:23. "Being", simply put, in this context means that Jesus is that particular thing. That particular thing is Him being the Son of Joseph. Take a look how the Greek word for "being" is used in Matthew 1:19, Jn. 11:49; Acts 7:2 and Eph. 2:20. Look up the Greek word for "being" and examine each time it's being utilized. Now I'm quite sure you've heard some talk about there being a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew? If this is true(which it seems to be), and considering the fact that Matthew 1:23 is a prophecy of a virgin conceiving, that would mean the term "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 would have to have the same Hebrew meaning as the the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Why? Because in Isaiah 7:14 the term "virgin" there, from my understanding has absolutely nothing to do with virginity. Why do I say this? Because not only was Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy about Mary conceiving, it was also a prophecy about Isaiah’s wife. And we know that Isaiah’s wife wasn’t a woman that never had sex before. Isaiah already had a son by his wife prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving (Isaiah 7:3). But yet Isaiah’s wife, who is the virgin in Isaiah 7:14 and the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3 is still referred to as a virgin. Proving that that term virgin in Isaiah 7:14 isn’t a reference to virginity. In conclusion, let's say I am in error and Joseph isn't the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ. I still believe that Jesus is the Christ and He came in the flesh and He died for ours sins and ascended back into the heavens and will one day return to judge the living and the dead. If I believe this to be true and repent of my sins, it's highly unlikely that I'll be cast into the lake of fire. Now I'm assuming (correct me if I'm in error) you're defining the term "virgin" in both Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who has never had sexual relations with a man before. I on the other hand am defining the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 as a young woman of marriageable age, a young woman or a maiden. Either way, the prophecy of a virgin conceiving was fulfilled. I guess the question still remains: Virgin in what sense? You know my answer. Note: According to Isaiah 7:14 the child would be for a sign. Read Isaiah 8:18 and see what it says in regard to signs.

also not in future tense. Same as Isaiah 9:6. Church modified to virgin and future.

Isaiah, who lived late 800's to mid 700's BC. If you were to say to him (or anyone) at that time. "a sign that a young woman, would give birth to Immanuel". Then, how many "young maidens" gave birth, between Isaiah, to Yeshu/Jesus. This is why those who deny that this is a virgin in its immediate meaning of the word. Means to say that Isaiah, best be checking every 9 months, for the next messiah.

clearly says in Dead sea scrolls young woman ...in present tense also. No argument self evident and undeniable.

*RASHI even agrees that ISAIAH 7:14 speaks of a virgin birth* 👇 *Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (“Rashi,” 1040-1105) on Isaiah 7:14* “Behold, the almah shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanu’el.’ This means that our Creator will be with us. This is the sign: *_The one who will conceive is a girl (na’arah) who never in her life has had intercourse with any man_* . Upon this one shall the Holy Spirit have power.” (Mikra’ot G’dolot, ad “The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you, will have no father” (Genesis Rabbah of Rabbi Moshe haDarshan)