[Replying to otseng in post #3278
Rabbi Skobac does mention Prov 30:18-19, but he does not mention Prov 30:20, which is what I'm asking.
Yes, he does.
The entire point of this thread is to debate the authority of the Christian Bible. So, it is the Christian Bible that is relevant, not the BoM.
I'm pointing out that Mormons can use the exact same rationale which you're using.
Then the young woman who gave birth to Immanuel shortly before the conquest by Assyria may have been a virgin.
And the question is then who is this young woman?
Who she was doesn't really matter. What matters is that since she gave birth before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria, she wasn't Mary and so the child Immanuel wasn't Jesus.
The same applies to verse Gen 24:16. If you accept verse 16, then you cannot question verse 43 about her virginity.
Verse 16 is the only place where she's identified as a virgin.
It's all related and referring to Rebekah. The words betula and alma are referring to Rebekah as the one who was at the well and drew water. Betula is in verse 16 and alma is in verse 43.
"Alma" identifies her as a young woman and "betulah" identifies the young woman as a virgin.
When betula is mentioned, it immediately says "neither had any man known her". If betula always means virgin, it is pointless to explain to readers what does a virgin mean. But if it simply means a young women, then it might mean she was not a virgin. So it then clarifies by stating no man has had sex with her.
Does it make any sense if I say, "She is a virgin, neither had anyone had sex with her."? It would make more sense as, "She is a young girl, neither had anyone had sex with her."
"Neither had any man known her" is the antique language of the KJV. It isn't adding information; it's a literary device repeating what has already been said.
And he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together:
If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
"Neither had any man known her" is just repeating that the young woman is a betulah
In verse 43, it does not give the parenthetical comment about no man has known her, So alma would automatically convey virginity without the need to comment "neither had any man known her".
"Alma" in verse 43 doesn't have to convey virginity because Rebekah's virginity was already specified with the word "betulah" in verse 16.
Then you're admitting that Immanuel was born to a woman who was not a virgin.
I said it could be. I do not claim to know either who is Immanuel or who was his mother, so it's unclear exactly how this had a near fulfillment.
Chapters 7 and 8 are all about its fulfillment.
That child's mother would call him Immanuel.
And who is the child's mother?
The young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz while they're talking. She is in their presence at the time.
Foretelling that two kings in the present will be gone by the time a child is born 700 years in the future is a tautology, not a prophecy.
When the prophecy was spoken, none of the kings were out of power, whether the kings of Israel and Damascus or the kings of Israel and Judah.
The prophecy was that the two kings Ahaz dreaded [Pekah and Rezin] would be out of power in very short order.
And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.
The mother of Immanuel, mentioned above.
Who are you referring to?
Now that's a tautology, the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel.
No tautology. I'm pointing out that if the alma
pointed out by Isaiah is to be the mother of Immanuel and
"alma" means "virgin", the young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz must be an earlier childbearing virgin.
I'm asking specifically who is Immanuel's mother? You have several candidates to choose from: the prophetess that Isaiah impregnated or one of Ahaz's wife.
And I've pointed out that it doesn't matter which of those two it is since neither of them is the mother of Jesus.
Does Isa 7:16 explicitly or implicitly say who are the two kings?
[Isa 7:16 KJV] 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
identifies the land of the two kings as the land Ahaz abhors [dreads]. The land he dreads is the Syria-Israel alliance, whose kings are Pekah and Rezin.
Where does it ever refer to a married woman?
That is a circular argument. You can't say alma means a married woman and then provide a married woman to prove alma is a married woman.
You yourself pointed out that a pregnant woman who wasn't married wouldn't be a very godly sign.
Now Skobac makes a good point here. The text says "the alma". If it was "the virgin", it would make more sense to refer to Mary since she's the only human female to have a virgin birth.
Circular argument. You use the assumption
that Mary gave birth as a virgin to argue that Isaiah was stating that a virgin would give birth.
If it was "the young woman", what would that mean?
It would mean----and does
mean----that Isaiah was directing Ahaz's attention to a young woman who was present at the time.
The Torah doesn't teach that Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart".
Jesus was explaining why it was allowed.
Not according to Moses.
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them;
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you
If Moses commanded them according to all that Jehovah had given him in commandment and Moses allowed them to divorce their wives, then Jehovah himself must have allowed them to divorce their wives and
commanded that no law against that allowance be added, which means that Jesus's "explanation" was wrong.
Again, the Jewish teachers have added commentary, not commandments.
I don't know about that. Orthodox Jews follow many traditions from the writings outside the Torah as I've outlined. They are not just suggestions, but things they must follow.
You've outlined the Talmud, the Midrash and the Mishnah, and I've cited sources pointing out that they're rooted in the Torah.
But an example that is not related to the temple is Ex 31:15. Are the Jews executing anyone for violating the Sabbath rest?
Jews living around the world aren't in the "promised land", and that's where they were to establish their laws (Deut. 6:1). And the state of Israel not observing Torah commandments indicates that the ultimate prophetic return has not been fulfilled.
(As for the morality of such a harsh law, that's another debate.)
The commandment is that if you swear to do something, you must do it.
Then your entire argument is likewise irrelevant. Jesus is not countermanding any commandment here.
Yes, he is.
"But I say to you, do not swear at all"
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you
It's arguable Jesus was giving additional commandments. Rather, he was pointing out existing commandments and addressing the heart of them.
The heart of
Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
"Do not swear at all".
The Jews have a lot of things they must follow that are not in the Torah. So, whether you want to call them commandments or not, they are following them.
If "a lot of things" aren't in the Talmud, the Mishnah or the Midrash, which have their basis in the Torah, where are those things?
Besides, Jesus didn't live during the diaspora and thus didn't have the rabbinical teachings to deal with. He had the Torah, and his teaching on the Torah was contradictory. Even if the rabbis are deviating from the Torah, which is questionable, using that as an excuse for Jesus violating the Torah in his day is a Tu Quoque argument at best.
It can literally be read to say, "Ten men from all the languages of the nations will follow after a Jew.....".
Don't know if "ten men" can be taken literally either.
Ten men can't follow a single person?
"Ten" could indicate a group average.
Then Isaiah definitely isn't talking about Jesus. He doesn't say to Ahaz, "The Lord on his own will give you a testimonial.....".
The testimony itself is not the sign, but it's confirmation of the sign.
A sign can be seen, so it doesn't need
Mary and Joseph testified to the sign of her virginity.
If it were a sign, no testimony would have been needed. It could have been seen.
Joseph thought that Mary had just been unfaithful (he obviously didn't
believe that Isaiah had prophesied a virgin giving birth). His only "confirmation" was having a dream about an angel telling him that Mary was still a virgin. Given the nature of dreams, that counts for nothing. And even if an angel did
appear to Joseph, the appearance would be necessary only because there wasn't a sign.
Mary was the only one who would have directly experienced being pregnant while still a virgin, and no one would have accepted such a claim on the word of only one witness. If there was no way to tell that Mary was still a virgin, then there was no sign of a virgin birth. If there was
a way to tell, Mary and Joseph never took advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate Mary's post-conception virginity, and again
there was no sign of a virgin birth.
The sign was promised to Ahaz, who lived 700 years earlier. The sign was to be a portent of the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, and is never said in the text of Isaiah to be a sign of anything else.