A sign

[Athetotheist]

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign..... (Isaiah 7:13-14)

In another thread a while back I brought this up and it wasn't addressed there, so I thought I would give it a thread of its own (apologies if it's been brought up elsewhere):

We also have to remember that this was supposed to be a sign given to the house of Israel. A sign has to be visible. No one of the house of Israel saw Jesus conceived in the womb of Mary, so even if that had happened supernaturally it wouldn't have qualified as a sign.

Another reason to conclude that Isaiah wasn't referring to a divine conception.

[The Tanager]

Then you can't use the Bible to argue for any point.

Why? The existence of disagreement doesn’t mean one interpretation isn’t better than another. If the presence of disagreements meant X couldn’t be true, then hardly any beliefs (historical, philosophical, scientific, etc.) could be true.

"Most" and "large majority" don't cut it. The text says that under the new covenant all would know. So unless you're going to argue that it depends on how you interpret "all"......

All who identify with the Messiah, under the new covenant, do have a relationship with the LORD because it’s not based on having all the right beliefs or following all the rules, but on God forgiving our iniquity and remembering our sins no more.

And back to my original point, the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb could not qualify as a sign to the house of David, since no one witnessed it.

Did someone witness the conception of Maher-shalal-hash-baz?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #31

All who identify with the Messiah, under the new covenant, do have a relationship with the LORD because it’s not based on having all the right beliefs or following all the rules

It is according to some of those 33,000 Christian denomonations.

Is a consecrated communion wafer the literal body of Jesus or is it not?

Is Jesus part of a divine trinity or is he not?

Are Jesus and Satan brothers or are they not?

Was the heavenly father of Jesus once a man like us or was he not?

Those are all questions whose answers would have to be known in order to "know the Lord". If the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 had been fulfilled in Jesus, all Christians would know and agree on the answers to those questions and no Christians would teach anything else.

Did someone witness the conception of Maher-shalal-hash-baz?

No, but no one claimed that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was conceived in a virgin.

[The Tanager]

It is according to some of those 33,000 Christian denomonations.

Is a consecrated communion wafer the literal body of Jesus or is it not?

Is Jesus part of a divine trinity or is he not?

Are Jesus and Satan brothers or are they not?

Was the heavenly father of Jesus once a man like us or was he not?

Those are all questions whose answers would have to be known in order to "know the Lord". If the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 had been fulfilled in Jesus, all Christians would know and agree on the answers to those questions and no Christians would teach anything else.

Why do you think knowing and agreeing on the answers to these questions is required to “know the Lord”?

No, but no one claimed that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was conceived in a virgin.

Why does that make a difference?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #33

Why do you think knowing and agreeing on the answers to these questions is required to “know the Lord”?

For the reasons I give above. If the new covenant had been established by Jesus, those 33,000 Christian denominations wouldn't be out there teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord" by leaving each others' churches.

no one claimed that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was conceived in a virgin.

Why does that make a difference?

Because it shows that the child whose birth is referred to in Is. 7:14 wasn't supposed to have been supernaturally conceived.

[The Tanager]

For the reasons I give above. If the new covenant had been established by Jesus, those 33,000 Christian denominations wouldn't be out there teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord" by leaving each others' churches.

You claimed that the non-existence of denominations is a necessary component of “knowing the Lord” in this passage. I am asking for the reasons you think that is true. This above is simply restating that, not giving a reason for it.

Because it shows that the child whose birth is referred to in Is. 7:14 wasn't supposed to have been supernaturally conceived.

Correct my misunderstanding because what I hear you saying is this:

(1) For virgin births, no one seeing the conception negates

(2) For non-virgin births, no one seeing the conception does not negate its possibility of being a sign.

If that is not correct, then what were you saying? If you agree with both (1) and (2), then why the difference?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #35

You claimed that the non-existence of denominations is a necessary component of “knowing the Lord” in this passage. I am asking for the reasons you think that is true. This above is simply restating that, not giving a reason for it.

Since they're still teaching each other saying, "Know the Lord", a new covenant under which they won't be doing so clearly hasn't been established.

Correct my misunderstanding because what I hear you saying is this:

(1) For virgin births, no one seeing the conception negates

(2) For non-virgin births, no one seeing the conception does not negate its possibility of being a sign.

1. A miraculous conception meant to be a sign cannot be one if it isn't observed. A sign has to be visible.

2. In Isaiah 7:14, the conception isn't an issue because the woman is already pregnant. It's the details of the child's birth and early life being given as a sign, not his conception.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... d1660ef701

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... art-2-of-2

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... eremiah-31

[The Tanager]

You claimed that the non-existence of denominations is a necessary component of “knowing the Lord” in this passage. I am asking for the reasons you think that is true. This above is simply restating that, not giving a reason for it.

Since they're still teaching each other saying, "Know the Lord", a new covenant under which they won't be doing so clearly hasn't been established.

You are still just restating that the existence of denominations is an example of teaching others to "know the Lord". I am asking for a reason(s) you think that is true.

Correct my misunderstanding because what I hear you saying is this:

(1) For virgin births, no one seeing the conception negates

(2) For non-virgin births, no one seeing the conception does not negate its possibility of being a sign.

1. A miraculous conception meant to be a sign cannot be one if it isn't observed. A sign has to be visible.

2. In Isaiah 7:14, the conception isn't an issue because the woman is already pregnant. It's the details of the child's birth and early life being given as a sign, not his conception.

If the verse isn't about the conception of the natural birth, then it also isn't about the conception of the virgin birth. Being a miraculous birth doesn't switch that.

But also remember that I argued that it's Isaiah 7-9 all working together, so that even if 7:14 had no application to Jesus, that the whole group does speak of God being with us.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #37

You are still just restating that the existence of denominations is an example of teaching others to "know the Lord". I am asking for a reason(s) you think that is true.

I keep giving reasons, and apparently your only rebuttal is to insist that I haven't.

If the verse isn't about the conception of the natural birth, then it also isn't about the conception of the virgin birth. Being a miraculous birth doesn't switch that.

Matthew tries to make it about the conception by misquoting the passage to read, "a virgin shall conceive".

But also remember that I argued that it's Isaiah 7-9 all working together, so that even if 7:14 had no application to Jesus, that the whole group does speak of God being with us.

In the context of Isaiah 7:1-13, the following chapters do not allude to a divine messiah.

[The Tanager]

I keep giving reasons, and apparently your only rebuttal is to insist that I haven't.

If there is nothing new there, then what we’ve already said can stand.

Matthew tries to make it about the conception by misquoting the passage to read, "a virgin shall conceive".

Matthew 1:18-25 - “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

Her virginity is part of it, but it’s about more than the conception.

In the context of Isaiah 7:1-13, the following chapters do not allude to a divine messiah.

I already shared why I think they do, and this isn’t a reason but simply your view, so if you’ve nothing new to add, then what we’ve already said can stand here as well.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #39

Her virginity is part of it, but it’s about more than the conception.

According to Matthew, her virginity at the time of conception was supposed to be part of the sign and I've pointed out the impossibility of that.

In the context of Isaiah 7:1-13, the following chapters do not allude to a divine messiah.

I already shared why I think they do, and this isn’t a reason but simply your view, so if you’ve nothing new to add, then what we’ve already said can stand here as well.

I've provided links to back up my position, so it isn't simply my view even though you may want it to be.