Debunking 365 Messianic Prophecies – Isaiah 7:14 – Rabbi Michael Skobac

Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. – Isaiah 7:10-16

Join us as we continue to investigate the alleged 365 messianic prophesies in the Tanakh that Jesus supposedly fulfilled in the New Testament!

Carmen’s New Revised Standard Version

JewsforJudaism.ca

Truth2U is made possible though your kind support. Click here to donate.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.


Download

You might also like

34 Comments

  1. Aaron Kavli says

    I’m no longer a Christian, but I’d be interested in hearing a program discussing the 613 mitzvot. I am led to understand that there’s not an agreement on what the 613 are and where exactly they are found in Torah.

    Yehova bless,
    Aaron Kavli

  2. Carmen says

    Shalom, Jono and Rabbi Skobac! You espoused some interesting comments concerning the “virgin birth”. But we are still convinced that Isaiah 7 was speaking of Y’shua. The following was taken from our website at http://www.therefinersfire.org/almah.htm – which was borrowed from an appendix entitled “Almah” in Andrew Gabriel Roth’s Aramaic English New Testament:

    The strongest aspect to the Jewish argument on Isaiah 7:14 is also the most obvious. It’s called “reading the first thirteen verses before talking about verse fourteen”! To wit:

    In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi’ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali’ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it. When the house of David was told, “Syria is in league with E’phraim,” his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.

    And YHWH said to Isaiah, Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She’ar-jash’ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, and say to him, ‘Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali’ah. Because Syria, with E’phraim and the son of Remali’ah, has devised evil against you, saying, “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta’be-el as king in the midst of it,'”

    Thus says YHWH ELOHIM: ‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years E’phraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) And the head of E’phraim is Sama’ria, and the head of Sama’ria is the son of Remali’ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.'”

    Again YHWH spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask a sign of YHWH your Elohim; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, and I will not put YHWH to the test.’ And he said, ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my Eloah also?'”

    If Isaiah 7:1-13 sets the scene for us, this is what we know:

    The start of Isaiah’s prophecy in this chapter is rooted during his day, specifically the time of King Ahaz, and not seven centuries later. In fact, as early as verse 3, we see YHWH telling Isaiah to speak these words of comfort to Ahaz directly.

    The time-limit for this prophecy is clearly established in verse 8 as 65 years, so once again this is not talking about Y’shua’s day.

    The “sign” that is about to be revealed in verse 14 is one that YHWH prompts Ahaz to ask of Him, yet another indicator tying the prophecy to the time of Isaiah.

    Therefore, it is only with this background that the next line can be interpreted: “Therefore YHWH Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.”

    As we can easily see, the birth of Immanuel is within the lifetime of the two earthly kings mentioned earlier. So where is Y’shua in all of this, the rabbis rightly ask? In fact, if you follow the line to the end of chapter 7, and even well into chapter 8, there is no indication of a future well beyond the 65-year window that the prophet himself gives. That being the case, by this reasoning, Matthew’s direct quoting of this passage in support of a virgin birth seems at best misguided and at worst, irresponsibly deceptive….

  3. CBB says

    I am enjoying these programs very much!

    Carmen, I am truly confused. You said: “But we are still convinced that Isaiah 7 was speaking of Y’shua.”
    Yet you quote from your website that says the opposite. There is a cryptic statement at the bottom of the page “….Fortunately, there is more to the story! The answer lies within the “Almah” appendix in the Aramaic English New Testament.” The link takes me to a site selling the AENT, not a link to the “Almah” appendix.

    I don’t know what is in the “Almah” Appendix of the AENT, but most of the arguments justifying the use of Almah as Virgin actually rest on the use of “Parthenos” in the LXX. However, “Parthenos” is used to describe Dinah AFTER she was raped! Clearly not a virgin. Gen 34:3.

    Carmen I’m not trying to be combative, I’m just missing your point.

    Here are some things that strike me as odd about the whole virgin birth story:

    If a betrothed woman, becomes pregnant by ANYONE other than her betrothed husband, it is a sign – a sign of Adultery! Deu 22. If the virgin birth were true, G_d would deserve to die for committing adultery with another man’s betrothed wife.

    A child conceived out of wedlock is a bastard. Mary wasn’t betrothed to G_d, nor did G_d marry her. Would the Sovereign of the Universe’s son be conceived in Adultery? That would make Jesus a bastard! Therefore neither Jesus couldn’t be a part of the congregation, let alone the Messiah! Deu 23:2.

    This whole story reminds me of Jus primae noctis or “Right of the first night,” the medieval custom where the local noble exercised the right to deflower local peasant brides on their wedding night before their newlywed husbands. Isn’t the NT claiming that G_d practiced jus primae noctis? It sure sounds like it to me!

    So now, if you throw the whole co-equal, co-eternal, Trinity doctrine into the mix – it really gets even more bizarre. That means that Jesus took part in his own conception! A son lying with his mother, is an abomination and they are to be cut off from the people. Lev 18.

    It reminds me of the Ray Stephens song “I’m my own Grandpa.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

  4. Yeshayahu Holt says

    The Virgin Birth Myth

    The virgin birth myth of jesus is one of the main claims by Christians that jesus is the messiah. I will show how mistranslations of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) have been used to support their claim.

    Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish Translation from Hebrew) “Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look the young woman is with child (hinneh ha’almah harah) and about to give birth to a son.”
    King James version of translation “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”
    Matthew 1:23 (Christian bible) “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”

    Now let’s look at what was happening when this statement was written and what it truly is about.
    The seventh chapter of the book of Isaih begins with describing the military crisis that eas confronting King Ahaz of the kingdom of Judah. Around the tear of 732 B.C.E (before the common era), The house of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: The northern kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King R tsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah records that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand. God would protect him and his kingdom and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. It is clear in this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration (Isaiah 7:14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies from the north. Isaiah 7:15-16 states that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14 reaches the age of maturity the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact they will be killed. 2 Kings 16:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9 confirm that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated. It is evident that the name of the child in Isaiah 7:14, Immanuel, is a sign which points to the Divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their otherwise certain demise at the hands of these two enemies. Clearly this is a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative and was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not to be fulfilled in the future or seven and a half centuries in the future.

    Let’s look at the word young woman vs virgin in these scriptures.
    In Isaiah the word used for the young woman is Ha’Almah which means “the young woman or the maiden) this word does not indicate that it is referencing a virgin. The word for virgin is B Tulah. So the only way this translation is used by Christians is that it was changed to make it fit into their story of the mythical virgin birth of jesus.
    The writers of the Christian bible used part of this verse from Isaiah 7 in Matthew 1:20-23 which states “But, while he thought on these things, behold, the angle of the Lord appeared unto him (joseph the father of jesus) in a dream, saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,” which being interpreted is, “God with us.” The verse in Isaiah is describing an immediate event of the young woman giving birth, not a birth in the future.

    Let me give some more examples of how Christians turn and twist scripture due in part of their ignorance to the Hebrew language and that their intent to miss-interpret scripture is to validate their book.
    Joel 1:8 says in the Jewish Bible “Lament like as a virgin (ki’v’tulah) girt with sackcloth (mourning) for her husband (or man of) her youth.”(alba’al n ure’ha)
    The Kings James version in the Christian Bible says “Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for her husband of her youth.”

    Now this may be a little confusing, however follow me on this. Christians argue that, although the term (b tulah) can be used specifically to denote “A VIRGIN” they point to passages where it is claimed to specifically refer to women who are not virgins such as in Joel 1:8. (b tulah) is called upon to lament over the death of her husband. The word used for husband in this verse is (ba’al) a term they claim is never used of a bridegroom, only a “full husband”. In their interpretation, the (b tulah) in this passage cannot be a virgin since she is married.
    The expression “man of” serves an almost generic purpose here, because those who are not familiar with the old Jewish customs may easily be fooled by the Hebrew noun (ba’al) which normally means husband. In this case the noun appears in a possessive construct, which gives it the meanings, husband of or owner of. The claim that the word for husband, (ba’al) is never used of a betrothed bridegroom, only of a full husband, is simply not true.

    According to ancient customs, the Jewish marriage process is in two events. The first is the betrothal or when the couple became engaged. The betrothal could last up to one year, during which time they could not have any intimate contact. This was a time where the man got himself established in a position to be able to support his wife and future family. The actual marriage took place, which is when the marriage was consummated by way of sexual intercourse. In Joel 1:8 the virgin is grieving for her man who died before their marriage was consummated. To attach a dual meaning of a non virgin to (b tulah) is an act of desperation on the part of Christians.

    Let’s move on to the claim that jesus was born from a virgin and mary was pregnated by the Holy Spirit. We have covered the verse in Matthew chapter one, however what actually happened is what we need to understand. We have read the differences of maiden and virgin in regards to their meaning how it applies to the sexual condition of a woman. We have also read the two step process of events that take place with a Jewish marriage. The birth of jesus according to the Christian bible is a direct violation of the law. Mary, according to the Christian bible did not conceive by her betrothed, Joseph, therefore she committed adultery “under the law” (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). As a result, the Christian claim that jesus was born of a woman engaged to a man, yet had God as his father, must be considered to refer to an adulterous union. God’s law does not allow for him to seduce a maiden, even through the medium of the Holy Spirt.What would be the worth of a moral code that is violated by God himself? The seduction of a female by a god fits, at best, in the realm of pagan mythology.

  5. Sophiee says

    Carmen — how can you say “we are still convinced that Isaiah 7 was speaking of (Jesus)” when your last sentence reads “Matthew’s direct quoting of this passage in support of a virgin birth seems at best misguided and at worst, irresponsibly deceptive”?

    The prophecy was for King Ahaz and it was simply that before the unborn child is very old the two kings Ahaz is afraid of will no longer be a threat to him. Read of II Kings (16) and you’ll see that Isaiah’s prophecy in 7 is fulfilled: “2 Kings 16:5. Then Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not wage war [with him]”

    The point of Isaiah 7 has very little to do with the child who is born but more to do with the fact that the two kings Ahaz’ is afraid of will be beaten by the time that child is old enough to know good from evil.

    1. the prophecy is for King Ahaz who was alive at the time: “Isaiah 7:1 1. And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz. . .10. And HaShem continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, 11. “Ask for yourself a sign from HaShem, your G-d”

    So the sign is for the king alive at the time: not for hundreds of years in the future when Jesus supposedly was born.

    Some Christians believe that this is a “dual” prophecy — meaning it was a prophecy for Ahaz AND a prophecy about Jesus. Dual prophecies are not-biblical and have no basis in the bible. How can you get a “dual prophecy” from a sentence that starts “it came to pass in the days of Ahaz”????? If it is “dual” who was the virgin giving birth in the first go-around in the days of King Ahaz??? The dual prophecy argument falls apart — the prophecy is clearly for King Ahaz and about the peril the king was in from two kings he was afraid of. . .

    The real crux of the prophecy isn’t the child’s birth but what will happen before he is very old:
    Isaiah 7:16.. . . the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
    This is the prophecy.

    If you actually study the history of Ahaz (the King Isaiah made the prophecy FOR), you’ll learn that the two kings Ahaz’ feared were those of Rezin and Pekah.

    Israel had been invaded by Assyria. Ahaz was king of Judah, at this crisis refused to co-operate with the kings of Israel and Syria in opposition to the Assyrians. He was attacked and defeated by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Samaria (2 Kings 16:5; 2 Chr. 28:5, 6).

    THIS is what Ahaz was worried about and THIS is what Isaiah’s prophecy was about — the two kings — whose names were Rezin and Pekah.

    Not virgin births.

    Again, from II Kings (16), “5 5. Then Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not wage war [with him].. .

    The two kings King Ahaz feared: Pekah and Rezin. The two kings of Isaiah’s prophecy in chapter 7. What two kings did Jsus fear?

    Ahaz sided with Assyria, fighting with Tiglathpileser against Israel and Syria. Ahaz and the Assyrians won (as Isaiah 7 prophesied).

    Rezin and Pekah were conquered and many of the people carried captive to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29; 16: 9; 1 Chr. 5:26). Soon after this Shalmaneser subdued the kingdom of Israel. Samaria was taken and destroyed (B.C. 722).

    But, true to Isaiah’s prophecy in chapter 7, throughout Ahaz reign, the kingdom of Judah was unmolested by the Assyrian power.

    The prophecy had nothing to do with virgins having babies, and very little to do with the baby itself. Where is anything that even is similar to the story of Jesus?

    What two kings did Jesus dread?

    When was Jesus an earthly King who fought a war?

    What land of those two kings was abandoned in Jesus’ supposed lifetime?

    Was Jesus alive to BE a sign for King Ahaz?

    I have a question for missionaries insistent that Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus. When was Jesus ever named Immanuel? Jewish babies are normally named by their fathers but, in Isaiah 7:14, the prophet makes a point of saying that this baby’s mother was going to name the child (which would have been highly unusual)—and the writer of “Matthew” knew this, because he very craftily changed the wording when he changed his quote of the verse from “and she will call his name”)to “and they will call his name” (from “she” to “they”). . . so that, by constantly referring to Jesus as “Immanuel” successive generations of unsuspecting Christians would think Jesus “fulfilled” something. But Mary never named Jesus “Immanuel” — and the “they” is yet another deceit on the part of the authors of the Christian bible. Naming a baby has a special significance in Jewish culture, and this is not the same thing as somebody else later casually “calling” him or “referring to” him as by some specific name; Jesus was never NAMED Immanuel, he was never CALLED Immanuel by anyone in the Christian bible either! The Christian bible says that Joseph has a dream about an “angel” that instructs him (the husband) to name the child Jesus — again not fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 at all. . .

    Isaiah 7:14 as a “proof text” is a perfect example of how missionaries mistranslate texts and then lift them out of their context to be read in a vacuum. . .

  6. Joel says

    Hey Jono And Rabbi Skobac.
    I run a site called shemaisrael.ning.com, and I have had a major problem with Teachers for so long. I’d jump from one teacher to the next, and the next, and I’d always be seeing a LOT of fault.

    I have searched for the truth, of it all, using scripture and trying to use History, but when going into the history, it is very much like a twilight zone. You really can not find any history, and the Jews were a literate people, even know we are taught that the average Jew could not read or write. You have Rabbis’ walking around teaching, they could read and write, You had scrubs, walking around, Lawyers, but yet nothing from them on the history. Except a course Flavius Josephus, who was a Jew, but declared Flavius Vespasian the Messiah the Jews waited for.

    When I found your teachings, I had come to the conclusion that a media block had fallen on the whole earth, and the Greeks wrote the NT. A few days latter a video popped up on my computer screen with a documentary called “Caesar’s Messiah The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus.’ Things started becoming so clear to me after viewing it. I was wrong about the Greeks, It was Roman to start with. I did not search for the video, it was just there. They took it off about three days latter.

    The More I read, the more I listen to you two banter about in the early days, the more I was convinced, We had inherited lies, and things that do not prosper! In a much bigger way then the Hebrew Roots I had been following believe.

    Flavius Titus (Half Jew) Often made the claim he was the “Son of God.” Flavius Vespasian achieved Godship, and Titus was his son, so…….

    I do not have all the answers, because the Media black out in those days, anyone that was not sanctioned by the Roman government.

    It makes Last weeks HalfTorah Portion come alive for me so well…

    Hosea 11
    8 How shall I give thee up, E’phraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboi’im? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.

    9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy E’phraim: for I am God1, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

    In retrospect I can tell you Just what He was going to do…
    He was going to give E’phraim an Idol to worship, that is able to point people back to the Torah and back to YHWH……….
    In that, I have to say WOW, what a merciful God we serve!

    Now, I do not know what I will do in anything.
    I just know, I know nothing at all……

  7. Carmen says

    First – in response to our “Almah” appendix going straight to the AENT website, that is because, even though I was the original editor of AENT, it didn’t give me the right to copy entire appendixes, and so I decided that if somebody was interested enough, they could buy an AENT – and if not, that’s their choice. We’re working on rewording our article in a way that doesn’t infringe on copyright while presenting as much info as possible to this very much INDEPTH appendix.
    Here’s the thing, though: I hope you do understand that Andrew is agreeing with the rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as NOT referring to the future birth of Yeshua, the 7:14 prophecy unfolds within 65 years – the lifetime of the two Kings mentioned in Isaiah.

    Andrew goes on to explain that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was used by Matthew, but there was an expectation in his writings that the reader would understand his reference to Isaiah as he did. Matthew clearly knew the remainder of Isaiah, chapters 9-11 was a progressive revelation of the future Messiah, and that the tie between the prophecies included the word “virgin” (Which in the Hebrew became “almah”). The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-25 is about the salvation and regathering of Israel, and that salvation as the prophecy was being revealed involved a sign of a birth, first to Achaz in Chapter 7, then the future prophecy of chapters 9-11.

    The key is Matthew’s use of the word “virgin” [‘beytolta’ in Aramaic] in Matthew 1:23. It is wrong for us, today, to deny what Matthew wrote because it is hard to understand. Rabbis of old and Matthew (most certainly) knew full well the reading of the Greek Isaiah 7:14, ‘parthenos’, “virgin” did not mean “virgin” in the sense of a woman who had never had sexual relations, after all that particular prophecy was directed at Acahz to be a sign in his day which came to pass, and the prophesied birth is generally accepted as from Isaiah’s own wife (Isaiah 8:3). But while that prophecy in chapter 7 was not about a “virgin birth”, nevertheless, the word “virgin” was used in 7:14 – with obvious implications that the prophecy meant more than what was the simple plain meaning! (Aside: Sometimes it’s hard to remember that the Septuagint predates the modern Hebrew scriptures by hundreds of years because most all of any original Hebrew texts were long-lost while the Septuagint survived. It’s also hard to remember that the Hebrew Texts we have today, are from the Masoretic Text which itself was a translation INTO Hebrew from other sources (primarily the Septuagint.)

    Matthew, no doubt, knew that the word in Isaiah 7:14 was “virgin” from the available scriptures of his day, and used “virgin” in his narrative because he saw the hidden meaning of 7:14 as the beginning of the later prophesy – thus revealing why the word “virgin” was used by Isaiah. Indeed, scholars have been arguing this issue for millennia. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 7:14 indeed has the Greek word “parthenos” which is “virgin”, this is not arguable, and clearly Rabbis have struggled with this for a long time resulting in the word “almah” in the Masoretic Text probably an attempt by the compilers of the Hebrew scriptures to “distance themselves” from the troubles caused by the word “parhtenos”, i.e., virgin (my opinion only).

    But the respondent here, because he can’t understand the idea of a “virgin birth” and chiding it away because he can’t see how it is possible within his view of Torah and then blaspheming YHWH by saying it would make YHWH an adulterer – well that is just downright shameful. My gosh! YHWH formed Adam from the ground! Why isn’t this person chiding that away?

  8. Carmen says

    And by the way, Sophiee – I didn’t life anything out of context “to be read in a vacuum!” For your information, I DO study and I Do know a few things. You aren’t all-knowing or all-seeing, either, as you like to present your self as being. Just because you and I don’t agree on Messiah doesn’t mean I “read in a vacuum! How arrogant! Since when is it okay to attack someone’s intellect or character as you have done?

    I could say the same about you because you blindly accept the man-made Talmud as gospel, and have no problem believing accepting BY FAITH that God created the world in 7 days, and that people in biblical times lived to be a thousand years old, and that God flooded the entire world except for Noah and his family…(no PROOF, but hey, you believe it!). And you believe that God supernaturally kept Israel alive for 40 years by feeding them manna from heaven, and Moshe wrote the Torah (never mind that Moshe died before the end of Deuteronomy, and yet somehow, the Torah was magically finished!); and you simply accept that the Hebrews in the wilderness saw a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; and that Moshe’s face was so bright people couldn’t look upon him when he descended the mountain where he somehow received two tablets of stone with ten commandments written by the “finger of God” … But for US to “believe there’s a rest of the story called “New Testament” and that the NT outlines the birth, life and death of the promised Messiah? Well, THAT is just blasphemy and STUPID, isn’t it? WE are “seeing things in clouds” as Rabbi Skobac put it….

  9. Sophiee says

    Carmen, you erroneously say that the Greek parthenos means virgin. First, we don’t really care what the Greek says since the Hebrew says “young woman” and we have no idea who translated Isaiah into Greek. We DO know that the Christians maintained the Greek translations and even complained that they contained forgeries and errors. See early church father Origen, 3rd century. . .

    But, Carmen, parthenos didn’t ALWAYS mean virgin. Originally parthenos, in the Greek culture spoke of any betrothed woman (virgin or non-virgin). Over time it came to mean virgin — but note that in the Greek translation of the Torah we are told that Dinah is a parthenos AFTER she is raped. A raped woman, I’m sure you’ll agree, is NOT a virgin.

    Carmen did you know that Justin Martyr (100 CE, so VERY EARLY Christian) wrote in “Trypho the Jew” that Jews of his era said: ” you (Jews) and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son”

    Parthenos aside, early Christians could and should have corrected this error that Isaiah 7 said “virgin” back in the early days of the religion — except that the idea of virgin births were part of the pagan religions.

    Carmen, let’s not change the subject to the Talmud (deflection, thy name is missionary!). Why are you jumping around to the Talmud and B’reshit / Genesis chapter 1? Are you concerned that your Isaiah 7 “virgin” argument is falling apart?

    But — I’ll play along a bit — the Torah does not say that G-d created the world in 7 days — that is your mistranslations again. It says “yom” which can refer to a given period of time. See why translations can be misleading? A lot of the issues missionaries deal with are based on English translations. When the Jewish bible is read in Hebrew these errors don’t exist. Thus “yom” is translated by most as “day” in Genesis (Bereshit), but in reality it means a specific period of time — and that time could be billions of years, a year, a month or a day. Nahmanides (Ramban) who lived from 1194 – c. 1270 discussed Genesis using terms that we think of today as being evolution. The Ramban first discuses Genesis 1:1. What G-d brought forth thereis something called hailei, what medieval scientists thought of as the raw matter whence all life emerges. “It is possible that the name earth mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated. Ramban,” (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah,

    Genesis 1:1 reports G-ds root decision to create something out of nothing; after that, life developed however the scientists describe it.

    Genesis 1:2, the very next line, describes primeval earth as tohu vavohu. Tohu, says Ramban, means astonishment, and vavohu means because there was something there astonishment, that is, because out of nothing came something but not yet anything in particular. G-d could have created everything in all its detail with a snap of the divine fingers, but G-d didnt, and therein lies the significance of Genesis 1:1. G-d created the possibility of being, an act that astonishes (Genesis 1:2) because aboriginal emptiness had become primal matter, ready to be shaped and reshaped ad infinitum.

    So here you have a VERY Orthodox Jew who is one of the most respected of our sages speaking in terms of evolution who lived in the 12th century of the common era.

    I’m sorry that you felt I insulted you — interesting that you focus on what you thought was an insult while ignoring my complimenting your honor and integrity in an earlier response to you. That speaks of something. . . interesting.

  10. Sophiee says

    Somehow I missed Carmen’s comment “Rabbis have struggled with this for a long time resulting in the word “almah” in the Masoretic Text probably an attempt by the compilers of the Hebrew scriptures to “distance themselves” from the troubles caused by the word “parthenos”, i.e., virgin (my opinion only).”

    Carmen, your opinion is the opposite of the truth. In reality the churches have struggled with the fact that the Hebrew text NEVER had virgin — it has always been “young woman” (almah). The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been carbon-14 dated at least four times, giving calibrated date ranges between 335-324 BCE and 202-107 BCE — that is BEFORE Jesus and before the Christians and their churches — and they say “almah” (young woman).

    The Targum Yonathan on Isaiah reads ‘almah’ “young woman, girl as well. . .

    Carmen, you seem like an honorable woman — you realized that your original list was wrong and admitted it. That takes honor and courage. Have the courage now to realize you’ve been lied to, consistently and thoroughly. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the “virgin” lie as does Justin Martyr’s words from 1900 years ago.

  11. Mary R says

    Sophiee, Thank you so much for all the information you provide, particularly to Carmen. What you say enhances Rabbi Skobac’s teachings and provides clearer understanding for me. As a former Catholic/Christian, I’m also thankful for Carmen’s posts as she provides useful information to verify what I believe now. YHVH will not turn anyone away from finding The Truth, but when we realize that we and previous generations have been lied to it is sometimes a very difficult concept to grasp and one that doesn’t come easily for many….just as some children have great difficulty upon finding out there is no Santa. Thanks again for all the time you (and Carmen) put in to this discussion.

  12. Carmen says

    Sophiee – I definitely AM an “honorable woman” but I don’t intend to “realize I’ve been lied to” because that would make me just as gullible as everyone here who blindly believes that God created the world and made Adam out of dirt and Eve out of his rib, and that God destroyed the world by flood but saved Noah and his family … all of which is really pure speculation BECAUSE you want to believe what the Tanach says, yet you have ZERO proof.

    Mary R – I am sorry to hear that my posts have helped cement your “new” beliefs. But, c’est la view.

    Now – to your assertions about Almah, Sophiee – We agree that the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of a birth must have been fulfilled within the time of Achaz and that it did not require a “virgin birth”. But it seems that greater scholars than you were troubled by the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy because even if “almah” were the correct original word, which means “young woman”, that term applies to a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child (thus may or may not have been a virgin). The word “almah” only appears 7 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet here it is used for a woman, where it turns out, was NOT an “almah”, but was a woman who had already had children (Isaiah’s wife, verse 8:3)! Whether you take this “almah” as Isaiah’s wife, or Hizkiyahu, Achaz’ son (as some argue), both are problematic because Isaiah already had a son by his wife, therefore she was not “almah”, and Hizkiyahu was born too late to have been the child of the prophecy. Isaiah is silent if it is intending the prophecy to have been fulfilled by another “almah”. Or perhaps it is a prophecy.

    Thus we have to conclude, “almah” or “beytola”, that Isaiah’s 7:14 prophecy clearly held far more significance than its “plain” meaning alone. Traditional Judaism and Christianity are both erred because Judaism refuse to see the verses as Messianic prophecy, and Christians insist this was only a Messianic (and future) prophecy, I assume, because they are unaware of the controversy Matthew caused by using the word “virgin” quoting a version of Isaiah 7:14 ! Indeed you probably already know Levi Bar Alphaeus, i.e., Apostle Matthew, was branded a heretic by Rabbinical Jews, quite possibly because of his use of “virgin” in his reference to Isaiah 7:14. Nevertheless, greater scholars than either of us have concluded Matthew knew what he was talking about. So it seems, we are relegated to our respective opinions on “almah”.

    Now – this will conclude my comments here, because I know from experience that nothing we can possibly say will sink in or change the minds of those who hate the idea of Messiah Y’shua or NT. So, we’ll simply part ways and let it go and we’ll see ya’ll on Judgment Day.

    Shalom!

  13. Sophiee says

    Carmen — you are creating strawmen arguments and then knocking them down. For example — the Torah does not say that G-d created Chava (Eve) from Adam’s rib. That is Christian mistranslation / teaching. It isn’t Torah and it is not Jewish understanding. The same is true for the story of the flood — Judaism teaches that the flood may well have been the known world not the entire physical world. . . I suggest you read The Science of G-d: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald L. Schroeder. He wrote “Two millennia ago, long before paleontologists discovered fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, long before data from the Hubble and Keck telescopes hinted at a multibillion-year-old universe, the Talmud (Chagiga 12b) stated explicitly that the opening chapter of Genesis, all 31 verses, is presented in a manner that intentionally conceals information. Furthermore, Moses, on the day of his death, exhorted the people three times to read the Bible as a text having within it a subtext harboring multiple meanings (Deut. 31:19,30; 32:44).”

    I hate to keep correcting you, and I know it upsets you, but when you wrote “here it is used for a woman, where it turns out, was NOT an “almah”, but was a woman who had already had children (Isaiah’s wife, verse 8:3)” — that makes no sense! Almah simply means young woman — and many young women have already had children. What you see as problematic isn’t a problem at all given the meaning of the word “almah.” BTW Isaiah 7:14 doesn’t just say “almah” it says ha’alMAH (accent is on the syllable in CAPs) — ha is like “the” in English and speaks about a specific young girl, such as an adolescent (such as a pre-teenager). The Hebrew word “almah” has a masculine equivalent (ĕlĕm) — which in no way infers virginity in the male (David is often called an elem) — and this is a very strong indication that “almah” CAN’T denote a virgin

    The whole focus on “almah” in Isaiah 7 is also a strawman argument. It wouldn’t matter if Isaiah did say a virgin would conceive (it doesn’t) — because virgins conceive all the time! First sexual act! Some virgins who have sex don’t have the hymen break — meaning they have sex but are still virgins (technically). Focusing on the word “almah” is misguided.

    Read chapter 7 IN CONTEXT – Immanuel is clearly born in King Ahazs time, centuries before Jesus. Isaiah predicts to King Ahaz that a young woman will give birth to Immanuel (7:14). Isaiah tells Ahaz, Before the child shall know to reject evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread [Rezin and Pekah- see 7:1-2] shall be forsaken (7:16). The downfall of these two kings quickly took place (II Kings 15:29-30, 16:9).

    You are missing both the forest and the trees.

    Mary R. — thank you so much for the kind words.

  14. Sophiee says

    One final comment to Carmen. She wrote “Nevertheless, greater scholars than either of us have concluded Matthew knew what he was talking about. So it seems, we are relegated to our respective opinions on “almah”.” Those would be CHRISTIAN scholars who have a conclusion and then try to make up reasons for their conclusions to be correct. Circular reasoning at its finest!

  15. Darren says

    Wow, reading Carmen’s comments are kind of a reflection of myself when I used to put so much time, fight, energy, and intensity, into defending Jesus / Yeshua along with the Greek NT writings. I totally understand her view and tenacity from my Christian / Messianic past.

    Now I’m at peace focusing solely upon the Father of creation, The God of the Hebrews, to gain an understanding of the Hebrew Tanakh, and a desire to live by His Torah within it.

    And the objective and literal proof I accept to believe that the words of the Tanakh are true, is the existence of the Jewish people and the physical Land called “Israel”.

    Throughout the centuries those in the world have tried to suppress the evidence of truth in the Tanakh. By destroying the very Tanakh itself, creating a new book to override it, destroying the Jewish people, discrediting the Jewish people, and the attempt of renaming their Land, whether it be “Palestine” or some type of angelic “Heaven”.

    As I see it now, anything or anyone that will cause you to divert your attention away from The God of Israel, and His words contained in the Hebrew Scriptures onto another, is a form of idolatry.

  16. Dane A. Kappler says

    Perhaps Matthew is not trying to answer the question “Is Yeshua born of a virgin?” by quoting this verse, but instead he’s replying to the question, “Is the Messiah going to be a natural-born man or just appear out of nowhere riding on a horse?” It is clear that the Tanach has some affinity toward unlikely births (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Perez & Zerah, Samuel, etc.), so it would stand to reason that the Author of that text would save the biggest bang of an unlikely birth for the predicted Messiah. Does he REALLY need to point out that being born from a virgin is a peculiar thing?

    As for a “double fulfillment”, I could imagine that the Master of Multitasking would be able to both predict a comforting word to a king AND give some properties of what the Messiah would be like at the same time. Psalm 62:11 says, “One thing G_d has spoken, two things have I heard, that power belongs to G_d”, so we can expect that there is something more to EVERY word of Scripture. In fact, I would guess that there is likely many more fulfillments to every scripture, in that it can tell you a story, teach you a lesson, guide you to more correct behavior, and do that and more with the guy standing next to you. Perhaps another unlikely birth will be an indication of the End of Days?

    As for the title “Emmanu-El”, what was Gabriel saying in Luke 1:28? I know that’s hidden behind the English, which is masked by the Latin, which is encased in Greek, but somewhere in there is “G_d is with you!” Even if you would not accept this statement being the same as giving the name, it is still reasonable that this name might be a declaration that Yeshua is born from Holy Stock.

    It is painful that Matthew chooses to use an inferior translation to make his point, but I can’t fault a man for working from the copy of scriptures he has available. Whoever the source of the translation is to be faulted, or should we imagine that the translator of Matthew’s Bible might have been Divinely guided?

    I would agree that this verse PROVES nothing, but the quoting of the statement would be to say that these events align with previous revelations without clear contradiction.

  17. Joel says

    OYVA…. I’m only gonna list a few of these, but… Honestly they’re a LOT…..

    Genesis 24
    16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

    Virgin = bethule

    Leviticus 21
    3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
    14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

    Virgin = e-bethule

    Deuteronomy 22
    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

    Virgin = e-bethule

    End of argument…

  18. Wayne Moxam says

    Thanks Jono and rabbi.your teaching was a serious blessing to my soul. I needed the facts about “alma”and Betula.well done and very clear. YHVH bless and keep you both. Happy Chanukah to you both

  19. Norm says

    Maybe Carmen could explain to us 1) how the birth of a demi god-man 700 years in the future would calm the current fears of Ahaz? and 2) why Isaiah lied when he said it was his children who were signs (8:18)?

  20. Dane A. Kappler says

    OK Joel, you say you have expertly ended the 1700 year-old argument because there are words that can mean “virgin” in the Hebrew that are not “alma”. Does Hebrew contain synonyms? Do words take on extra meanings or lose meanings over time? Can a term imply something that is not outright stated? Would it be totally out of place for Matthew to quote the verse where the English translation of “alma” would be “young woman” (see my previous comment)? Do you really believe the Messiah MUST be born of a virgin? If you don’t insist that he be virgin-born, how can it be offensive that some people think he is? Would it disqualify him if he were born of a virgin?

    Norm, I’ll help Carmen out here.

    1 & 2) Can the Master of Language say two things (or more) at once? Is He capable of predicting the relief from the seige AND the coming Messiah at the same time (and maybe something else for another time)? Has He been known for multi-tasking? Maimonidies said that all the Tanach speaks of Messiah. I would tend to agree with that. Consider please, these private conversations with the prophet were written down for people to discuss 2714 years later. Do you suppose that EVERY conversation between the prophet and the king was recorded? So why was THIS one recorded for posterity, if not to predict something else as well? Is it supposed to be something that speaks to you? If not, why would you waste your time reading it? If the words of the prophet can speak to you in 2014 CE, why can’t it speak to Matthew 1940 years earlier?

  21. Yahushua says

    Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (From the time of creation constant reference is made in Holy Writ to Messiah and the Messianic hope of Israel. ‘The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters’; the Spirit of God means Messiah.–Gen. Rabba 2; also Levit. Rabba 14.

    When Eve at the birth of Seth exclaimed, ‘God hath appointed me another seed.’ her underlying thought was the King Messiah.–Gen. Rabba 23.)

    Dead Sea Scrolls. The Text of Scroll 4Q246 – the Son of God Scroll:

    “He shall be called the son of God, 
    and they shall designate [call] him son of the Most High. 
    Like the appearance of comets, so shall be their kingdom. 
    For brief years they shall reign over the earth and shall trample on all; 
    one people shall trample on another and 
    one province on another until the people of God shall rise and all shall rest from the sword.”

    Compare the words in the scroll 4Q246 text to the inspired words found in Luke 1:32 and 35: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David… And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:32-35).

  22. Sophiee says

    I’m not quite sure why missionaries love to jump around from the subject. Now instead of speaking of Isaiah 7 we are speaking of Dead Sea Scrolls, Genesis 3, etc. Deflection perhaps?

    The most recent Christian poster references three midrashim — Genesis Rabbah 2, 23 and Leviticus Rabbah 14 are mentioned (copied straight from missionary sites BTW!). Well, all three are midrashim – stories meant to make a moral point, and not literal statements of fact. Yet they are presented in the post as if they are to be taken literally. I don’t fault the poster, because missionary sites notoriously quote from midrashim and never bother to tell the readers that these are not literal and definitely not prophecy!

    Genesis Rabbah says that the spirit of G-d hovered (speaking of Genesis) ALLUDES to the spirit of the messiah. An allusion is an implication – it isn’t REAL. Using allegory and imagery the story tells us “the spirit of G-d alludes to the spirit of Messiah. . .In the merit of what will (this spirit) eventually come? . .(for the sake of that which) hovered over the face of the waters, i.e. in the merit of repentance which is likened to water. . .” Doesn’t seem so much like G-d is being said to be the messiah when read in context, does it?

    It definitely doesn’t fit Jesus or Christianity when one considers that Genesis Rabbah 2:4 tells the story that the coming of the messiah will cause people to repent from their deliberate sins (Pesha [פֶשַׁע] (no need for Jesus to die to repent for the sins of others). BTW, deliberate sins cannot be atoned for by blood per the T’nach.

    More and more often missionaries are attempting to use extra-biblcal Jewish sources to make their case for Jesus — but they do not understand the teachings. Some things are completely made up (not accusing the poster, just stating a fact about missionaries misuse of Jewish sources), some are mistranslated and others are just lifted out of stories and fables and presented as “facts.” I suggest Yahushua read http://judaismsanswer.com/midrash2.htm

  23. Sophiee says

    How about the Dead Sea Scroll Yahushua referenced (4Q246)? Well — this is not a biblical fragment (and it is a fragment — incomplete), and it has an interesting history. This Aramaic fragment was bought in a marketplace in 1958, purchased from Kando, the go-between for the Ta’amireh Bedu, on the 9th of July 1958.

    Presented as a fragment from cave 4 of Qumran it may not be from there at all. It may not date to pre-Christian times either. David Crowder and Neil Altman have noted that Jewish micrography is found on the manuscript – and micrography began in the 8th century of the common era (8 centuries into Christianity). I’m speaking of vowel notations (like those of the Masoretes — aka “Masoretic Text”) and that didn’t come into being until the 8th century CE. . . so how does this fragment have those markings???

    Thus 4Q24 may be no earlier than the 8th century and is may well be a Christian document. The scholars (mostly Christian) all disagree as to whom “son of god” refers – some suggest it is a Roman emperor. . . partly because the text speaks of a “king of Assyria and Egypt.” Needless to say that doesn’t fit Jesus. . .

    One last thing, Yahushua also brings up Genesis 3:15 (the seed of the woman proof text). Christians relate it to Heb. 2:14, 1 Jn. 3:18.

    #1 Satan (which is a Hebrew word meaning adversary) is not used in Genesis 3:15 — this is about a snake who lured Chava (Eve) into eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    #2 Missionaries claim that this somehow foretells the “virgin birth” because it speaks of the “seed of woman” and women don’t have seed (men do).

    Boy — all kinds of problems for the missionary in this big whopper of a lie!

    The word translated as “seed” is זרע [zera]. It literally means the living offspring from the parent. For women this SHOULD be translated as “egg” or “ova.”

    This term is not used uniquely of Chava (Eve). Hagar (the concubine of Abraham who gives birth to Ishmael) is also described as having זרע [zera] — oops, there goes the whole “seed of the women” lie!

    “Genesis 16:10 – And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], I will greatly increase your seed (zarech) and they will not be counted for abundance.”

    Consider this (regarding “seed”) if the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15 means something unique to Chava (Eve), please explain how come the same exact term is used to speak of Hagar — the mother of Ishmael — a fact missionaries ignore?

    All Genesis 3 is saying is that the live offspring זרע (zera) of Eve will hate the live offspring (zera) of the serpent. Nothing more or less.

    Not quite sure what ANY of this has to do with Isaiah 7!!!

  24. Yahushua says

    The reason i quote Midrashim is to show that Messianics and Christians didnt invent the idea about a Divine Messiah .The reason i do is because AntiMissionaries claim that Messianics and Christians invent ideas about the Messiah throughout the Tanakh. and Antimissionaries deny The Divinity of the Messiah. And as you mentioned Genesis 3:15. Lets see what the Ancient Targums have to say and if it is connected to Messiah.PAL TARGUM Genesis 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the KING MESSIAH.(10)

  25. Yahushua says

    Yahushua is throughout Torah . Genesis 48:16 The Messenger which Redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earthExodus 23:20 Behold, I send a Messenger before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in Him.

    Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

  26. Yahushua says

    If Messiah werent Divine. Then How could He be The Shoot and Root of Jesse? And Have the 7 Ruach of Elohim.(Isaiah 11)
    And come with the Clouds of Heaven. Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
    You people still deny Messiah which was prophesied to come before the destruction of the Second Temple (Daniel 9).
    Yahushua is the Messiah the Melchizedek.
    Dead Sea Scrolls. Melchizedek Scroll -And concerning that which He said, In this year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property (Lev. 25:13) and likewise, And this is the manner of release: every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbour. He shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother, for God’s release has been proclaimed (Deut. 15:2). And it will be proclaimed at the end of days concerning the captives as He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61:1). Its interpretation is that He will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; for He will cast their lot amid the portions ofMelchizedek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them the wrong-doings of all their iniquities.

    And this thing will occur in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees. And the Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. And a statue concerns them to provide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. And he will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the 10 Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms 82:1). And it was concerning him that he said, Let the assembly of the peoples return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms 7:7-8). As for that which he said, How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (Psalms 82:2), its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot who rebelled by turning away from the precepts God to … And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God … and he will drag them from the hand of Belial and from the hand of all of the spirits of his lot. And all the ‘gods of Justice’ will come to his aid to attend to the destruction of Belial.

    And the height is … all the sons of God … this …

    This is the day of Peace/Salvation concerning which God spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said, How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM reigns (Isa. 3:7). Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets … and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit, concerning whom Daniel said, Until an anointed one, a prince (Dan. 9:25) … And he who brings good news, who proclaims salvation: it is concerning him that it is written. … To comfort all who mourn, to grant to those who mourn in Zion (Isa. 61:2-3). To comfort those who mourn: its interpretation, to make them understand all the ages of time … In truth … will turn away from Belial … by the judgements of God, as it is written concerning him, who says to Zion; your ELOHIM reigns. Zion is …, those who uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking in the way of the people. And your ELOHIM is Melchizedek, who will save them from the hand of Belial. As for that He said, Then you shall send abroad the trumpet in all the land (Lev. 25:9) …

  27. Sophiee says

    Yahushua, Jesus isn’t in the Jewish bible at all. You need to keep listening to these audio programs! You also need to read up a little on Judaism — because you seem to be confusing stories meant to make a moral point (Midrash Aggadah) with prophecy. This is a common missionary mistake. Always, always ALWAYS a key principle of Judaism (mentioned in the Talmud and one that Rashi quotes several times states that):

    אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְשׁוּטוֹ

    “Scripture never departs from its פְּשָׁט p’shat / plain meaning” (Treatise Shabbat 63a, Treatise Y’vamot11b, 24a; quoted by Rashi at B’réshıt 15:10, 37:19, Sh’mot 12:2).

    Prophecy is ALWAYS פְּשָׁט p’shat / plain meaning. It is never “types and shadows” aka “smoke and mirrors” aka stories meant to make a moral point. G-d tells us that He does nothing without revealing it to His prophets — again this is very literal. “Surely the L-rd G-d does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7.

    Stick with the p’shat!!!

    Missionaries, and even a number of seekers of truth, keep posting midrashic (non-literal, allegorical) sources as if they were the literal truth. I’ve seen people posting things like “the messiah could have a Davidic claim on his mother’s side” quoting some drashic source. NO, the messiah must be a Davidic heir on his FATHER’S side as tribal lineage only passes paternally — and that is the פְּשָׁט p’shat.

    Folks, don’t try to jump in and learn Kabbalah (mysticism focusing on drash and sod) when you don’t clearly understand p’shat! Start your studies with Torah, and ‘nach and then to Talmud. Historically Jews aren’t even taught mysticism until they are a mature (30-40) person with a firm understanding of the basics of Torah.

    The four parts of PaRDeS are:

    * P’shat (פְּשָׁט) – the “plain” (“simple”) meaning of a passage

    * Remez (רֶמֶז) – “hints” or illusions implied in the text but not explicit. One of the ways the Torah hints at something is through gematriah (the numerical value of the Hebrew letters).

    * Drash (דְּרַשׁ) – homiletical (allegorical) interpretation, but also to any other method than the literal.

    * Sod (סוֹד) – “secret” (“mystery”) meanings.

    Don’t let the missionaries fool you into thinking that some story which was meant to make a moral point is a prophecy pointing to Jesus or anything else that isn’t plainly clear in the T’nach. They are misleading you. Remember the words of the Ramban (Nachmanides) to the King of Spain “We have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. It is just as if the bishop would rise and deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners whom the sermon pleased recorded it (Disputation at Barcelona, p. 7).”

    A sermon is not prophecy. As the Ramban went on to say about the non-p’shat texts “those who believe it well and good, but those who do not believe it do no harm.. . We call this. . .aggadah (drash / stories), that is, stories, meaning that these are only things which one person tells another.” The Disputation at Barcelona.

  28. Sophiee says

    One last thing — I am familiar with the work of the leading Jewish DSS scholars, and none of them, as far as I know, read into any of this the idea of a “divine” or “quasi-divine” messiah. Neither do I recall any such assertion by the leading & reputable non-Jewish DSS scholars. This includes 11qmelch (the Dead Sea Scroll some call Malki-Tzadoq scroll). There are discussions on 11q13 by various authors. Prof.essor Geza Vermes has the following on it in his book, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, on pp. 89-90.

    108. The Melkizedek Document (11Q13)

    The thirteen fragments, dated to the first century B.C.E., are the remains of an eschatological midrash, i.e., a commentary on diverse scriptural themes relating to the end of time. They are based on Leviticus 25.13, Deuteronomy 15.2 and Isaiah 61.1 and were found in Cave 11. The deliverance proclamimed is seen as part of the general restoration of property in every fiftieth or Jubilee year, a restoration regarded in the Bible as a remission of debts. The deliverer, the chief of the heavenly beings (literally ‘gods’, elohim), is Melkizedek, identical with the archangel Michael. He will judge and condemn Belial, the Prince of Darkness. The final liberation will come on the Day of Atonement when all the sins of the Sons of Light will be pardoned.

    [To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.1). Its interpretation is the He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melkizedek; f[or He will cast] their [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melkize]dek, who will return from there and will roclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrongdoings] of all their iniquities (2.4-6).
    Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman has a similar paragraph in his book, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, on p. 231.

    Melchizedek is preserved in an early Herodian period manuscript found in cave 11. The author presents a series of pesher-like interpretations of various biblical texts from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel, in that order. The freedom of the biblical Jubilee is seen as symbolic of the eschatological redemption at the End of Days. Apparently the author understood time as divided into ten Jubilees, with the dawning of the End of Days to take place in the last. The biblical figure of Melchizedek, “priest of Salem, … priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:8; cf. Psalms 110:4), is the main actor in the eschatological drama. He destroys the forces of evil and liberates and expiates the Sons of Light (the members of the sect).

    I think Jono and Rabbi Skobac already debunked Jesus as a priest like “Melchitzedek” but for those who may not remember, here we go again! The missionaries transliterate Malkhi-tzedek as “Melchizedek” — and they use it in their translations as if it were a name (more on that in a minute). The man in B’rsheit / Genesis 14:18 (say the missionaries) was a priest with no heritage and thus may have been Jesus himself and that Jesus was a priest “like Melchizedek” thus somehow being a priest and king in one — something totally NON-JEWISH.

    The transliteration should be Malkhi-tzadoq not Melchizedek. The Hebrew is ֙ וּמַלְכִּי־ The vav (וּ) means “and” – since when does a name begin with the word “and”? The next word is מַלְכִּי (malkhi) which means “the king of” – so we have “and the king of” the next word is צֶדֶק (tzadoq) which means just or righteous.

    This isn’t a name at all! It is a DESCRIPTION.

    Priests are from the tribe of Levi and Kings normally from the tribe of Judah. . . Yet again we have another “prophecy” which doesn’t exist — and has nothing to do with Jesus.

    A similar usage in the T’nach (Jewish bible) is אֲבִי avi (“the father of”) in B’réshıt / Genesis 9:18, 9:22; or אֲחִי aḥi (“the brother of”) in B’réshıt / Genesis10:21; 14:12, 14:13; 22:23. . . צַֽדֶק tzedek means “righteousness”; the adjective “righteous” is צַדִּיק tzadoq.

    Ergo Malkhi-tzadoq (not Melchizedek) is a TITLE not a name. It simply means “and the king of righteousness.”

    In Genesis we have the story of Abram (not Abraham) bringing tithes to the King of Salem (Jeru-SALEM) who was a king of righteousness. The King of Salem was also a priest to HaShem (the G-d most high).

    The Christian bible says that Abraham brought tithes to the King of Salem as if this is somehow important. The problem is that Abraham did NOT bring the tithes.

    Abram did. Abram (not yet Abraham) who did not yet have a covenant with G-d.

    All of this pre-dates the first covenant (note the name “Abram” not Abraham). The Talmud tells us that the King of Salem was Shem, son of Noah. Shem and Ever (Noah’s grandson) had a famous Yeshiva (school). Abraham was related (several generations removed and Shem was his g-g-g-grandfather. Jacob later spent 14 years at this school (all of this is in the Jewish oral tradition and can be ignored by those who wish — it is just an interesting footnote).

    The Missionaries try to get around the issue that Jesus couldn’t be both a priest and a king by saying The King of Salem was both a king and a priest. Well, duh! The King of Salem WAS NOT A JEW!!!!

    The King of Salem wasn’t part of any Jewish covenant.

    Do Christians want to claim that Jesus was not a JEWISH king or priest (and thus not a Jewish messiah)? The only way anyone can call Jesus a priest “like Malki-tzadoq” is to say he was not a JEWISH king or priest — because neither was the King of Salem!

    The Christian bible gets itself into trouble (Hebrews) by claiming “Melchitzedek” is the name of some mythical priest / king who had no father or mother (so had it had to be JESUS, right?). Hebrews goes on to say that Abraham tithed “Melchitzedek” so he had to be holier than Abraham. This ignores the fact that the King of Salem was the first one in this exchange and he honored Abram FIRST. B’rshit / Genesis 14:17 After he (Abram) returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer and his allied kings, the king of Sodom came out to greet him in Level Valley (now King’s Valley).

    B’reshit / Genesis 14:18 “Malkhi-tzadoq king of Salem brought forth bread and wine. He was a priest to G-d, the Most High. 14:19 He blessed [Abram], and said, ‘Blessed be Abram to G-d Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.”

    Gee — sure sounds to me as if the King of Salem is honoring Abram! The term malkhi-tzadoq is used later (Psalm 110) to describe King David who was most definitely a king of righteousness — but we will run into that supposed prophecy about Jesus later in our list. . .

  29. Steve Hamburg says

    Shalom Ya’ll, I believe I probably shouldn’t jump in because some people really, REALLY are getting antagonistic over other peoples beliefs rather than just letting them make their statements without angry rebuttals. But here is my problem with this being a prophecy just for that time. First a young woman will give birth!? Really? That would be a sign? I personally would not see that as some kind of a shocker. And if that’s not an important part of this prophecy why bring it up? Why not just say something like “Oh great King Ahaz, in the next 65 years both kings will be gone. No need to worry”, or something similar to that. Which brings up my next point. Another part of this prophecy is that this child that is to be born will know right from wrong before these kings are gone. And I believe it takes approx. 65 years for them to be gone. I’m saying that is just waaay too big of a cushion for Isaiah to be using, and still be considered to be telling the King anything worth remembering. If in fact the king would even remember: “You know it was just about 65 years ago that Isaiah said this kid will know right from wrong before those guys would be gone and look, that kid, who I will agree is perhaps the stupidist kid ever to live actually knows right from wrong now, and Isaiah was right! Wow”! I can agree with those that say the NT has problems if they wish to see problems. But I also see where those who say: “This prophecy is for just that time”. They also have problems. Let the invective begin. 🙂
    Shalom

  30. Carmen says

    Sophiee – This prophecies thing clearly irritates you and I appreciate your burning desire to “debunk” them. But the problem is, one can only debunk something with actual proof – and the fact is, neither you nor Jono (who believed in Y’shua until just a couple years ago) nor Rabbis Skobac and Singer always present proof. I admire your zeal, but much of what you guys espouse is nothing more than opinions – and with those you sit around and arrogantly pound to pieces those of us who dare to believe that Y’shua is the Messiah….Having said that, I’ll respond to just a few of your allegations:

    Sophiee wrote: I’m not quite sure why missionaries love to jump around from the subject.

    My response: So, it’s okay for you guys to do it, but not us?

    Sophiee wrote: More and more often missionaries are attempting to use extra-biblcal Jewish sources to make their case for Jesus — but they do not understand the teachings.

    My response: Excuse me, but you’re assuming ALL people who believe Y’shua is Messiah are unintelligent, Bible illiterate buffoons who have problems understanding “extra-biblical” writings. I agree, there are some who may not understand them, but please don’t pretend that you know WHAT I understand or what my husband understands, or what our colleague Andrew Gabriel Roth understands! (You have a habit of doing that, and I’ve called you on it before.) You cannot, in all good conscience, make sweeping generalities like that, just because we differ in our respective theology.

    Sophiee wrote: Boy — all kinds of problems for the missionary in this big whopper of a lie! (concerning the virgin birth)

    My response: “Whopper of a lie” only to those who don’t believe in Y’shua or the NT. You insist the NT and Y’shua are myths, yet YOU believe everything in the Tanach is true. You have ZERO proof that Cain killed Abel and that God destroyed the earth by flood, and that Moshe wrote the Torah! You don’t know for a fact that Moshe parted the sea, and neither you nor anyone alive today saw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego go into the fire and come out unscathed!
    You cannot prove anything that happened before man started documenting history in writing. All you have is “word of mouth – and you know what happens when people do that. (Somewhere along the line someone always skews the picture!) Sure, “millions” of people stood on Mt. Sinai to witness God speaking (and please understand I TOTALLY believe EVERYTHING in the Tanach) … but guess what – there was no video of it, no recording, NOTHING. All we have is “word of mouth” and FAITH, Sophiee. So don’t tell me that my “whopper of a lie” is bigger than yours!
    I have a website containing nearly 700 articles that discuss in an intelligent manner Y’shua and Torah, and which challenge “religion and religiosity,” so I take offense to your constant suggestion that people like me are ignorant, have comprehension problems, are Bible illiterate, or that we are lying.

    Sophiee wrote: Yahushua, Jesus isn’t in the Jewish bible at all.

    My response: Says you, LOL! Again, this is your OPINION according to your own understanding. We’ve been down this road before so I won’t even bother posting why I believe He WAS mentioned.

    2 Timothy 3: 1. But know this: That in the latter days hard times will come: 2. and men will be lovers of themselves and lovers of money, boasters, proud, revilers, unyielding towards their own people, deniers of grace, wicked, 3. unloving, addicted to irreconcilable malicious gossips, ferocious, haters of the good, 4. treacherous, rash, inflated, attached to pleasure more than to the love of Elohim, 5. having a form of respect for Elohim but wide from the power of Elohim. Them who are such, repel from you. 6. For of them are they who creep into this and that house and captivate the women who are plunged in sins and led away by divers lusts, 7. who are always learning, and can never come to the knowledge of the truth.

    Colossians 2: 8. Beware, or else any man make you naked by philosophy and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Mashiyach 9 in whom dwells all the fullness of Elohim bodily.

    Sophiee wrote: Don’t let the missionaries fool you into thinking that some story which was meant to make a moral point is a prophecy pointing to Jesus or anything else that isn’t plainly clear in the T’nach. They are misleading you. Remember the words of the Ramban (Nachmanides) to the King of Spain “We have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. It is just as if the bishop would rise and deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners whom the sermon pleased recorded it (Disputation at Barcelona, p. 7).”

    My response: Whoops! Extra-biblical stuff, Sophiee! YOU can use them but when we do it, you bash us for it and state that we don’t understand what we’ve read, LOL! Regardless, again – another OPINION on your part. I don’t feel I’m “misleading” anybody! I’m totally convinced that Y’shua is the Messiah – and that is based on MY indepth study of the Bible over the last 20 years. No matter how much bashing and belittling of me you wish to do, you cannot take MY knowledge of Scripture and/or MY personal opinions away from me. My knowledge and opinions are just as valuable as yours.

  31. Carmen says

    Sophiee wrote: Missionaries, and even a number of seekers of truth, keep posting midrashic (non-literal, allegorical) sources as if they were the literal truth. I’ve seen people posting things like “the messiah could have a Davidic claim on his mother’s side” quoting some drashic source. NO, the messiah must be a Davidic heir on his FATHER’S side as tribal lineage only passes paternally — and that is the פְּשָׁט p’shat.

    My response: Want some pshat? Okay, here goes: (See also the articleson my website such as these http://therefinersfire.org/yeshua_lineage.htm and http://www.therefinersfire.org/disputing_messiah3.htm and other articles countering those who insist believers in Y’shua are bozos.)

    There is no language that requires the Messiah be traced on His father’s side to King David. The response to this is that even if the language is not specified, one can infer that custom will apply, thus, we must trace through the father’s line. In this instance, however, the language is very clear that blood relation is sufficient.

    2 Samuel 7:12 provides, “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body.” Notice that the language provides that relation to the body of David is sufficient. There is no constraining language concerning tribal affiliation. Similarly, Isaiah 11:10 states “In that day the root of Jesse (David’s father) will stand as a banner of all the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”

    Root translated into Hebrew and Greek means descendant, branch of the family, or stock. If Mary was a direct physical descendent of David, she would meet this definition. Again, restrictive language concerning tribal affiliation is not at issue.

    The passages cited by traditional Judaism that purport to require tribal affiliation include Numbers: 1:18 and Ezra 2:59. Numbers 1:18 is a discussion of census procedures to be used in creating the Jewish military. The aim, as the language specifically suggests, is to obtain an accurate count of able men in each tribe (Numbers 1:3). Any analogy to the above Messianic scripture is inapplicable. Ezra 2:59 provides a list of men that returned from Babylonian exile. It does not discount the analysis of the Messianic scripture provided above.

    Let’s not stop there!

    A rabbi once posed this in an email to my website: Problem: if the family line could go through the mother, Mary does not qualify as being from a legitimate Messianic family. Since the Messiah must be a descendent of David THROUGH his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14; I Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). But Luke goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon!

    Our response: We must trace Mary’s line through Matthew Chapter 1, and not Luke Chapter 3. When tracing Yeshua’s genealogy in Matthew, the author refers to three sets of 14, or 42 generations until Yeshua. However, if we add up the generations, there are only 41. There is an explanation for this: The Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 is the father of Mary, not the husband. Thus, Matthew Chapter 1 is actually describing Mary’s lineage, and not Joseph’s. This provides us with 42 generations.

    Matthew 1:16 states, “Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary”….” Matthew 1:18-19 similarly provides, “Because Joseph her (Mary’s) husband was a righteous man…” Based on this language, it appears the text is describing the same Joseph. This contention is reinforced by the Greek translation, where the word “aner” is used to describe Joseph in both contexts. However, when one examines the Aramaic version of Matthew, the Joseph mentioned in 1:16 is described as “gowra,” a word used elsewhere in Matthew to signify “father”. For example, the Greek translation of Matthew 7:9 provides, “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?”. The Aramaic reads “which father (gowra) among you….”

    The counter-argument is that Matthew was written in Greek and not Aramaic, thus, the point is moot. Historical evidence does not support this position. Papias, the Greek church leader who composed the earliest known information on the gospels, states that, “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able.” It is crucial to point out that Papias refers to the Hebrew dialect, and not the Hebrew language. The Hebrew dialect of the time was Aramaic.

    Papias’ contention is reinforced in Book V, Chapter 10 of his work, which discusses an Egyptian father named Pataneus who lived in the second century.The section provides: Pataneus went as far as India, where he appears to have found that Matthew’s Gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew’s account in the actual Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus’s mission.

    The words “gowra” (Matt 1:16) and “baa’la” (Matthew 1:19) can both mean man or husband. Gowra, however, also means father (it is derived from a root word meaning strong one or protector). The question becomes, “Why would the author call the same Joseph a “gowra” in Matt: 1:6, and a “baa’la” in Matt: 1:9? The obvious answer is the author was speaking of two different men.

  32. Carmen says

    Sophiee wrote: I think Jono and Rabbi Skobac already debunked Jesus as a priest like “Melchitzedek” but for those who may not remember, here we go again! The missionaries transliterate Malkhi-tzedek as “Melchizedek” — and they use it in their translations as if it were a name (more on that in a minute). The man in B’rsheit / Genesis 14:18 (say the missionaries) was a priest with no heritage and thus may have been Jesus himself and that Jesus was a priest “like Melchizedek” thus somehow being a priest and king in one — something totally NON-JEWISH.

    …The transliteration should be Malkhi-tzadoq not Melchizedek. The Hebrew is ֙ וּמַלְכִּי־ The vav (וּ) means “and” – since when does a name begin with the word “and”? The next word is מַלְכִּי (malkhi) which means “the king of” – so we have “and the king of” the next word is צֶדֶק (tzadoq) which means just or righteous.

    This isn’t a name at all! It is a DESCRIPTION.

    My response: A couple of footnotes to Hebrews 7 in Andrew Gabriel Roth’s Aramaic English New Testament say this about Melchizedek:

    Hebrews 7:10 – Here is the key that sets the context for Hebrews 8:13. Throughout chapter 7, it is the “instruction” (Torah) of the Levitical priests being discussed, pointing towards Awraham submitting his sons to be into the line of Melchisedec (MalkiTsedec), by tithing to this man in advance. What happens is a switching of priestly modalities within Torah where the priestly model in Exodus gives way to its predecessor from Genesis, in accordance with all the prophecies in the Tanakh. Again, the Pagans use this passage to teach that it is the “Law” that is passing away. Another vital component to understanding this priesthood is that the akeida (binding of Isaac) points to the MalkiTsedec priesthood, not to the Levitical priesthood. The akeida is fully realized in Mashiyach ben Yoseph, the Suffering Servant who is Y’shua.

    Hebrews 7:19 – Namusa may refer to Torah proper, or instruction relating to a group or people. The line of thought begins in 7:17 which would demand that namusa/instruction relates to the Aaronic priestly order, not Torah as a whole. The toggling between the two priestly lines of Melchisedec (Bereshit/Genesis) and Aaron (Vayiqra/Leviticus) is a common theme in Tanakh, which predicts that the one must give way to the other. For those who are adamant that Paul can only be referring to Torah (the Law), then consider that Paul is writing to Jews!

    If Paul were writing to Christians he might have written, “for the Bible perfected nothing” because a “Holy Book” in itself cannot bring perfection even if the Book itself were Perfect. Only the Spirit of YHWH who wrote Torah or “the Bible” can bring perfection. All religions have a “Holy Book” (or two), but imagine how different the world would be if everyone actually followed what their Holy Books teach? Torah reveals Mashiyach who brought a better hope! Do we throw out the Book? That would be foolish theology! And this is not what Paul is teaching! The world is not lacking “holy books” but many souls are lacking in the motivation and desire to live Righteous and Sanctified lives unto YHWH.

  33. Sophiee Saguy says

    Carmen, you really need to stop taking the comments in the programs and in these comments so personally. No one accused Christians of being “bozos.” You are using hyperbole and anger which does nothing for your argument. Neither does attacking the Jewish bible which on one hand you purport to believe (hey, you use it in your 365 prophetic proofs!) and on the other hand insulting it.

    Let’s try to stick to the subject at hand — prophecy by prophecy — and not jump all over the place continually changing the subject and attacking the person rather than the argument.

    Lastly, I’ve already debunked the “Melchitzedek” argument and the Christian apologist ignores what the Hebrew words themself mean — malkhi (king of) and tzadek (righteousness). It is a description, not a name. King David in Psalm 110 is mentioned as a king of righteousness, and the King of Salem is so described in Genesis.

    Another mistake caused by translation is thinking that Psalm 110 speaks of a “priest like Melchitzedek.” The term in Psalm 110 is “kohein” and although that can be translated as “priest” it means someone appointed to a position — it is used to speak of rulers in the bible as well as priests. King David was not a priest (he was of the tribe of Judah).

    Might I suggest that instead of continuing to comment on this thread that you move any additional comments to the most recent program? I’m not sure anyone is reading these posts any longer.

Leave a Reply