[Onan]

From what I can see, you read it the way that you wish it were written.

I posted the verse and left a link so it's easy to see I wrote exactly what the site said above. Until you come up with a new argument I will have to end this. Again I don't mean to sound rude but you are not coming off looking very smart right now telling me I'm reading something wrong when I post it exactly how it is written.

You have insulted me again so I think it's time to wrap this up.

[Tj3]

T,

You have shown me nothing. I have not seen anywhere Rashi claiming Almah meant virgin. Infact I have shown you complete opposite of that, by his own translation.

I posted it up here twice. If you have not seen it, it is because you are choosing not to see it. I have also shown you that the Jewish translators choose to translate the word as virgin.

But just so that you cannot say that you did not see it, here it is once again:

The Great Scholar Rashi argued that Almah meant virgin. “Behold the almah shall conceive and bare a son and shall call his name Immanuel. This means that our Creator shall be with us. And this is the sign: the one who will conceive is a girl (naarah), who never in her life has had intercourse with any man. Upon this shall the Holy Spirit have power. (Mikraoth Gedoloth on Isaiah 7:14).

And once again, let me post this so that you cannot say that you did not see it:

"Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always[18] means "virgin". Since these Jewish scholars were well acquainted with the meaning of the old Hebrew words as well as the Greek, their interpretation (developed hundreds of years before Jesus) should be given special weight."
(Source: Almah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The fact that the Jewish anti-missionaries don't agree that it refers to Jesus does not change the fact that the text refers to virgin. Whether the Jewish anti-missionaries believe that it refers to Jesus is a matter of personal belief.

[Onan]

According to Rashi, the 11th century Rabbi, the answer is clear. The prophet is talking about Israel suffering for the Gentiles. Most Rabbis today agree that this is the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. But there are opposing views within Judaism to Rashi's, including ancient Rabbis who interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about the Messiah. For example:

Link to the rest of this

Isaiah 53 - Who is this prophet talking about?

I am done with you.

You are not giving me a link to any of that crap your posting which leads me to believe it's coming from a very biased sourse

[Onan]

The full story from Wikipedia

Almah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardly a nail in the coffin nice try though. It still does not explain why in the chapter the debate is over the word for virgin is different from the word later used for virgin in a later chapter. I would think if the said verse really wanted us to believe it was meant to be virgin they would have made sure there was no controversy.

[edzmedz]

How do u explain this Kabalistic theory of the creation of the universe:

Before the creation, Divinity filled the universe. Then for some unknown reason, God decided to create. God allowed a tiny part of "Himself" to shrink out of the universe, leaving a space filled still with "tzim-tzum". God sent a beam of energy from within "Himself" out into the newly abandoned space, apparently trying to create containers for this energy. But for some reason unknown to us, God appears to have failed, with the result that the containers were shattered, forming the shells or what is known as the Kellipoht, the place where demons dwell. God attempted the process again, this time succeeding. The energy from the AIN went through the AIN SOPH, through the AIN SOPH OR and into the first Sephira . That sephira filled with energy, then overflowed into Sephira number two and so forth down the Tree of Life into Sephira ten where an equilibrium , a balance was established...

What was that, God failed?! Wow then I guess if the source of all powers and divinity failed, then everything and everyone else can be excused lol.

Do you really and honestly believe in all that stuff??

[deist]

Onan, I'm in full agreement with you. All the facts are on your side. Christians just want to believe Isa. 7: 14 refers to Jesus, & they will say or do anything to prove it refers to Jesus, blindly rejecting straight facts such as you have supplied. Take this, for example, of how biased christians are. Harvard educated young earth creationist Kurt Wise once said no matter how much convincing proof of evolution were found he would still be a creationist. This coming from a scientist who is supposed to go where the evidence leads. That's what I call biased, & all christians are the same way. No matter what evidence they see they will hold to their faith.

[Curlyben]

>Thread Closed<

[RickJ]

This site is for questions and answers, not preaching... especially by making the preaching look like a question.

The Member Discussions area is for Discussions, the rest of the site is for sincere questions.

[MY SUNSHINE]

Jesus will come when he has done all that needs to be done and we who are saved will go to heaven ,the unsaved will suffer for eterenity,, i pray ya know jesus and have asked him to forgive you of your sins and then ya can come to heaven also.. i know